From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Apr 1 14:50:39 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 09:50:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] For reference: USG crimes Message-ID: Why the US is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” (M. L. King). Since WWII the government we’re responsible for has killed between 20 and 30 million people in 37 countries, for the benefit of the American 1%. The map shows the scenes of the principal crimes, as the US government continues its attempt to control Mideast energy resources. Control of - not just access to - Mideast gas and oil has been the cynosure of all post-WWII US administrations, not because the US needs them for domestic consumption - we get enough for that from North America and the Atlantic basin (Venezuela to Nigeria) - but because control of energy resources gives the US 1% a choke-hold over their economic rivals from Germany to China. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mideast copy.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 203375 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Apr 1 14:54:41 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 14:54:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?Rlc6IFlFTUVOOiDigJxTYXVkaXMsIEVtaXJh?= =?utf-8?q?tis_and_USA_are_Inflicting_a_War_of_Genocide_Against_the_Houthi?= =?utf-8?q?s_=7E_Prof=2E_Francis_Boyle?= Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Friday, March 31, 2017 2:25 AM Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Subject: YEMEN: “Saudis, Emiratis and USA are Inflicting a War of Genocide Against the Houthis ~ Prof. Francis Boyle “In a nutshell the Saudis, Emiratis and the USA are inflicting a war of genocide against the Houthis,” University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle said on Thursday. Any increase in US military support for the Saudi-led ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Apr 1 20:51:16 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:51:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] New report shows mounting number of civilians killed in Iraq References: <0c2b582b7424e7488ded1a089fe362c8@web512> Message-ID: <489D82DF-CC51-4B93-8A2F-545EEBCE2959@illinois.edu> Trump’s killing spree continues . . . From: "r-szoke at illinois.edu" > Subject: Los Angeles Times: New report shows mounting number of civilians killed in Iraq Date: April 1, 2017 at 3:45:13 PM CDT New report shows mounting number of civilians killed in Iraq -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Apr 1 23:11:57 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 18:11:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] New report shows mounting number of civilians killed in Iraq In-Reply-To: <489D82DF-CC51-4B93-8A2F-545EEBCE2959@illinois.edu> References: <0c2b582b7424e7488ded1a089fe362c8@web512> <489D82DF-CC51-4B93-8A2F-545EEBCE2959@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <00CD2B91-C916-4275-BEE4-38B93670027A@illinois.edu> . In the campaign, Trump criticized what Obama was doing in Syria (using jihadists to remove Assad) and what Clinton said she would do (provoke Russia). In office, he’s doing what he said he would do. The anti-war movement should call for all US forces and weapons to be removed from the Mideast. —CGE > On Apr 1, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Trump’s killing spree continues . . . > >> From: "r-szoke at illinois.edu" >> Subject: Los Angeles Times: New report shows mounting number of civilians killed in Iraq >> Date: April 1, 2017 at 3:45:13 PM CDT >> >> New report shows mounting number of civilians killed in Iraq >> > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Apr 2 01:55:08 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 20:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] New report shows mounting number of civilians killed in Iraq In-Reply-To: <00CD2B91-C916-4275-BEE4-38B93670027A@illinois.edu> References: <0c2b582b7424e7488ded1a089fe362c8@web512> <489D82DF-CC51-4B93-8A2F-545EEBCE2959@illinois.edu> <00CD2B91-C916-4275-BEE4-38B93670027A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <389B1780-CE14-4FF3-B12A-7290BE219587@illinois.edu> http://www.newslogue.com/debate/423 > On Apr 1, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > . > > In the campaign, Trump criticized what Obama was doing in Syria (using jihadists to remove Assad) and what Clinton said she would do (provoke Russia). > > In office, he’s doing what he said he would do. > > The anti-war movement should call for all US forces and weapons to be removed from the Mideast. > > —CGE > > >> On Apr 1, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Trump’s killing spree continues . . . >> >>> From: "r-szoke at illinois.edu" >>> Subject: Los Angeles Times: New report shows mounting number of civilians killed in Iraq >>> Date: April 1, 2017 at 3:45:13 PM CDT >>> >>> New report shows mounting number of civilians killed in Iraq >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Apr 2 18:36:18 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 18:36:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Support the Young Illini Green Party and SYNA Event Message-ID: [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p80x80/14962749_639115242935939_5280672246201530930_n.png?oh=5fbb213a6f36189596f0afd3f273e52a&oe=59957176] Illini Young Green Party shared SYNA UIUC's event. 1 hr · Come talk to a socialist and eat a slice of homemade bread! Wednesday 2 - 4 pm on the Quad [https://www.facebook.com/images/emoji.php/v8/fa5/1.5/16/1f642.png] : [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p80x80/14962749_639115242935939_5280672246201530930_n.png?oh=5fbb213a6f36189596f0afd3f273e52a&oe=59957176] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Apr 2 18:38:23 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 18:38:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Way to Go! for real progress!!!!! Message-ID: Kenneth Mejia for Congress March 21 at 11:10pm · Our Journey Together #CD34 #CA34 [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t15.0-10/17460295_775934292588027_1507477810875203584_n.jpg?oh=77c1a2aa5d52998bcd532286270462eb&oe=595F9664] * Learn More Mejia4Congress.com * * Our Journey Together Learn More MEJIA4CONGRESS.COM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Apr 2 18:38:23 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 18:38:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Way to Go! for real progress!!!!! Message-ID: Kenneth Mejia for Congress March 21 at 11:10pm · Our Journey Together #CD34 #CA34 [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t15.0-10/17460295_775934292588027_1507477810875203584_n.jpg?oh=77c1a2aa5d52998bcd532286270462eb&oe=595F9664] * Learn More Mejia4Congress.com * * Our Journey Together Learn More MEJIA4CONGRESS.COM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Apr 3 15:42:41 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:42:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Crosstalk today, very worthwhile watch Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRcg7XZVGZs&sns=fb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Apr 3 15:42:41 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:42:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Crosstalk today, very worthwhile watch Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRcg7XZVGZs&sns=fb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Apr 3 15:48:11 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 10:48:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] No new AWARE ON THE AIR Tuesday 4 April Message-ID: <7D3743D9-E993-44FE-B2D3-994DBB808AE6@illinois.edu> Owing to the election, we will not be recording AWARE ON THE AIR Tuesday 4 April. (Our studio space is used for voting.) Join us Tuesday 11 April at noon in the Urbana City Council chambers for the taping of our unrehearsed panel discussion of the US government's ongoing wars and the racism they inspire. Members and friends of the ANTI-WAR ANTIRACISM EFFORT of Champaign-Urbana are invited to observe and/or participate. ### From moboct1 at aim.com Mon Apr 3 20:43:35 2017 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:43:35 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] at HP: Pocan, Amash Invoke War Powers as Trump Mulls Pushing Yemen Into Famine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15b358efda8-753e-db71@webprd-a10.mail.aol.com> If the Executive Branch were to initiate unilaterally another war in violation of the War Powers Law, why would Congress not pursue impeachment on those grounds, except for the same lack of inertia that Congress failed to impeach (and convict) Presidents G. W. Bush and Obama for the same reason?  Could DOD legally prosecute troops who refused to serve in such a war?Midge O'Brien    -----Original Message-----From: Robert Naiman via Peace To: peace Sent: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 11:57 amSubject: [Peace] at HP: Pocan, Amash Invoke War Powers as Trump Mulls Pushing Yemen Into Famine http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58e25edde4b03c2b30f6a881Pocan, Amash Invoke War Powers as Trump Mulls Pushing Yemen Into Famine04/03/2017 The White House is scheduled to consider this week a proposal from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to directly engage the U.S. military in Saudi Arabia’s war against the Houthis in Yemen, including a planned United Arab Emirates attack on the port of Hodeida.On Friday, March 31, the U.N. special envoy for Yemen warned against a military attack on Hodeida:“We as the United Nations are advocating that no military operations should be undertaken in Hodeidah.”He warned that military action on the port could “tip the country into famine.”Former U.S. officials have also warned that this attack could push Yemen into famine:There was an internal debate over the final year of the Obama administration about whether the United States should support potential future efforts by the coalition to take the Hodeidah port, but ultimately the administration decided against it, said Jeremy Konyndyk, a former top USAID official. “From USAID’s perspective, we thought the US should strongly oppose this,” Konyndyk, the former director of USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, told Al-Monitor… He said, “From our point of view, it would be disastrous in terms of humanitarian impact if the coalition were to disrupt the aid pipeline and commercial pipeline that moves through that port...The view that we had at AID — among AID leadership — was that if that port were to be lost, it would likely be enough to tip the country into famine,” Konyndyk warned.As Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Corker recently affirmed, U.S. participation in this war has never been authorized by Congress:Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., made it clear he doesn’t believe the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Congress passed in 2001 to counter al-Qaeda would apply to the Houthis. “Certainly engaging in a war against a group outside of ISIS [the Islamic State] is a step beyond the current authorization,” Corker told Al-Monitor.A bipartisan group of House members is demanding that President Trump seek Congressional approval before escalating U.S. involvement in Yemen’s civil war. Reps. Mark Pocan [D-WI], Justin Amash [R-MI]; Ted Lieu [D-CA] and Walter Jones [R-NC] are circulating a letter to the President that says, “Congress has never authorized the actions under consideration.” The letter continues:“Engaging our military against Yemen’s Houthis when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers clearly delineated in the constitution...For this reason, we write to request that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) provide, without delay, any legal justification that it would cite if the administration intends to engage in direct hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis without seeking congressional authorization.”Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 over President Nixon’s veto to make it harder for the President to start or escalate wars unilaterally. In the WPR, Congress gave itself additional tools for preventing and challenging unilateral military action by the President, like the ability of any Member to introduce a “privileged” resolution - one that can’t be buried in committee, but can be forced to a floor vote if its sponsors insist - to withdraw U.S. forces from a war that hasn’t been authorized by Congress.By invoking their war powers, Members of Congress can block the President from unilaterally moving to engage in military action. It happened in 2013, when 192 Members of the House insisted that President Obama come to Congress before bombing the Syrian government. President Obama initially insisted that he didn’t need Congressional approval, but he relented when enough Members of Congress complained. He didn’t concede the point as a theoretical, Constitutional, legal matter, but he conceded it as a practical, political matter, and ultimately that’s what we care about.If enough Members of Congress complain now - in particular, if enough Members of the House sign the Pocan-Amash-Lieu-Jones letter now - we can force Trump and Mattis to back down from taking this catastrophic step unilaterally, and force them to seek Congressional authorization before proceeding, which would mean they would have to make their case to the broad U.S. public, not just to the elite foreign policy establishment. And that’s a much higher burden of proof, because the broad public is much more skeptical of wars of choice than the foreign policy establishment is. We don’t actually need to get Trump and Mattis to concede the theoretical, Constitutional, legal point that they need to come to Congress for authorization, though that certainly would be very nice. We just need them to concede the point as a practical, political matter. Just like President Obama did in August 2013. All we need is for more Members of Congress to join the complaint right now.You can urge your Representative to sign the Pocan-Amash-Lieu-Jones letter here, here, here, or here.I can’t promise you that we can stop this catastrophe. But we used this exact same mechanism less than four years ago and were successful in stopping U.S. military action. Given that the lives of hundreds of thousands of Yemeni children hang in the balance, isn’t it worth a try? _______________________________________________ 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 Apr 3 22:20:11 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:20:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune on UPTV Message-ID: <597DF9C4-0CEB-47E3-A5C0-F412AC731FAF@illinois.edu> The Urbana Public Television program 'News from Neptune' will be on hiatus through Passover and Easter. Inshallah, we will resume with a new edition on Friday 21 April. This week’s program is available on YouTube, as are earlier ones. —CGE From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue Apr 4 10:59:30 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 05:59:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] vote for my question for Hillary about Yemen Message-ID: The more people "recommend" my question, the more people will see it. https://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/what-should-i-a sk-hillary-clinton/?comments#permid=21999354 === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Apr 4 14:29:16 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 14:29:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! 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) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 9:26 AM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:12 PM To: Killeacle Subject: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of US military deaths in the Afghan theater officially passed 2,000 by June 21 and are now at least 2,106, but you didn't know this if you rely on the MSM. They ignore the official Pentagon numbers in favor of the AP--which excludes troops who died (or received wounds or injuries from which they died after evacuation) in the official "Enduring Freedom" operation but outside Afghanistan. The Pentagon web site lists those countries. US military occupation forces in Afghanistan under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 139 casualties in the week ending Sept. 6, as the official casualty total for the Iraq and AfPak wars* rose to 115,289. The total includes 79,468 casualties since the US invaded Iraq in March, 2003 (Operations "Iraqi Freedom" and "New Dawn"), and 35,821 since the US invaded Afghanistan in November, 2001 (Operation "Enduring Freedom") AFGHANISTAN THEATER: US forces suffered 139 combat casualties in the week ending September 6, raising the total to 35,821 This includes 19,184 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 16,637(-6) dead or medically evacuated (as of May 7!) from what it calls "non-hostile" causes. LENGTH: 3653 words HEADLINE: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle BYLINE: Francis A Boyle BODY:     by Francis Boyle On the morning of 13 September 2001, that is 48 hours after the terrible tragedies in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, I received telephone call from a producer at Fox Television Network News in New York City. He asked me to go onto The O'Reilly Factor TV program live that evening in order to debate Bill O'Reilly on the question of war versus peace. O'Reilly would argue for the United States going to war in reaction to the terrorist attacks on 11 September, and I would argue for a peaceful resolution of this matter.    Up until then I had deliberately declined numerous requests for interviews about the terrible events of September 11 and what should be done about them because it was not clear to me precisely what was going on. But unfortunately The O'Reilly Factor had the Number One ranking in TV viewership for any news media talk program in America. I felt very strongly as a matter of principle that at least one person from the American Peace Movement had to go onto that program and argue the case directly to the American people that the United States of America must not go to war despite the terrible tragedy that had been inflicted upon us all. I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. When I returned to my office the next day, so many complaints had been filed and accumulated with numerous university officials that the then Dean of my law school issued a public statement repudiating me and then placing it on the law school's web-site. Obviously the then Dean of my law school believed that a Law Professor should advocate the Law of the Jungle instead of the Rule of Law. He is now "deaning" elsewhere, just like a previous Dean who had tried to get rid of me because of my fervid belief in the Rule of Law and public activities in support thereof. On the positive side, however, my besting of O'Reilly in the debate led to my being inundated by requests for interviews from mainstream and progressive news media sources all over the world. This plethora of interviews have continued apace until today during the course of all the terrible events that have transpired in the world since September 11: the war against Afghanistan; the global war on terrorism; massive assaults on international law, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and the United States Constitution; the war against Iraq; Guantanamo; kangaroo courts; the Bush Jr. torture scandal, etc. I have done the best I can to oppose this Bush Jr. juggernaut of nihilism--now continued and expanded by Obama. Ultimately it will be up to the American people to decide the future direction of the United States of America and thus indirectly, because of America's preponderant power, unfairly for the rest of the world. The present danger still remains Machiavellian power politics. The only known antidote is international law, international organizations, human rights, and the United States Constitution. In our thermonuclear age, humankind's existential choice is that stark, ominous, and compelling. As Americans, we must not hesitate to apply this imperative regimen immediately before it becomes too late for the continuation of our human species itself. The Rush to War SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR (20:29) September 13, 2001 Thursday Transcript # 091303cb.256 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 3973 words HEADLINE: America Unites: How Should the U.S. Bring Terrorists to Justice? GUESTS: Sam Huessini, Francis Boyle BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly O'REILLY: While most Americans are united in their support of President Bush and the desire to bring Osama bin Laden and other terrorists to justice, there are some differing voices. Joining us now from Washington is Sam Husseini, the former spokesman for the Arab Anti -- American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and from Urbana, Illinois, is Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[...] O'REILLY: Cut his mike. All right, now, Mr. Boyle, Professor Boyle, let's have a little bit more of a rational discussion here. That was absurd. The United States now has to take action against certain segments in this world who we know have been harbouring people like Osama bin Laden. That's going to happen. How will you react to that? FRANCIS BOYLE, LAW PROFESSOR: Well, first I think you have to look at the law involved. Clearly what we have here, under United States domestic law and statutes, is an act of international terrorism that should be treated as such. It is not yet elevated to an act of war. For an act of war, we need proof that a foreign state actually ordered or launched an attack upon the United States of America. So far, we do not yet have that evidence. We could... O'REILLY: All right, now why are you, why are you, why are you taking this position when you know forces have attacked the United States. Now, maybe they don't have a country, but they are forces. They have attacked the United States, all right? Without warning, without provocation. Civilian targets. They've done everything that an act of war does. So, I'm saying that because we live in a different world now, where borders don't really matter, where terrorism is the weapon of choice, that you would declare war -- if I were President Bush, I would declare war on any hostile forces, notice those words, professor, hostile forces to the United States. I would have a blanket declaration of war so I could go in and kill those people. Would I be wrong? BOYLE: Well, Bill, so far you'll note Congress has been unwilling to declare war. And indeed, this matter is being debated right now. Right now, it appears that what they are seeking is not a full declaration of war, but only what we law professors call an imperfect declaration, which means a limited use of military force under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Precisely for the problem that we don't know if any state was involved and we still do not know who was responsible for this undoubted terrorist attack upon the United States of America. O'REILLY: All right, but we have the secretary of state saying that Osama bin Laden now has been linked into and, you know, we don't have all the intelligence information, as President Bush said today. He's not going to give us, and he shouldn't, the people of America all the information that they have. But when the secretary of state gets up and says, look, we know this guy was involved to some extent, I believe him. And he's a wanted man, professor. He's been wanted for eight years. The Clinton administration didn't have the heart to get him and in the first few months the Bush administration didn't either. We now know, and you just heard the FBI agent say that Afghanistan has been involved for years harbouring and training these kinds of people. Certainly, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, those five countries, certainly have been hostile to the United States and given safe harbour to these terrorists. That's a fact. BOYLE: Well, let me point out, the secretary of state was very careful in the words he used. He said Osama bin Laden was a suspect. He did not accuse him. And, again, under these circumstances... O'REILLY: No, he didn't use the word suspect. He used another word. BOYLE: The account I read in, just off the wire service, said suspect. But let me continue my point. Under these circumstances, where we have 5,000 Americans dead and we could have many more Americans killed in a conflict, we have to be very careful, Congress and the American people and the president, in not to over-escalate the rhetoric, here. We have to look at this very rationally. This is a democracy. We have a right to see what the evidence is and proceed in a very slow and deliberate manner. O'REILLY: No, we don't. We do not, as a republic, we don't have the right to see what the evidence is if the evidence is of a national security situation, as you know. Now, I'm trusting my government to do the right thing, here. I am trusting. But I think it's beyond a doubt right now, beyond a reasonable doubt, which is, as you know, a court of law standard, that there are at least five, North Korea you could put in to, six states in the world that have harboured continually these terrorists. Now, we know that this was a well-coordinated effort. Our initial intelligence shows that some of the people that have been arrested have ties to Osama bin Laden. We know, as you just heard the FBI agent say, that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was tied in to a guy who knew bin Laden. So, bin Laden -- I agree with you, that you don't want to be a hothead. You don't want to overreact. You don't want to lob a missile at the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, which was terrible, and that was the one good point, or fair point, that Mr. Husseini made, you don't want to do that. But, on the other hand, professor, I think Americans are rightful, are right, to demand action against states that we know in the past have harboured these individuals and there's a warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest. So, if he is in Afghanistan, I would give that government a couple of days to hand him over, and if they did not, I'd go in. BOYLE: Well, again. The American people are right. We need to see the evidence. I remember people saying a generation ago, during the Vietnam war, I trusted my government. And I think people of my generation found out that that was wrong. We needed more evidence. O'REILLY: All right. Professor, let me stop you there, though. This is another point that Mr. Husseini tried to make. Just because the United States of America has made mistakes in the past, does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves now. This is a unique situation in history. We have now been attacked by forces without borders, OK? We've been attacked. And it hasn't been a military attack, it's been an attack on civilians. The reason, the sole reason a federal government exists is to protect the people of the United States. And as I said in my "Talking Points" memo, they haven't really done the job, for political reasons. But now's the time to correct those things. So, there's going to be a reckoning, Professor. You know it's going to happen. I know it's going to happen. And it's going to come down on Osama bin Laden first and maybe some of these rouge states later. Will you support that action? BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. My recommendation to Congress is to slow down, let's see what develops and let's see what this evidence is before we knowingly go out and not only kill large numbers of people, perhaps in Afghanistan and other countries, but undoubtedly in our own armed forces. 58,000 men of my generation will killed in Vietnam because of irresponsible behavior by the Johnson administration rushing that Tonkin Gulf resolution through Congress, exactly what we're seeing now. And we need to pull back and stop and think and ask the hard questions and demand to see the evidence first, before we march off to war. O'REILLY: All right, so it's not enough that people arrested in the bombings of the embassies in Africa testified in court that Osama bin Laden was behind and financed and coordinated those bombings. That evidence is not enough for you? BOYLE: Well, Africa is a very is a very different story than what happened in the World Trade Center. O'REILLY: No, it's not. He's wanted, he's wanted in the United States for the bombings of those two embassies. Is that evidence enough for you, professor, for the United States to go in and get this man? Is it enough? BOYLE: That, that matter was treated and handled as an act of international terrorism in accordance with the normal laws and procedures of the United States of America as a question of domestic and international law enforcement. And I am suggesting that is the way we need to proceed here... O'REILLY: Well, wait. You're dodging the question professor. BOYLE: ... unless we have evidence that... O'REILLY: Wait, professor. Professor. This is a no spin zone. Hold it. Hold it. Even out in Urbana Champagne, the no spin zone rules. You're dodging the question. There is an absolutely rock solid arrest warrant out for this man. Evidence in court, testimony by people who did the bombings that this man was behind it. Is that enough evidence for you to have the United States go in and get him now? Is it enough? BOYLE: The United States has been attempting to secure his extradition from Afghanistan. I support... O'REILLY: Yeah, that's long enough. BOYLE: I support that approach as international... O'REILLY: Come on already, I mean, eight years, we've been attempting to extradite this guy. Now's the time to tell the Afghans you've got 48 hours or 72 hours to turn him over. You don't turn him over, we're coming in and getting him. You try to stop us, and you're toast. Enough is enough, professor. BOYLE: That's vigilantism. It is not what the United States of America is supposed to stand for. We are supposed to stand... O'REILLY: No, what that is is protecting the country from terrorists who kill civilians. BOYLE: ... for rule of law. O'REILLY: It's not vigilantism. BOYLE: We are supposed to stand for rule of law, and that is clearly vigilantism. There is a Security Council, there is Congress, there are procedures and there are laws, and they are there to protect all of us here in the United States as well as... O'REILLY: So, you're telling me... BOYLE: ... as well as our servicemen and women. Look, Bill, if we allegedly, as you put it, go in, you are not going in, I am not going in. It's going to be young men and women serving in our armed forces... O'REILLY: And that's their job. To protect us. But, professor, let me, you know, what you're saying is, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. B0YLE: ... with the constitution and the laws of the United States. O'REILLY: We're not violating any laws here, professor. No one is going to violate the law. There is going to be a state of war induced against states, states, terroristic states, who have attacked us. And what you're saying is, though, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that even though there is a legitimate warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest, and even though most civilized nations would honor that warrant and turn him over to us, extradite him to us, the vast majority of nations on earth would do that, you still are opposed for the United States to demand that the Taliban government arrest this man and turn him over? You are opposed to that? BOYLE: During the Gulf War, President Bush father, who has far more experience that the current president Bush, got a Security Council resolution authorizing the United States of America to use force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Second, President Bush father got a War Powers Authorization Resolution from Congress that gave him the constitutional authority to use military force to enforce that Security Council resolution. What I'm calling for here is the same adherence to international law and the United States constitution that the first President Bush adhered to in dealing with Iraq. O'REILLY: Well, you'll get that, professor. That's just a formality. There -- nobody on Capitol Hill right now, they're not going to -- there's no profile of courages up there anyway, usually. They're going to give President Bush what he wants. If he wants a War Powers Act, they're going to give it to him. He wants a declaration, they're going to give it to him. BOYLE: Actually, they're arguing about it right now... O'REILLY: They're going to give it to him. But I'm not interested in that, because it's going to happen. It's going to happen. BOYLE: The reports -- no, the reports I read was that this President Bush initially asked for a blank check, and Congress balked because they had been suckered once before... O'REILLY: All right, I'm not -- speculation is not what I'm in -- all right, professor. I don't want to speculate. I'm just going to say in my opinion he's going to have the authority to go in and get Osama bin Laden and his pals, wherever they are. He will get that authority, whether it takes a day or a week, he'll get it. And once he gets it, now, that's what I want to talk about here. Once he gets it, are you and others like you going to say, oh, no, we shouldn't do this, even though we have proof of the man's -- masterminded the bombings in Africa and the Cole,testimony in Yemen, are you going to still say, even after the authority is granted by Congress, which it will be, no, don't do it, let Afghanistan handle him? Are you going to still do that, professor? BOYLE: Second, like his father, his father also got authorization from the United States, the United Nations Security Council under chapter seven of the United Nations charter... O'REILLY: Oh, you want to go to U.N. now? You want the U.N. involved now. BOYLE: Is exactly what his father did... O'REILLY: So what? BOYLE: And that's exactly right. O'REILLY: His father made a huge mistake by not taking out Sadam Hussein when he could of. BOYLE: His father adhered to the required procedures under the United States constitution and the United Nations charter that is a treaty and the supreme law of our land. I expect the current President Bush to do exactly what his father did before he starts engaging in a massive military campaign in Iraq or against other countries... O'REILLY: All right, I don't know whether he's going to go -- I know he's not going to let the U.N. dictate. He might go for a consensus. He's already got it with Putin and all of our NATO allies, he's already go that. Whether he goes -- I think it would be a mistake to let -- empowering the U.N. in this situation. BOYLE: Then why did his father do this? O'REILLY: I'm going -- we're going to wrap this up with this. I'm going to give my last summation and then you can give yours, I'll give you the last word on it. This is a fugitive we're dealing with here. He has now been tied in by U.S. intelligence agencies, according to Attorney General Ashcroft and the secretary of state, tied into this horrendous bombing here in New York. The United States must make a response to this, and I am agreeing with you in a sense, it can't be a knee-jerk. It's got to be done in a methodical way. Congress will go along, they may debate it or whatever, but they will go along in either a War Powers, special War Powers Act or a declaration of war against forces hostile to the United States. Then they will go in and they will take him. This man you're looking at on the TV screen is a dead man. He should be a dead man. You don't do what he did and be allowed to walk around this earth. Now, I'm distressed, professor, by your reliance, reliance on the strict letter of propriety, when we've got 10,000 people laying in the street about 22 miles from me right now. I want deliberation. I want methodical discipline, but I also want action. We know who this guy is. We know the governments that are protecting him. We know the other rouge states that have terrorist camps there. They all have to be dealt with, in my opinion. I'll give you the last word. BOYLE: Sure, I agree with you, Bill. He is a fugitive from justice and this should be handled as a matter as other fugitives from justice of international law enforcement. If indeed there is evidence that a foreign state orchestrated and ordered an attack against the United States then clearly that is an act of war that should be dealt with as such... O'REILLY: What about harbouring? BOYLE: Right now... O'REILLY: Is harbouring an act of war? BOYLE: In my opinion, no. And under the current circumstances, I don't see it. O'REILLY: All right, professor. BOYLE: I think there is a distinction here. O'REILLY: OK, all right, wrap it up, if you would. BOYLE: I agree -- I agree that the -- if we go to war in a hasty manner here, we could see thousands of U.S. military personnel being killed without proper authorization by Congress or by the United Nations Security Council. O'REILLY: OK. BOYLE: Our founding fathers decided that the most awesome decision we would ever make would be to go to war, and we have to be very careful in making that decision. O'REILLY: All right, professor, I appreciate it very much. Thank you for your point of view. BOYLE: Thank you, Bill. From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Apr 4 21:50:54 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 21:50:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Michael Moore Message-ID: <2EA60F73-F988-45A1-8A3A-9B6FE11AF5F3@illinois.edu> "Crude, pragmatic, generally swinish… this is Michael Moore now, a political scoundrel." Filmmaker Michael Moore calls on Democrats to declare national emergency over Trump’s “espionage” By David Walsh 25 March 2017 On Wednesday, American filmmaker Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 9 / 11, Bowling for Columbine, Roger & Me) called on the Democratic Party to “declare a National Emergency” in response to Donald Trump’s being investigated “for espionage.” Moore was referring to the announcement Monday by FBI Director James B. Comey that the agency was investigating whether Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Moore has enthusiastically adopted the reactionary and diversionary anti-Russian campaign as his own. The documentary maker—along with the rest of the Democratic Party and its hangers-on, including the various late-night talk show hosts—refuses in large measure to oppose Trump for his militarism, persecution of immigrants, right-wing social policies and attacks on the working class, but instead lambastes the new president for his supposed “collusion and obedience to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin” [one of Moore’s recent tweets]. By a “national emergency,” Moore explained Wednesday in his Instagram message, he meant an effort by the Democrats to paralyze the US government. He urged the party’s leadership in both houses of Congress “to bring a halt to all business being done in the name of this potential felony suspect, Donald J. Trump. No bill he supports, no Supreme Court nominee he has named, can be decided while he is under a criminal investigation. His presidency has no legitimacy until the FBI—and an independent investigative committee—discovers the truth. Fellow citizens, demand the Democrats cease all business.” Moore made his demagogic appeal to the Democrats and the FBI on the same day that New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, as the WSWS has noted, floated the proposal for a palace coup against Trump. Friedman addressed an open letter to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, implying that they should remove Trump from office and install a military-CIA junta in the US. But Moore did not need to take a lead from Friedman. He has been arguing along these same general lines for some time, along with talk show hosts Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert, among others. Comic Rosie O’Donnell, a week before the inauguration, urged President Barack Obama in a tweet to impose “MARTIAL LAW—DELAYING THE INAUGURATION—UNTIL TRUMP IS ‘CLEARED’ OF ALL CHARGES [of involvement in the Russian hacking scandal].” In any event, Moore has reached the point where his politics and actions are entirely without principle. It is difficult to determine at times whether he fully believes some of the stupid and reckless things he says. Everything is subordinated to the need to confuse and disorient the mass opposition to Trump and channel it in a reactionary direction, thus preserving the two-party system. It should be recalled that Moore spent the first part of 2016 firmly backing the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. He denounced Sanders’ opponent, Hillary Clinton, for opposing reform of the financial system, an increase in the minimum wage and a free health care system. He taunted Clinton as the candidate of Goldman Sachs, a “hawk” and supporter of “violence against the poor.” He asked rhetorically, “Can anyone with a conscience vote for someone who led us on to war in Iraq?” When Sanders dropped out of the race and threw his support to Clinton, Moore turned on a dime and did the same. The filmmaker proceeded to extol the virtues of the former first lady, describing her as “our Pope Francis,” someone who will “kick ass in Congress.” “Our very first female president, someone the world respects, someone who is whip-smart and cares about kids, who will continue the Obama legacy,” he told the media. The election of Trump threw the filmmaker into a genuine panic. Not so much because of the billionaire president’s right-wing policies, although Moore nominally opposes many of them, but because of the immense crisis and discrediting of the political system that the election results entailed. The outcome of the vote revealed the miserable failure and bankruptcy of the Democratic Party, which was unwilling and unable—in the form of the Clinton campaign—to present a program that could attract any significant popular support. Since November, Moore has striven above all to conceal the central responsibility of the Obama administration and its right-wing policies and operations—an administration he supported—for Trump’s victory. Virtually from the moment the Republican president took the oath of office, Moore has vehemently denounced him as a Russian puppet and lobbied for his removal. At the time of the February 13 resignation of Trump’s national security advisor, Michael T. Flynn, because of Flynn’s earlier communications with the Russian ambassador to the US, Moore flew into near hysterics. He demanded Trump “vacate” the White House immediately, calling the president a “Russian traitor.” On February 14, Moore tweeted Trump, “It’s now noontime in DC & it appears you are still squatting in our Oval Office. I gave u til this morning to leave.” He added later, “What part of ‘vacate you Russian traitor’ don’t you understand? We can do this the easy way (you resign), or the hard way (impeachment).” He followed up the same day, “Traitor! Resign by morning!” On Facebook February 14, Moore referred to a “stunning bombshell from the New York Times,” i.e., entirely unsubstantiated allegations about Russian interference in the US elections, and went on, “It’s what we all suspected. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on: TRUMP COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS TO THROW THE ELECTION TO HIM. … If it turns out there’s a traitor in the White House, the judicial branch must find a fair, peaceful way to un-do and then re-do the election of 2016.” Along with everything else, this business about Trump being a “Russian traitor” is a filthy effort to revive McCarthyite anti-communism. In a revealing Facebook entry March 5, following Trump’s claim that the White House had wiretapped his campaign in 2016, Moore commented: “Did Obama ‘tapp’ Trump? Let’s Hope So. If you’re like me, you have no love for the FBI, the NSA or the CIA. If you are from my generation, you know these are very often nefarious institutions. The FBI spied on Martin Luther King to stop his civil rights activities. The NSA was ordered to make up stuff on Iraq so [George W.] Bush could start a war. The CIA has had leaders of countries assassinated and democratically-elected Presidents (Iran, Chile, Guatemala) overthrown. These secret organizations have for decades committed so many acts in our name that have done much damage to good people and movements here and around the world.” After making this acknowledgement, Moore went on to suggest that if the Obama administration and the intelligence apparatus indeed had evidence that the Trump campaign was in contact with Russian officials, “then it not only is possible that the Justice Department or the national security apparatus decided to get a warrant to dig deeper, I think most patriotic Americans would agree with me that the Obama administration HAD AN OBLIGATION to order that wiretap because an act of treason—Trump campaign people colluding with Russia to affect the outcome of our election—had taken place.” So, without batting an eye, Moore expressed his support for and entered into a political bloc with the “nefarious institutions” he admitted only a few lines before had been responsible for global misery and murder, backing them in their internecine conflict with Donald Trump. The filmmaker should not have the slightest political credibility at this point. Crude, pragmatic, generally swinish… this is Michael Moore now, a political scoundrel. =========================================================================================================== http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/03/25/moor-m25.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue Apr 4 22:51:01 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:51:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Michael Moore In-Reply-To: <2EA60F73-F988-45A1-8A3A-9B6FE11AF5F3@illinois.edu> References: <2EA60F73-F988-45A1-8A3A-9B6FE11AF5F3@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <1791570B-51B6-4866-BE4F-B18DE534C767@illinois.edu> http://observer.com/2017/04/cia-plotting-against-president-donald-trump-central-intelligence-agency/ > On Apr 4, 2017, at 4:50 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > "Crude, pragmatic, generally swinish… this is Michael Moore now, a political scoundrel." > > Filmmaker Michael Moore calls on Democrats to declare national emergency over Trump’s “espionage” > > By David Walsh > 25 March 2017 > > On Wednesday, American filmmaker Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 9 / 11, Bowling for Columbine, Roger & Me) called on the Democratic Party to “declare a National Emergency” in response to Donald Trump’s being investigated “for espionage.” Moore was referring to the announcement Monday by FBI Director James B. Comey that the agency was investigating whether Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election. > > Moore has enthusiastically adopted the reactionary and diversionary anti-Russian campaign as his own. The documentary maker—along with the rest of the Democratic Party and its hangers-on, including the various late-night talk show hosts—refuses in large measure to oppose Trump for his militarism, persecution of immigrants, right-wing social policies and attacks on the working class, but instead lambastes the new president for his supposed “collusion and obedience to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin” [one of Moore’s recent tweets]. > > By a “national emergency,” Moore explained Wednesday in his Instagram message, he meant an effort by the Democrats to paralyze the US government. He urged the party’s leadership in both houses of Congress “to bring a halt to all business being done in the name of this potential felony suspect, Donald J. Trump. No bill he supports, no Supreme Court nominee he has named, can be decided while he is under a criminal investigation. His presidency has no legitimacy until the FBI—and an independent investigative committee—discovers the truth. Fellow citizens, demand the Democrats cease all business.” > > Moore made his demagogic appeal to the Democrats and the FBI on the same day that New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, as the WSWS has noted, floated the proposal for a palace coup against Trump. Friedman addressed an open letter to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, implying that they should remove Trump from office and install a military-CIA junta in the US. > > But Moore did not need to take a lead from Friedman. He has been arguing along these same general lines for some time, along with talk show hosts Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert, among others. Comic Rosie O’Donnell, a week before the inauguration, urged President Barack Obama in a tweet to impose “MARTIAL LAW—DELAYING THE INAUGURATION—UNTIL TRUMP IS ‘CLEARED’ OF ALL CHARGES [of involvement in the Russian hacking scandal].” > > In any event, Moore has reached the point where his politics and actions are entirely without principle. It is difficult to determine at times whether he fully believes some of the stupid and reckless things he says. Everything is subordinated to the need to confuse and disorient the mass opposition to Trump and channel it in a reactionary direction, thus preserving the two-party system. > > It should be recalled that Moore spent the first part of 2016 firmly backing the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. He denounced Sanders’ opponent, Hillary Clinton, for opposing reform of the financial system, an increase in the minimum wage and a free health care system. He taunted Clinton as the candidate of Goldman Sachs, a “hawk” and supporter of “violence against the poor.” He asked rhetorically, “Can anyone with a conscience vote for someone who led us on to war in Iraq?” > > When Sanders dropped out of the race and threw his support to Clinton, Moore turned on a dime and did the same. The filmmaker proceeded to extol the virtues of the former first lady, describing her as “our Pope Francis,” someone who will “kick ass in Congress.” > > “Our very first female president, someone the world respects, someone who is whip-smart and cares about kids, who will continue the Obama legacy,” he told the media. > > The election of Trump threw the filmmaker into a genuine panic. Not so much because of the billionaire president’s right-wing policies, although Moore nominally opposes many of them, but because of the immense crisis and discrediting of the political system that the election results entailed. > > The outcome of the vote revealed the miserable failure and bankruptcy of the Democratic Party, which was unwilling and unable—in the form of the Clinton campaign—to present a program that could attract any significant popular support. Since November, Moore has striven above all to conceal the central responsibility of the Obama administration and its right-wing policies and operations—an administration he supported—for Trump’s victory. > > Virtually from the moment the Republican president took the oath of office, Moore has vehemently denounced him as a Russian puppet and lobbied for his removal. > > At the time of the February 13 resignation of Trump’s national security advisor, Michael T. Flynn, because of Flynn’s earlier communications with the Russian ambassador to the US, Moore flew into near hysterics. He demanded Trump “vacate” the White House immediately, calling the president a “Russian traitor.” > > On February 14, Moore tweeted Trump, “It’s now noontime in DC & it appears you are still squatting in our Oval Office. I gave u til this morning to leave.” He added later, “What part of ‘vacate you Russian traitor’ don’t you understand? We can do this the easy way (you resign), or the hard way (impeachment).” He followed up the same day, “Traitor! Resign by morning!” > > On Facebook February 14, Moore referred to a “stunning bombshell from the New York Times,” i.e., entirely unsubstantiated allegations about Russian interference in the US elections, and went on, “It’s what we all suspected. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on: TRUMP COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS TO THROW THE ELECTION TO HIM. … If it turns out there’s a traitor in the White House, the judicial branch must find a fair, peaceful way to un-do and then re-do the election of 2016.” > > Along with everything else, this business about Trump being a “Russian traitor” is a filthy effort to revive McCarthyite anti-communism. > > In a revealing Facebook entry March 5, following Trump’s claim that the White House had wiretapped his campaign in 2016, Moore commented: “Did Obama ‘tapp’ Trump? Let’s Hope So. If you’re like me, you have no love for the FBI, the NSA or the CIA. If you are from my generation, you know these are very often nefarious institutions. The FBI spied on Martin Luther King to stop his civil rights activities. The NSA was ordered to make up stuff on Iraq so [George W.] Bush could start a war. The CIA has had leaders of countries assassinated and democratically-elected Presidents (Iran, Chile, Guatemala) overthrown. These secret organizations have for decades committed so many acts in our name that have done much damage to good people and movements here and around the world.” > > After making this acknowledgement, Moore went on to suggest that if the Obama administration and the intelligence apparatus indeed had evidence that the Trump campaign was in contact with Russian officials, “then it not only is possible that the Justice Department or the national security apparatus decided to get a warrant to dig deeper, I think most patriotic Americans would agree with me that the Obama administration HAD AN OBLIGATION to order that wiretap because an act of treason—Trump campaign people colluding with Russia to affect the outcome of our election—had taken place.” > > So, without batting an eye, Moore expressed his support for and entered into a political bloc with the “nefarious institutions” he admitted only a few lines before had been responsible for global misery and murder, backing them in their internecine conflict with Donald Trump. The filmmaker should not have the slightest political credibility at this point. > > Crude, pragmatic, generally swinish… this is Michael Moore now, a political scoundrel. > > =========================================================================================================== > > http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/03/25/moor-m25.html > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Apr 5 15:03:46 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:03:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_From_the_Archive=3A_Philip_Roth?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZcyDigJxHb29kYnllLCBDb2x1bWJ1c+KAnQ==?= References: Message-ID: <479B3764-E205-41BC-9416-D03BCD66FA6A@illinois.edu> I don’t like Roth - never have, particularly as his later writings got more political - not in a good way. But I remember reading Goodbye, Columbus in college - I even remember the library I found it in, and talking about it to my bemused tutor - because it presented something of the bemused sensibility of the time. > > > > > > > > On occasion, we’ll ask a friend of the Review to revisit a work from our sixty-four-year archive . In this From the Archive newsletter exclusive, our advisory editor Elaine Blair reconsiders the relationship at the center of Philip Roth’s “Goodbye, Columbus ,” which the Review first published in issue no. 20 (Autumn–Winter 1958–1959) . > > And don’t forget, you can read everything from our archive when you subscribe . > > > > > > > > What is “Goodbye, Columbus ”? A story of a summer romance, a satirical sketch of suburban arriviste Jews in the fifties—sure. But when I stumbled on Philip Roth’s first book on the shelf of my high school library, “Goodbye, Columbus” seemed to me above all a brief against marriage. The story’s point—or so I thought of it—unsettled me. I had no intention of heeding it. I was for marriage, a born ball and chain. > > In the story, Neil Klugman, recently out of Rutgers and the army, works behind the desk at the Newark Library. His summer girlfriend is Brenda Patimkin, a Radcliffe student from tony Short Hills, New Jersey. “We lived in Newark when I was a baby,” she tells Neil—that is, before the Patimkins’ social climb. For Neil, Brenda’s allure is tangled up with his fascination of her prosperous world, and the closer the two of them get, the closer Neil comes to signing up for the whole Patimkin package: a fancy wedding, a lifetime management job at her father’s factory (Patimkin Kitchen and Bathroom Sinks), a country-club membership, a house in Short Hills, and, inevitably, babies. It’s cushy, but Neil isn’t sure he wants that life, while Brenda seems to consider no other. > > The second time I read “Goodbye, Columbus,” I was in my late twenties, living in New York City, working in the editorial department of a magazine, and had no aspirations to move to the suburbs. I didn’t think I particularly resembled Brenda Patimkin or the rich young matrons of Short Hills, whose ranks she seemed destined to join, yet I felt very much the thing being cautioned against. I knew myself to be a future wife; I harbored dreams of having children. And I was surrounded by Neils, leery of family life. On the subject of family planning, a beau had recently leaned back in his chair and recited “This Be the Verse.” I have not forgotten his smugness, or my defensiveness: he had some pretty good writing on his side. > > He might have read aloud from “Goodbye, Columbus,” from a scene that preoccupied me in those days. While Brenda goes dress shopping in New York, Neil drives up to the mountains alone and observes a group of picnicking young mothers and children: “Young white-skinned mothers, hardly older than I, and in many instances younger, chatted in their convertibles behind me, and looked down from time to time to see what their children were about.” Neil has seen them in the mountains before; “in clutches of three or four they dotted the rustic hamburger joints that dotted the Reservation area.” While their kids feed the jukebox, the mothers, “a few of whom I recognized as high school classmates of mine, compared suntans, supermarkets, and vacations. They looked immortal sitting there.” They looked immortal sitting there. The irony needled me. The line stayed with me for years. I was sure, on last reading it, that Roth meant not that the mothers individually looked immortal but that the condition of motherhood—and fatherhood—was immortal, the inescapable, wearying lot of most of humanity. Neil was girding himself to get out while he could. > > > > I read it now and I wonder what made me so sure. The next sentence is “Their hair would always stay the color they desired, their clothes the right texture and shade; in their homes they would have simple Swedish modern when that was fashionable, and if huge ugly baroque ever came back, out would go the long, midget-legged marble coffee table and in would come Louis Quatorze.” A more local satire than I remembered. And then: “Their fates had collapsed them into one. Only Brenda shone. Money and comfort would not erase her singleness—they hadn’t yet, or had they? What was I loving, I wondered, and since I am not one to stick scalpels into myself, I wiggled my hand in the fence and allowed a tiny-nosed buck to lick my thoughts away.” > > > > > > > “Goodbye, Columbus” is full of foreboding about Neil and Brenda’s possible marriage. But on this reading, the story’s specificity came rushing in. It’s not about marrying but about marrying young; it’s about the prospect of working for your father-in-law; it’s about the wisdom of trading your modest independence for air-conditioning and garbage disposals; it’s about marrying within your insular tribe before you ever have a chance to leave. Maybe it really is a story of the American mid-twentieth century—the last time a young man with no particular prospects could so confidently turn down his future father-in-law’s fortune. Except Neil doesn’t actually turn it down. I had forgotten that it’s Brenda, not Neil, who decides they should break up, and she unconsciously brings about a crisis that forces the issue: she leaves her diaphragm back home for her (shocked, disapproving) mother to find. Of course, you could say that it’s Neil who brings the crisis about by pushing Brenda to get a diaphragm in the first place. The story’s meanings loosened and shifted, and it was more interesting than I had remembered: two frightened people halfway in love who collude to bring about the end of their relationship before they give any more of themselves away. > > And then my husband supplied a point I’d been missing. “It’s about getting away clean!” he said. This man, my husband, also likes to quote Larkin, but we’ve had some children anyway. “Look at this last line: I was back in plenty of time for work.” He goes on, animated, “They can just walk away from it. Everyone is better off, including Brenda.” After all—I was catching his drift—was Brenda destined to be a Short Hills matron? Is she really aligning herself with her parents’ values at the end? Or is shaking off Neil, under the cover of her parents’ disapproval, her own way of forestalling a too-early marriage? Roth leaves room to wonder. “They even get to have sex”—the husband continues—“but they don’t have to marry. Her reputation isn’t ruined. He’s not on the hook. It’s not Jude the Obscure or Tess of the D’Urbervilles. No harm done!” Indeed. Yet Neil isn’t gloating or mopping his brow. He doesn’t assign a value—as some of Roth’s later characters would—to this kind of freedom. He (and presumably Brenda) only had an intuition that the union was wrong or that they wanted more time, which may be the same thing. And they bought themselves time. Neither they nor we nor possibly even Roth, back then, could say what for. > > —Elaine Blair > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't want to receive these emails unsubscribe > The Paris Review 544 West 27th Street New York, NY 10001 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Apr 5 18:04:08 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 18:04:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Free the Pentagon! And blame THEM ! References: <58E53020.00000005@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> Message-ID: <03369959-8FAD-41B1-B829-9629F03D42AD@illinois.edu> From: r-szoke > Subject: NYTimes.com: Trump Gives Military New Freedom. But With That Comes Danger. Date: April 5, 2017 at 12:57:52 PM CDT Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: [http://i1.nyt.com/images/misc/nytlogo194x27.gif] [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/05/us/05military/04military-thumbStandard.jpg] Pentagon Memo Trump Gives Military New Freedom. But With That Comes Danger. By HELENE COOPER Some considered Obama-era rules about military strikes to be micromanaging, but the new command style may increase the potential for civilian casualties. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Apr 5 18:22:13 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 13:22:13 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Free the Pentagon! And blame THEM ! In-Reply-To: <03369959-8FAD-41B1-B829-9629F03D42AD@illinois.edu> References: <58E53020.00000005@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <03369959-8FAD-41B1-B829-9629F03D42AD@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Instead, oppose the wars and demand troops and weapons be brought home. > On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > >> From: r-szoke >> Subject: NYTimes.com: Trump Gives Military New Freedom. But With That Comes Danger. >> Date: April 5, 2017 at 12:57:52 PM CDT >> >> Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: >> >> PENTAGON MEMO >> Trump Gives Military New Freedom. But With That Comes Danger. >> BY HELENE COOPER >> >> Some considered Obama-era rules about military strikes to be micromanaging, but the new command style may increase the potential for civilian casualties. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Apr 5 19:48:13 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:48:13 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WORLD LABOR HOUR SATURDAY APRIL 8th In-Reply-To: <000501d2ae45$7f53f1f0$7dfbd5d0$@comcast.net> References: <000501d2ae45$7f53f1f0$7dfbd5d0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <001001d2ae45$93601610$ba204230$@comcast.net> WORLD LABOR HOUR SATURDAY APRIL 8th 11 AM - 1 PM U.S. Central Time 104.5 FM and webcast LIVE worldwide at www.wrfu.net Steve Early - has been an organizer, lawyer, union representative, and labor activist for the past forty-five years. He will talk about his new book " Refinery Town: Big Oil, Big Money, and the Remaking of an American City " - which chronicles the fifteen years of successful community organizing in Richmond California that raised the local minimum wage, defeated a casino development project, challenged home foreclosures and evictions, and sought fair taxation of Big Oil and Big Soda. The book features a dynamic cast of characters including Gayle McLaughlin, the Green party mayor who challenged Chevron and won. Stay tuned after the World Labor Hour for " THE UNION EDGE " with Host Charles Showalter , broadcast from Pittsburg Pa.. WRFU - Radio Free Urbana - Corporate free community radio for the people. . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Apr 5 22:07:04 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 22:07:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. Message-ID: Trump White House responds to Syrian gas attack by blaming the Obama administration [Hunter.jpeg] By Hunter Daily Kos, Tuesday Apr 04, 2017 · 12:22 PM CDT Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, during the campaign, that the various bad actors on the world stage were only daring to commit aggressions and atrocities because our current leaders were "weak." Today's chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces against Syrian civilians will be one of his team's first true foreign policy tests: they quickly proved themselves to up to the task. White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." [...] "Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." This may be the first official White House condemnation of the use of chemical weapons to be affixed to a direct political attack on a previous president. The move makes it appear that the White House is more concerned with dodging responsibility for responding to the Syrian attack than they are with the use of the weapons themselves. It is likely that the Trump team has not mapped out an American response to the attacks—especially because of the Trump campaign and transition eagerness to pursue a Russia-friendly compromise in Syria despite Russia's backing of the regime that perpetrated these attacks. Actual Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for his part, is so far again absent from the discussion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Hunter.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2617 bytes Desc: Hunter.jpeg URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Apr 5 23:00:23 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 18:00:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C2EFF79-229E-4A6A-B124-B07AE8AF5D6A@illinois.edu> Good question. "Only fake news sub-zoology specimens can possibly believe Damascus would profit from staging a chemical attack just a few hours after the St. Petersburg metro tragedy. The timing is NOT accidental. No wonder hysterical block to block ‘coverage' in NATO-controlled MSM - actually editorials, blaming Damascus without any investigation whatsoever." [Pepe Escobar] "Rebel warehouse with chem weapons hit by Syrian airstrike in Idlib” Here are reports from US propaganda sources that suggest what may have happened: "Russia blames deadly Syrian gassing on rebels' own chemical arsenal” "Idlib Attack Aimed at Disrupting Talks, U.N. Envoy Says” Cui bono? Whose interests are being served by disrupting the talks? The Syrian government's military predominance over the rebels (established with Russia's help) could be recognized in Geneva. The Assad government would seem to have no motive for committing a war crime, but its enemies would certainly have a motive for saying it did. —CGE > On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Trump White House responds to Syrian gas attack by blaming the Obama administration > > > By Hunter > Daily Kos, Tuesday Apr 04, 2017 · 12:22 PM CDT > > Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, during the campaign, that the various bad actors on the world stage were only daring to commit aggressions and atrocities because our current leaders were "weak." Today's chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces against Syrian civilians will be one of his team's first true foreign policy tests: they quickly proved themselves to up to the task. > White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." [...] > "Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." > This may be the first official White House condemnation of the use of chemical weapons to be affixed to a direct political attack on a previous president. The move makes it appear that the White House is more concerned with dodging responsibility for responding to the Syrian attack than they are with the use of the weapons themselves. > It is likely that the Trump team has not mapped out an American response to the attacks—especially because of the Trump campaign and transition eagerness to pursue a Russia-friendly compromise in Syria despite Russia's backing of the regime that perpetrated these attacks. Actual Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for his part, is so far again absent from the discussion. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Apr 6 00:54:22 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:54:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. In-Reply-To: <8C2EFF79-229E-4A6A-B124-B07AE8AF5D6A@illinois.edu> References: <8C2EFF79-229E-4A6A-B124-B07AE8AF5D6A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria” | April 5, 2017 The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ > On Apr 5, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Good question. > > "Only fake news sub-zoology specimens can possibly believe Damascus would profit from staging a chemical attack just a few hours after the St. Petersburg metro tragedy. The timing is NOT accidental. No wonder hysterical block to block ‘coverage' in NATO-controlled MSM - actually editorials, blaming Damascus without any investigation whatsoever." [Pepe Escobar] > > "Rebel warehouse with chem weapons hit by Syrian airstrike in Idlib” > > Here are reports from US propaganda sources that suggest what may have happened: > > "Russia blames deadly Syrian gassing on rebels' own chemical arsenal” > > "Idlib Attack Aimed at Disrupting Talks, U.N. Envoy Says” > > Cui bono? Whose interests are being served by disrupting the talks? The Syrian government's military predominance over the rebels (established with Russia's help) could be recognized in Geneva. The Assad government would seem to have no motive for committing a war crime, but its enemies would certainly have a motive for saying it did. > > —CGE > > >> On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Trump White House responds to Syrian gas attack by blaming the Obama administration >> >> >> By Hunter >> Daily Kos, Tuesday Apr 04, 2017 · 12:22 PM CDT >> >> Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, during the campaign, that the various bad actors on the world stage were only daring to commit aggressions and atrocities because our current leaders were "weak." Today's chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces against Syrian civilians will be one of his team's first true foreign policy tests: they quickly proved themselves to up to the task. >> White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." [...] >> "Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." >> This may be the first official White House condemnation of the use of chemical weapons to be affixed to a direct political attack on a previous president. The move makes it appear that the White House is more concerned with dodging responsibility for responding to the Syrian attack than they are with the use of the weapons themselves. >> It is likely that the Trump team has not mapped out an American response to the attacks—especially because of the Trump campaign and transition eagerness to pursue a Russia-friendly compromise in Syria despite Russia's backing of the regime that perpetrated these attacks. Actual Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for his part, is so far again absent from the discussion. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Apr 6 01:36:57 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 20:36:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. In-Reply-To: References: <8C2EFF79-229E-4A6A-B124-B07AE8AF5D6A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <212797C1-5D4D-4C6A-AD48-54C83B6C731B@illinois.edu> NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them. AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but that’s what’s happening. Meanwhile, there have been—it’s kind of like the North Korean case we were discussing. There have been possible opportunities to terminate the horrors. In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not pursued, so we don’t know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to—for a negotiated settlement, in which Assad would be phased out, not immediately. You know, you can’t tell them, "We’re going to murder you. Please negotiate." That’s not going to work. But some system in which, in the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some kind of settlement would be made. The West would not accept it, not just the United States. France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider it. At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn’t want to do this, so the war went on. Could it have worked? You never know for sure. But it could have been pursued. Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different from ISIS. So you have a horror story on all sides. The Syrian people are being decimated. AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria. But if the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything? NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a negotiated diplomatic settlement would be implemented, which would by no means be lovely, but it would at least cut down the level of violence, which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed. It’s descending to suicide. > On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria” | April 5, 2017 > The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry. > > https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ > > >> On Apr 5, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Good question. >> >> "Only fake news sub-zoology specimens can possibly believe Damascus would profit from staging a chemical attack just a few hours after the St. Petersburg metro tragedy. The timing is NOT accidental. No wonder hysterical block to block ‘coverage' in NATO-controlled MSM - actually editorials, blaming Damascus without any investigation whatsoever." [Pepe Escobar] >> >> "Rebel warehouse with chem weapons hit by Syrian airstrike in Idlib” > >> >> Here are reports from US propaganda sources that suggest what may have happened: >> >> "Russia blames deadly Syrian gassing on rebels' own chemical arsenal” > >> >> "Idlib Attack Aimed at Disrupting Talks, U.N. Envoy Says” > >> >> Cui bono? Whose interests are being served by disrupting the talks? The Syrian government's military predominance over the rebels (established with Russia's help) could be recognized in Geneva. The Assad government would seem to have no motive for committing a war crime, but its enemies would certainly have a motive for saying it did. >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Trump White House responds to Syrian gas attack by blaming the Obama administration >>> >>> >>> By Hunter >>> Daily Kos, Tuesday Apr 04, 2017 · 12:22 PM CDT >>> >>> Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, during the campaign, that the various bad actors on the world stage were only daring to commit aggressions and atrocities because our current leaders were "weak." Today's chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces against Syrian civilians will be one of his team's first true foreign policy tests: they quickly proved themselves to up to the task. >>> White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." [...] >>> "Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." >>> This may be the first official White House condemnation of the use of chemical weapons to be affixed to a direct political attack on a previous president. The move makes it appear that the White House is more concerned with dodging responsibility for responding to the Syrian attack than they are with the use of the weapons themselves. >>> It is likely that the Trump team has not mapped out an American response to the attacks—especially because of the Trump campaign and transition eagerness to pursue a Russia-friendly compromise in Syria despite Russia's backing of the regime that perpetrated these attacks. Actual Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for his part, is so far again absent from the discussion. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Apr 6 04:25:10 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 04:25:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME ? Part 40617 References: <54444ffc-f381-4d1a-ad4f-02ed74d34962@xtinp2mta4200.xt.local> Message-ID: <985C6154-92A0-4AD0-9A69-5C4AF3CB1C0A@illinois.edu> From: NPR > Subject: NPR.org - Trump Picks Strategy To Counter Russia Storyline: Blame Susan Rice Date: April 5, 2017 at 10:34:04 PM CDT r-szoke at illinois.edu has sent you the following story: Trump Picks Strategy To Counter Russia Storyline: Blame Susan Rice [NPR] R S thought you would be interested in this story Trump Picks Strategy To Counter Russia Storyline: Blame Susan Rice It took a while to get going, but the White House has settled on its alternative narrative to potential connections between the Trump team and Russia's meddling in the U.S. election. Read this story [https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/04/05/ap_16300614703840_sq-5896c8f6f8c4d08cfbc95ca3615b07a7a58a8867.jpg?s=12] This email was sent by: NPR,1111 N. Capitol St. NE Washington, DC, 20002, United States. This message was sent to r-szoke at illinois.edu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Apr 6 04:31:39 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 23:31:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME ? Part 40617 In-Reply-To: <985C6154-92A0-4AD0-9A69-5C4AF3CB1C0A@illinois.edu> References: <54444ffc-f381-4d1a-ad4f-02ed74d34962@xtinp2mta4200.xt.local> <985C6154-92A0-4AD0-9A69-5C4AF3CB1C0A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Should we in fact blame Susan Rice? Why or why not? > On Apr 5, 2017, at 11:25 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > >> From: NPR >> Subject: NPR.org - Trump Picks Strategy To Counter Russia Storyline: Blame Susan Rice >> Date: April 5, 2017 at 10:34:04 PM CDT >> >> r-szoke at illinois.edu has sent you the following story: Trump Picks Strategy To Counter Russia Storyline: Blame Susan Rice >> >> >> R S thought you would be interested in this story >> Trump Picks Strategy To Counter Russia Storyline: Blame Susan Rice >> It took a while to get going, but the White House has settled on its alternative narrative to potential connections between the Trump team and Russia's meddling in the U.S. election. >> >> Read this story >> >> >> This email was sent by: NPR,1111 N. Capitol St. NE Washington, DC, 20002, United States. This message was sent to r-szoke at illinois.edu. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Apr 6 11:27:30 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:27:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. In-Reply-To: <212797C1-5D4D-4C6A-AD48-54C83B6C731B@illinois.edu> References: <8C2EFF79-229E-4A6A-B124-B07AE8AF5D6A@illinois.edu> <212797C1-5D4D-4C6A-AD48-54C83B6C731B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I disagree with Noam Chomsky’s assessment of Russia, having only one ally. Iran is also an ally, in the Med. This is very important and it’s geopolitical. As to Syria, he failed to look at the history of US involvement in Syria, just going along with mainstream US assessment that Assad is horrible, maybe he is, but look what we have done, we’ve had a presence in Syria, covertly under the Obama administration, not really, just not as openly as now under Trump and the Pentagon. I know, “who am I to disagree with Chomsky” , hey I disagree with Presidents and the Pope when I think they’re wrong. See Wm. Blum et al. On Apr 5, 2017, at 18:36, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them. AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but that’s what’s happening. Meanwhile, there have been—it’s kind of like the North Korean case we were discussing. There have been possible opportunities to terminate the horrors. In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not pursued, so we don’t know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to—for a negotiated settlement, in which Assad would be phased out, not immediately. You know, you can’t tell them, "We’re going to murder you. Please negotiate." That’s not going to work. But some system in which, in the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some kind of settlement would be made. The West would not accept it, not just the United States. France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider it. At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn’t want to do this, so the war went on. Could it have worked? You never know for sure. But it could have been pursued. Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different from ISIS. So you have a horror story on all sides. The Syrian people are being decimated. AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria. But if the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything? NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a negotiated diplomatic settlement would be implemented, which would by no means be lovely, but it would at least cut down the level of violence, which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed. It’s descending to suicide. On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria” | April 5, 2017 The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 5, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Good question. "Only fake news sub-zoology specimens can possibly believe Damascus would profit from staging a chemical attack just a few hours after the St. Petersburg metro tragedy. The timing is NOT accidental. No wonder hysterical block to block ‘coverage' in NATO-controlled MSM - actually editorials, blaming Damascus without any investigation whatsoever." [Pepe Escobar] "Rebel warehouse with chem weapons hit by Syrian airstrike in Idlib” > Here are reports from US propaganda sources that suggest what may have happened: "Russia blames deadly Syrian gassing on rebels' own chemical arsenal” > "Idlib Attack Aimed at Disrupting Talks, U.N. Envoy Says” > Cui bono? Whose interests are being served by disrupting the talks? The Syrian government's military predominance over the rebels (established with Russia's help) could be recognized in Geneva. The Assad government would seem to have no motive for committing a war crime, but its enemies would certainly have a motive for saying it did. —CGE On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump White House responds to Syrian gas attack by blaming the Obama administration By Hunter Daily Kos, Tuesday Apr 04, 2017 · 12:22 PM CDT Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, during the campaign, that the various bad actors on the world stage were only daring to commit aggressions and atrocities because our current leaders were "weak." Today's chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces against Syrian civilians will be one of his team's first true foreign policy tests: they quickly proved themselves to up to the task. White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." [...] "Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." This may be the first official White House condemnation of the use of chemical weapons to be affixed to a direct political attack on a previous president. The move makes it appear that the White House is more concerned with dodging responsibility for responding to the Syrian attack than they are with the use of the weapons themselves. It is likely that the Trump team has not mapped out an American response to the attacks—especially because of the Trump campaign and transition eagerness to pursue a Russia-friendly compromise in Syria despite Russia's backing of the regime that perpetrated these attacks. Actual Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for his part, is so far again absent from the discussion. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Apr 6 21:19:56 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 21:19:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. In-Reply-To: References: <8C2EFF79-229E-4A6A-B124-B07AE8AF5D6A@illinois.edu> <212797C1-5D4D-4C6A-AD48-54C83B6C731B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <919A924C-58E4-4630-896C-A3E7A4AF38A3@illinois.edu> I certainly don’t know Assad’s mind and actions, how he is running/defending his country (or is it his country?). Does Chomsky? What does he clearly know about what is taking place in Syria? So I commend you Karen for”going against the Chomsky grain in this matter. As to the gas attack, if that is what it was, a commentary by Gareth Porter is helpful: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: I disagree with Noam Chomsky’s assessment of Russia, having only one ally. Iran is also an ally, in the Med. This is very important and it’s geopolitical. As to Syria, he failed to look at the history of US involvement in Syria, just going along with mainstream US assessment that Assad is horrible, maybe he is, but look what we have done, we’ve had a presence in Syria, covertly under the Obama administration, not really, just not as openly as now under Trump and the Pentagon. I know, “who am I to disagree with Chomsky” , hey I disagree with Presidents and the Pope when I think they’re wrong. See Wm. Blum et al. On Apr 5, 2017, at 18:36, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them. AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but that’s what’s happening. Meanwhile, there have been—it’s kind of like the North Korean case we were discussing. There have been possible opportunities to terminate the horrors. In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not pursued, so we don’t know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to—for a negotiated settlement, in which Assad would be phased out, not immediately. You know, you can’t tell them, "We’re going to murder you. Please negotiate." That’s not going to work. But some system in which, in the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some kind of settlement would be made. The West would not accept it, not just the United States. France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider it. At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn’t want to do this, so the war went on. Could it have worked? You never know for sure. But it could have been pursued. Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different from ISIS. So you have a horror story on all sides. The Syrian people are being decimated. AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria. But if the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything? NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a negotiated diplomatic settlement would be implemented, which would by no means be lovely, but it would at least cut down the level of violence, which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed. It’s descending to suicide. On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria” | April 5, 2017 The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 5, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Good question. "Only fake news sub-zoology specimens can possibly believe Damascus would profit from staging a chemical attack just a few hours after the St. Petersburg metro tragedy. The timing is NOT accidental. No wonder hysterical block to block ‘coverage' in NATO-controlled MSM - actually editorials, blaming Damascus without any investigation whatsoever." [Pepe Escobar] "Rebel warehouse with chem weapons hit by Syrian airstrike in Idlib” > Here are reports from US propaganda sources that suggest what may have happened: "Russia blames deadly Syrian gassing on rebels' own chemical arsenal” > "Idlib Attack Aimed at Disrupting Talks, U.N. Envoy Says” > Cui bono? Whose interests are being served by disrupting the talks? The Syrian government's military predominance over the rebels (established with Russia's help) could be recognized in Geneva. The Assad government would seem to have no motive for committing a war crime, but its enemies would certainly have a motive for saying it did. —CGE On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump White House responds to Syrian gas attack by blaming the Obama administration By Hunter Daily Kos, Tuesday Apr 04, 2017 · 12:22 PM CDT Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, during the campaign, that the various bad actors on the world stage were only daring to commit aggressions and atrocities because our current leaders were "weak." Today's chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces against Syrian civilians will be one of his team's first true foreign policy tests: they quickly proved themselves to up to the task. White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." [...] "Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." This may be the first official White House condemnation of the use of chemical weapons to be affixed to a direct political attack on a previous president. The move makes it appear that the White House is more concerned with dodging responsibility for responding to the Syrian attack than they are with the use of the weapons themselves. It is likely that the Trump team has not mapped out an American response to the attacks—especially because of the Trump campaign and transition eagerness to pursue a Russia-friendly compromise in Syria despite Russia's backing of the regime that perpetrated these attacks. Actual Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for his part, is so far again absent from the discussion. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From a-fields at illinois.edu Fri Apr 7 01:03:52 2017 From: a-fields at illinois.edu (Fields, A Belden) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 01:03:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. In-Reply-To: <919A924C-58E4-4630-896C-A3E7A4AF38A3@illinois.edu> References: <8C2EFF79-229E-4A6A-B124-B07AE8AF5D6A@illinois.edu> <212797C1-5D4D-4C6A-AD48-54C83B6C731B@illinois.edu> , <919A924C-58E4-4630-896C-A3E7A4AF38A3@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <4BEF5039AB283245B9B22D29042452EB7430AACF@CITESMBX4.ad.uillinois.edu> I would only point out that when Assad was asked by the press many months ago about his air force's use of barrel bombs in residential areas, which killed and maimed many civilians, his reply was "a bomb is a bomb. It makes no difference." He is clearly willing to use any weapons at his disposal regardless of the cost in civilian lives--by HIS OWN WORDS. No, the investigation is not yet done. But we have heard him loud and clear, anything is fair in this war regardless of humans suffering and international law. Yes, the US has caused enormous suffering and violated human rights itself. But Chomsky is right. Assad is a nasty piece of work and it ill suits people on the Left to pretend otherwise. Belden ________________________________ From: Peace [peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace [peace at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 4:19 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: peace; Peace-discuss AWARE Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. I certainly don’t know Assad’s mind and actions, how he is running/defending his country (or is it his country?). Does Chomsky? What does he clearly know about what is taking place in Syria? So I commend you Karen for”going against the Chomsky grain in this matter. As to the gas attack, if that is what it was, a commentary by Gareth Porter is helpful: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: I disagree with Noam Chomsky’s assessment of Russia, having only one ally. Iran is also an ally, in the Med. This is very important and it’s geopolitical. As to Syria, he failed to look at the history of US involvement in Syria, just going along with mainstream US assessment that Assad is horrible, maybe he is, but look what we have done, we’ve had a presence in Syria, covertly under the Obama administration, not really, just not as openly as now under Trump and the Pentagon. I know, “who am I to disagree with Chomsky” , hey I disagree with Presidents and the Pope when I think they’re wrong. See Wm. Blum et al. On Apr 5, 2017, at 18:36, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them. AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but that’s what’s happening. Meanwhile, there have been—it’s kind of like the North Korean case we were discussing. There have been possible opportunities to terminate the horrors. In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not pursued, so we don’t know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to—for a negotiated settlement, in which Assad would be phased out, not immediately. You know, you can’t tell them, "We’re going to murder you. Please negotiate." That’s not going to work. But some system in which, in the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some kind of settlement would be made. The West would not accept it, not just the United States. France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider it. At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn’t want to do this, so the war went on. Could it have worked? You never know for sure. But it could have been pursued. Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different from ISIS. So you have a horror story on all sides. The Syrian people are being decimated. AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria. But if the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything? NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a negotiated diplomatic settlement would be implemented, which would by no means be lovely, but it would at least cut down the level of violence, which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed. It’s descending to suicide. On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria” | April 5, 2017 The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 5, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Good question. "Only fake news sub-zoology specimens can possibly believe Damascus would profit from staging a chemical attack just a few hours after the St. Petersburg metro tragedy. The timing is NOT accidental. No wonder hysterical block to block ‘coverage' in NATO-controlled MSM - actually editorials, blaming Damascus without any investigation whatsoever." [Pepe Escobar] "Rebel warehouse with chem weapons hit by Syrian airstrike in Idlib” > Here are reports from US propaganda sources that suggest what may have happened: "Russia blames deadly Syrian gassing on rebels' own chemical arsenal” > "Idlib Attack Aimed at Disrupting Talks, U.N. Envoy Says” > Cui bono? Whose interests are being served by disrupting the talks? The Syrian government's military predominance over the rebels (established with Russia's help) could be recognized in Geneva. The Assad government would seem to have no motive for committing a war crime, but its enemies would certainly have a motive for saying it did. —CGE On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump White House responds to Syrian gas attack by blaming the Obama administration By Hunter Daily Kos, Tuesday Apr 04, 2017 · 12:22 PM CDT Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, during the campaign, that the various bad actors on the world stage were only daring to commit aggressions and atrocities because our current leaders were "weak." Today's chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces against Syrian civilians will be one of his team's first true foreign policy tests: they quickly proved themselves to up to the task. White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." [...] "Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." This may be the first official White House condemnation of the use of chemical weapons to be affixed to a direct political attack on a previous president. The move makes it appear that the White House is more concerned with dodging responsibility for responding to the Syrian attack than they are with the use of the weapons themselves. It is likely that the Trump team has not mapped out an American response to the attacks—especially because of the Trump campaign and transition eagerness to pursue a Russia-friendly compromise in Syria despite Russia's backing of the regime that perpetrated these attacks. Actual Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for his part, is so far again absent from the discussion. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Fri Apr 7 03:01:07 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 03:01:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Support Medicare For All Message-ID: <2D6411B1-A85B-4BA4-A0BB-8FC3A840D353@illinois.edu> Medicare For All is a policy whose time has come. HR676, Expanded and Improved Medicare for All, has 90 co-sponsors in the US House--more than it has had in a decade. Bernie Sanders will introduce a companion, single-payer into the Senate this month. Join Central Illinois chapter of Progressive Democrats of America in educating the public to create a groundswell for Medicare for All. We will provide signs and flyers. WHERE: Champaign Public Library, 200 W Green St, Champaign, IL WHEN: Saturday, April 8, noon For more information, contact Deb at Deb at pdamerica.org or 217-722-9665 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Fri Apr 7 03:09:27 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 03:09:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dozens of U.S. Missiles Hit Air Base in Syria References: <58E701CB.00000679@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> Message-ID: <06865778-59CA-4BAF-B790-FF9CDED4B230@illinois.edu> From: r-szoke > Subject: NYTimes.com: Dozens of U.S. Missiles Hit Air Base in Syria Date: April 6, 2017 at 10:04:43 PM CDT Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: [http://i1.nyt.com/images/misc/nytlogo194x27.gif] [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/07/us/07military/07military-thumbStandard.jpg] Dozens of U.S. Missiles Hit Air Base in Syria By MICHAEL R. GORDON, HELENE COOPER and MICHAEL D. SHEAR The attack was in response to the Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack this week. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2oOd8Kf Not a Subscriber? To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See Options [http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=hdaNaYedr2/IomeWRKt0nffrak8aSGLbvtkkq/r7ihwOf5XePlpJ1w==&user_id=ee7558d54531b290bd05280f4b7d6eb4&email_type=eta&task_id=1491534283308536®i_id=0] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Fri Apr 7 03:21:45 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 03:21:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: URGENT: Trump launched U.S. airstrike in Syria References: <95744e-2c2c7-58e704e8@list.moveon.org> Message-ID: <7172953E-24DF-4B1D-8C56-06D836CA4F64@illinois.edu> From: "Ilya Sheyman, MoveOn.org Civic Action" > Subject: URGENT: Trump launched U.S. airstrike in Syria Date: April 6, 2017 at 10:18:00 PM CDT To: Ron Szoke > It's up to MoveOn members to lead a chorus of people in every corner of this nation saying NO to bombing the people of Syria. Dear MoveOn member, News is breaking that Donald Trump just ordered the launch of dozens of Tomahawk missiles to strike Syria.1 It's an illegal and unauthorized escalation that could have devastating consequences, killing innocent Syrians and costing the lives of U.S. service members. Things could spiral quickly in the coming hours, and it's up to MoveOn members to lead a chorus of progressives in every corner of this nation saying NO to bombing the people of Syria. Will you sign an emergency petition to Congress right now? Congress must force consideration of an Authorization for Use of Military Force, and members of Congress should vote "no" and halt Trump's march toward war. Let's be clear: There's no doubt that Bashar Assad is a brutal dictator who has slaughtered his own people and is complicit in the use of chemical weapons. But this is no humanitarian mission. These are missiles ordered by a flailing president with plummeting approval ratings, trying to show how "tough" he can be. The result will likely be increased suffering for the Syrian people. And this unilateral U.S. attack could possibly even draw in Russia and Iran, which have been close partners of the Assad regime. The U.S. cannot bomb its way to peace, but it does have an essential role to play in the world, including 1) welcoming increased numbers of refugees fleeing Syria, 2) fully supporting international relief efforts for those most affected by this brutal civil war, 3) engaging in multilateral diplomacy at the United Nations to isolate Syria, and 4) sanctioning Russia and other nations which enable the Assad regime. But none of this will be possible unless we first halt Trump's march toward war. Please click here to add your name to an emergency petition calling for Congress to act. Thanks for all you do. –Ilya, Jo, Iram, Stephen, and the rest of the team Source: 1. "Dozens of U.S. Missiles Hit Air Base in Syria," The New York Times, April 6, 2017 https://act.moveon.org/go/9363?t=4&akid=180935.9794638.e4Brxn [https://act.moveon.org/o.gif?akid=180935.9794638.e4Brxn] Want to support our work? The MoveOn community will work every moment, day by day and year by year, to resist Trump's agenda, contain the damage, defeat hate with love, and begin the process of swinging the nation's pendulum back toward sanity, decency, and the kind of future that we must never give up on. And to do it we need your ongoing support, now more than ever. Will you stand with us? Because you've saved your payment information with MoveOn, your donation will go straight through. Express Donate: $5 monthly Express Donate: $15 monthly Express Donate: $50 monthly Donate another amount monthly Or make a one-time gift Contributions to MoveOn.org Civic Action are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. This email was sent to Ron Szoke on April 7th, 2017. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 7 03:39:24 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 03:39:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. In-Reply-To: <4BEF5039AB283245B9B22D29042452EB7430AACF@CITESMBX4.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <8C2EFF79-229E-4A6A-B124-B07AE8AF5D6A@illinois.edu> <212797C1-5D4D-4C6A-AD48-54C83B6C731B@illinois.edu> <919A924C-58E4-4630-896C-A3E7A4AF38A3@illinois.edu> <4BEF5039AB283245B9B22D29042452EB7430AACF@CITESMBX4.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: Belden, With all do respect: Which press interviewed Assad? The American press? The same press that vilifies Putin? The same press that vilified Gaddafi, and Sadam before destroying their nations and slaughtering them and their people? Even if they are monsters, they are the responsibility of their own people. Bush and Cheney were monsters, do I wish Russia or China, had bombed the US in order to liquidate them? Of course not. Chomsky maybe right, but why does he or any other American feel the need to make the statement, yes he’s awful but so are we. Chomsky himself has always made the point that “we are responsible for our own actions”, not that of others. When the American press or the American government indulges in such rhetoric, they lesson any chance of using diplomacy, which obviously they don’t care to use, preferring instead military actions. Al Sisi, Netanyahu, and the Saudi’s are monsters and should be vilified rather than celebrated, but given they are ally’s, not targets…….. My argument is overly simplistic. My point is, when we complain about the evils of those our government is targeting we are giving “just cause” and “support” for that which will likely follow, in our name. It is up to the American people to focus on that for which our government is responsible, that is our monsters of whom we have many. On Apr 6, 2017, at 18:03, Fields, A Belden > wrote: I would only point out that when Assad was asked by the press many months ago about his air force's use of barrel bombs in residential areas, which killed and maimed many civilians, his reply was "a bomb is a bomb. It makes no difference." He is clearly willing to use any weapons at his disposal regardless of the cost in civilian lives--by HIS OWN WORDS. No, the investigation is not yet done. But we have heard him loud and clear, anything is fair in this war regardless of humans suffering and international law. Yes, the US has caused enormous suffering and violated human rights itself. But Chomsky is right. Assad is a nasty piece of work and it ill suits people on the Left to pretend otherwise. Belden ________________________________ From: Peace [peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace [peace at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 4:19 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: peace; Peace-discuss AWARE Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. I certainly don’t know Assad’s mind and actions, how he is running/defending his country (or is it his country?). Does Chomsky? What does he clearly know about what is taking place in Syria? So I commend you Karen for”going against the Chomsky grain in this matter. As to the gas attack, if that is what it was, a commentary by Gareth Porter is helpful: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: I disagree with Noam Chomsky’s assessment of Russia, having only one ally. Iran is also an ally, in the Med. This is very important and it’s geopolitical. As to Syria, he failed to look at the history of US involvement in Syria, just going along with mainstream US assessment that Assad is horrible, maybe he is, but look what we have done, we’ve had a presence in Syria, covertly under the Obama administration, not really, just not as openly as now under Trump and the Pentagon. I know, “who am I to disagree with Chomsky” , hey I disagree with Presidents and the Pope when I think they’re wrong. See Wm. Blum et al. On Apr 5, 2017, at 18:36, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them. AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but that’s what’s happening. Meanwhile, there have been—it’s kind of like the North Korean case we were discussing. There have been possible opportunities to terminate the horrors. In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not pursued, so we don’t know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to—for a negotiated settlement, in which Assad would be phased out, not immediately. You know, you can’t tell them, "We’re going to murder you. Please negotiate." That’s not going to work. But some system in which, in the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some kind of settlement would be made. The West would not accept it, not just the United States. France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider it. At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn’t want to do this, so the war went on. Could it have worked? You never know for sure. But it could have been pursued. Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different from ISIS. So you have a horror story on all sides. The Syrian people are being decimated. AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria. But if the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything? NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a negotiated diplomatic settlement would be implemented, which would by no means be lovely, but it would at least cut down the level of violence, which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed. It’s descending to suicide. On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria” | April 5, 2017 The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 5, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Good question. "Only fake news sub-zoology specimens can possibly believe Damascus would profit from staging a chemical attack just a few hours after the St. Petersburg metro tragedy. The timing is NOT accidental. No wonder hysterical block to block ‘coverage' in NATO-controlled MSM - actually editorials, blaming Damascus without any investigation whatsoever." [Pepe Escobar] "Rebel warehouse with chem weapons hit by Syrian airstrike in Idlib” > Here are reports from US propaganda sources that suggest what may have happened: "Russia blames deadly Syrian gassing on rebels' own chemical arsenal” > "Idlib Attack Aimed at Disrupting Talks, U.N. Envoy Says” > Cui bono? Whose interests are being served by disrupting the talks? The Syrian government's military predominance over the rebels (established with Russia's help) could be recognized in Geneva. The Assad government would seem to have no motive for committing a war crime, but its enemies would certainly have a motive for saying it did. —CGE On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump White House responds to Syrian gas attack by blaming the Obama administration By Hunter Daily Kos, Tuesday Apr 04, 2017 · 12:22 PM CDT Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, during the campaign, that the various bad actors on the world stage were only daring to commit aggressions and atrocities because our current leaders were "weak." Today's chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces against Syrian civilians will be one of his team's first true foreign policy tests: they quickly proved themselves to up to the task. White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." [...] "Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." This may be the first official White House condemnation of the use of chemical weapons to be affixed to a direct political attack on a previous president. The move makes it appear that the White House is more concerned with dodging responsibility for responding to the Syrian attack than they are with the use of the weapons themselves. It is likely that the Trump team has not mapped out an American response to the attacks—especially because of the Trump campaign and transition eagerness to pursue a Russia-friendly compromise in Syria despite Russia's backing of the regime that perpetrated these attacks. Actual Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for his part, is so far again absent from the discussion. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Fri Apr 7 04:34:26 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:34:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. In-Reply-To: <4BEF5039AB283245B9B22D29042452EB7430AACF@CITESMBX4.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <8C2EFF79-229E-4A6A-B124-B07AE8AF5D6A@illinois.edu> <212797C1-5D4D-4C6A-AD48-54C83B6C731B@illinois.edu> <919A924C-58E4-4630-896C-A3E7A4AF38A3@illinois.edu> <4BEF5039AB283245B9B22D29042452EB7430AACF@CITESMBX4.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: Belden, You don’t know god damn thing about what has happened in Syria, what is happening there, and your so-called argument is worse than asinine. You have become an apologist for war—you, a human rights advocate. Shame!!! —mkb On Apr 6, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Fields, A Belden > wrote: I would only point out that when Assad was asked by the press many months ago about his air force's use of barrel bombs in residential areas, which killed and maimed many civilians, his reply was "a bomb is a bomb. It makes no difference." He is clearly willing to use any weapons at his disposal regardless of the cost in civilian lives--by HIS OWN WORDS. No, the investigation is not yet done. But we have heard him loud and clear, anything is fair in this war regardless of humans suffering and international law. Yes, the US has caused enormous suffering and violated human rights itself. But Chomsky is right. Assad is a nasty piece of work and it ill suits people on the Left to pretend otherwise. Belden ________________________________ From: Peace [peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace [peace at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 4:19 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: peace; Peace-discuss AWARE Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. I certainly don’t know Assad’s mind and actions, how he is running/defending his country (or is it his country?). Does Chomsky? What does he clearly know about what is taking place in Syria? So I commend you Karen for”going against the Chomsky grain in this matter. As to the gas attack, if that is what it was, a commentary by Gareth Porter is helpful: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: I disagree with Noam Chomsky’s assessment of Russia, having only one ally. Iran is also an ally, in the Med. This is very important and it’s geopolitical. As to Syria, he failed to look at the history of US involvement in Syria, just going along with mainstream US assessment that Assad is horrible, maybe he is, but look what we have done, we’ve had a presence in Syria, covertly under the Obama administration, not really, just not as openly as now under Trump and the Pentagon. I know, “who am I to disagree with Chomsky” , hey I disagree with Presidents and the Pope when I think they’re wrong. See Wm. Blum et al. On Apr 5, 2017, at 18:36, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them. AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but that’s what’s happening. Meanwhile, there have been—it’s kind of like the North Korean case we were discussing. There have been possible opportunities to terminate the horrors. In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not pursued, so we don’t know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to—for a negotiated settlement, in which Assad would be phased out, not immediately. You know, you can’t tell them, "We’re going to murder you. Please negotiate." That’s not going to work. But some system in which, in the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some kind of settlement would be made. The West would not accept it, not just the United States. France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider it. At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn’t want to do this, so the war went on. Could it have worked? You never know for sure. But it could have been pursued. Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different from ISIS. So you have a horror story on all sides. The Syrian people are being decimated. AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria. But if the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything? NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a negotiated diplomatic settlement would be implemented, which would by no means be lovely, but it would at least cut down the level of violence, which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed. It’s descending to suicide. On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria” | April 5, 2017 The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 5, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Good question. "Only fake news sub-zoology specimens can possibly believe Damascus would profit from staging a chemical attack just a few hours after the St. Petersburg metro tragedy. The timing is NOT accidental. No wonder hysterical block to block ‘coverage' in NATO-controlled MSM - actually editorials, blaming Damascus without any investigation whatsoever." [Pepe Escobar] "Rebel warehouse with chem weapons hit by Syrian airstrike in Idlib” > Here are reports from US propaganda sources that suggest what may have happened: "Russia blames deadly Syrian gassing on rebels' own chemical arsenal” > "Idlib Attack Aimed at Disrupting Talks, U.N. Envoy Says” > Cui bono? Whose interests are being served by disrupting the talks? The Syrian government's military predominance over the rebels (established with Russia's help) could be recognized in Geneva. The Assad government would seem to have no motive for committing a war crime, but its enemies would certainly have a motive for saying it did. —CGE On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump White House responds to Syrian gas attack by blaming the Obama administration By Hunter Daily Kos, Tuesday Apr 04, 2017 · 12:22 PM CDT Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, during the campaign, that the various bad actors on the world stage were only daring to commit aggressions and atrocities because our current leaders were "weak." Today's chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces against Syrian civilians will be one of his team's first true foreign policy tests: they quickly proved themselves to up to the task. White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." [...] "Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." This may be the first official White House condemnation of the use of chemical weapons to be affixed to a direct political attack on a previous president. The move makes it appear that the White House is more concerned with dodging responsibility for responding to the Syrian attack than they are with the use of the weapons themselves. It is likely that the Trump team has not mapped out an American response to the attacks—especially because of the Trump campaign and transition eagerness to pursue a Russia-friendly compromise in Syria despite Russia's backing of the regime that perpetrated these attacks. Actual Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for his part, is so far again absent from the discussion. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From a-fields at illinois.edu Fri Apr 7 04:56:43 2017 From: a-fields at illinois.edu (Fields, A Belden) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:56:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. In-Reply-To: References: <8C2EFF79-229E-4A6A-B124-B07AE8AF5D6A@illinois.edu> <212797C1-5D4D-4C6A-AD48-54C83B6C731B@illinois.edu> <919A924C-58E4-4630-896C-A3E7A4AF38A3@illinois.edu> <4BEF5039AB283245B9B22D29042452EB7430AACF@CITESMBX4.ad.uillinois.edu>, Message-ID: <0C29BEE5-3531-442D-8984-90AFA543EC0E@illinois.edu> I said nothing about a response to Assad. I only agreed with Chomsky's characterization of him. And I used His own words. Matters not who posed the question. Belden Sent from my iPhone On Apr 6, 2017, at 11:34 PM, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: Belden, You don’t know god damn thing about what has happened in Syria, what is happening there, and your so-called argument is worse than asinine. You have become an apologist for war—you, a human rights advocate. Shame!!! —mkb On Apr 6, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Fields, A Belden > wrote: I would only point out that when Assad was asked by the press many months ago about his air force's use of barrel bombs in residential areas, which killed and maimed many civilians, his reply was "a bomb is a bomb. It makes no difference." He is clearly willing to use any weapons at his disposal regardless of the cost in civilian lives--by HIS OWN WORDS. No, the investigation is not yet done. But we have heard him loud and clear, anything is fair in this war regardless of humans suffering and international law. Yes, the US has caused enormous suffering and violated human rights itself. But Chomsky is right. Assad is a nasty piece of work and it ill suits people on the Left to pretend otherwise. Belden ________________________________ From: Peace [peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace [peace at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 4:19 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: peace; Peace-discuss AWARE Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. I certainly don’t know Assad’s mind and actions, how he is running/defending his country (or is it his country?). Does Chomsky? What does he clearly know about what is taking place in Syria? So I commend you Karen for”going against the Chomsky grain in this matter. As to the gas attack, if that is what it was, a commentary by Gareth Porter is helpful: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: I disagree with Noam Chomsky’s assessment of Russia, having only one ally. Iran is also an ally, in the Med. This is very important and it’s geopolitical. As to Syria, he failed to look at the history of US involvement in Syria, just going along with mainstream US assessment that Assad is horrible, maybe he is, but look what we have done, we’ve had a presence in Syria, covertly under the Obama administration, not really, just not as openly as now under Trump and the Pentagon. I know, “who am I to disagree with Chomsky” , hey I disagree with Presidents and the Pope when I think they’re wrong. See Wm. Blum et al. On Apr 5, 2017, at 18:36, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them. AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but that’s what’s happening. Meanwhile, there have been—it’s kind of like the North Korean case we were discussing. There have been possible opportunities to terminate the horrors. In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not pursued, so we don’t know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to—for a negotiated settlement, in which Assad would be phased out, not immediately. You know, you can’t tell them, "We’re going to murder you. Please negotiate." That’s not going to work. But some system in which, in the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some kind of settlement would be made. The West would not accept it, not just the United States. France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider it. At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn’t want to do this, so the war went on. Could it have worked? You never know for sure. But it could have been pursued. Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different from ISIS. So you have a horror story on all sides. The Syrian people are being decimated. AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria. But if the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything? NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a negotiated diplomatic settlement would be implemented, which would by no means be lovely, but it would at least cut down the level of violence, which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed. It’s descending to suicide. On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria” | April 5, 2017 The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 5, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Good question. "Only fake news sub-zoology specimens can possibly believe Damascus would profit from staging a chemical attack just a few hours after the St. Petersburg metro tragedy. The timing is NOT accidental. No wonder hysterical block to block ‘coverage' in NATO-controlled MSM - actually editorials, blaming Damascus without any investigation whatsoever." [Pepe Escobar] "Rebel warehouse with chem weapons hit by Syrian airstrike in Idlib” > Here are reports from US propaganda sources that suggest what may have happened: "Russia blames deadly Syrian gassing on rebels' own chemical arsenal” > "Idlib Attack Aimed at Disrupting Talks, U.N. Envoy Says” > Cui bono? Whose interests are being served by disrupting the talks? The Syrian government's military predominance over the rebels (established with Russia's help) could be recognized in Geneva. The Assad government would seem to have no motive for committing a war crime, but its enemies would certainly have a motive for saying it did. —CGE On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump White House responds to Syrian gas attack by blaming the Obama administration By Hunter Daily Kos, Tuesday Apr 04, 2017 · 12:22 PM CDT Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, during the campaign, that the various bad actors on the world stage were only daring to commit aggressions and atrocities because our current leaders were "weak." Today's chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces against Syrian civilians will be one of his team's first true foreign policy tests: they quickly proved themselves to up to the task. White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." [...] "Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." This may be the first official White House condemnation of the use of chemical weapons to be affixed to a direct political attack on a previous president. The move makes it appear that the White House is more concerned with dodging responsibility for responding to the Syrian attack than they are with the use of the weapons themselves. It is likely that the Trump team has not mapped out an American response to the attacks—especially because of the Trump campaign and transition eagerness to pursue a Russia-friendly compromise in Syria despite Russia's backing of the regime that perpetrated these attacks. Actual Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for his part, is so far again absent from the discussion. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 07:47:41 2017 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 02:47:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. In-Reply-To: References: <8C2EFF79-229E-4A6A-B124-B07AE8AF5D6A@illinois.edu> <212797C1-5D4D-4C6A-AD48-54C83B6C731B@illinois.edu> <919A924C-58E4-4630-896C-A3E7A4AF38A3@illinois.edu> <4BEF5039AB283245B9B22D29042452EB7430AACF@CITESMBX4.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: I never quite understand what all of you are arguing about. All I know for sure is that every "leader" in the world, throughout human history - except for those precious few who (1) were democratically elected, and (2) possess a modicum of integrity, humility, and perspective - wants to keep his/her power, and doesn't care how many civilians s/he kills to do so. Given that there is a civil war raging in Syria among various factions, Assad would be killing his own people in order to retain power regardless of whether Russia and/or America was involved. I don't have to be a mind reader or a close personal friend of Assad to know that retaining power is more important to him than the lives of the Syrian people. Whether or not we intervene is at least as much of a practical question as a moral one. And it's a moot point because pResident tRump has chosen to bomb. John Wason On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: Belden, > > You don’t know god damn thing about what has happened in Syria, what is > happening there, and your so-called argument is worse than asinine. You > have become an apologist for war—you, a human rights advocate. Shame!!! > > —mkb > > > On Apr 6, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Fields, A Belden > wrote: > > I would only point out that when Assad was asked by the press many months > ago about his air force's use of barrel bombs in residential areas, which > killed and maimed many civilians, his reply was "a bomb is a bomb. It makes > no difference." He is clearly willing to use any weapons at his disposal > regardless of the cost in civilian lives--by HIS OWN WORDS. > No, the investigation is not yet done. But we have heard him loud and > clear, anything is fair in this war regardless of humans suffering and > international law. Yes, the US has caused enormous suffering and violated > human rights itself. But Chomsky is right. Assad is a nasty piece of > work and it ill suits people on the Left to pretend otherwise. > > Belden > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Peace [peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, > Morton K via Peace [peace at lists.chambana.net] > *Sent:* Thursday, April 06, 2017 4:19 PM > *To:* Karen Aram > *Cc:* peace; Peace-discuss AWARE > *Subject:* Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. > > I certainly don’t know Assad’s mind and actions, how he is > running/defending his country (or is it his country?). Does Chomsky? What > does he clearly know about what is taking place in Syria? > So I commend you Karen for”going against the Chomsky grain in this matter. > As to the gas attack, if that is what it was, a commentary by Gareth Porter > is helpful: > https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous- > rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ > > > > On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: > > I disagree with Noam Chomsky’s assessment of Russia, having only one ally. > Iran is also an ally, in the Med. This is very important and it’s > geopolitical. As to Syria, he failed to look at the history of US > involvement in Syria, just going along with mainstream US assessment that > Assad is horrible, maybe he is, but look what we have done, we’ve had a > presence in Syria, covertly under the Obama administration, not really, > just not as openly as now under Trump and the Pentagon. > > I know, “who am I to disagree with Chomsky” , hey I disagree with > Presidents and the Pope when I think they’re wrong. > > See Wm. Blum et al. > > On Apr 5, 2017, at 18:36, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral > disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them. > > AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them? > > NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the > whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean > base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with > them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but > that’s what’s happening. > > Meanwhile, there have been—it’s kind of like the North Korean case we were > discussing. There have been possible opportunities to terminate the > horrors. In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not > pursued, so we don’t know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to—for > a negotiated settlement, in which Assad would be phased out, not > immediately. You know, you can’t tell them, "We’re going to murder you. > Please negotiate." That’s not going to work. But some system in which, in > the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some kind of > settlement would be made. The West would not accept it, not just the United > States. France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider > it. At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn’t > want to do this, so the war went on. Could it have worked? You never know > for sure. But it could have been pursued. Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia > are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different from ISIS. > So you have a horror story on all sides. The Syrian people are being > decimated. > > AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria. But if the > U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything? > > NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a > negotiated diplomatic settlement would be implemented, which would by no > means be lovely, but it would at least cut down the level of violence, > which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed. It’s > descending to suicide. > > > On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria” | April 5, 2017 > The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, > blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring > other possibilities, reports Robert Parry. > > https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous- > rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ > > > > On Apr 5, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Good question. > > "Only fake news sub-zoology specimens can possibly believe Damascus would > profit from staging a chemical attack just a few hours after the St. > Petersburg metro tragedy. The timing is NOT accidental. No wonder > hysterical block to block ‘coverage' in NATO-controlled MSM - actually > editorials, blaming Damascus without any investigation whatsoever." [Pepe > Escobar] > > "Rebel warehouse with chem weapons hit by Syrian airstrike in Idlib” < > https://www.rt.com/news/383522-syria-idlib-warehouse-strike-chemical/ > > > > > Here are reports from US propaganda sources that suggest what may have > happened: > > "Russia blames deadly Syrian gassing on rebels' own chemical arsenal” < > http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-blames-syria- > gassing-leak-rebels-own-chemical-arsenal-n742791 > > > > > "Idlib Attack Aimed at Disrupting Talks, U.N. Envoy Says” < > https://www.wsj.com/articles/idlib-attack-aimed-at- > disrupting-talks-u-n-envoy-says-1491325155?tesla=y > > > > > Cui bono? Whose interests are being served by disrupting the talks? The > Syrian government's military predominance over the rebels (established with > Russia's help) could be recognized in Geneva. The Assad government would > seem to have no motive for committing a war crime, but its enemies would > certainly have a motive for saying it did. > > —CGE > > > On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Trump White House responds to Syrian gas attack by blaming the Obama > administration > > > By Hunter > Daily Kos, Tuesday Apr 04, 2017 · 12:22 PM CDT > > Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, during the campaign, that the various bad > actors on the world stage were only daring to commit aggressions and > atrocities because our current leaders were "weak." Today's chemical > weapons attack by Syrian forces against Syrian civilians will be one of his > team's first true foreign policy tests: they quickly proved themselves to > up to the task. > White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas > attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces > tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past > administration's weakness and irresolution." [...] > "Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women > and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized > world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime > are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." > This may be the first official White House condemnation of the use of > chemical weapons to be affixed to a direct political attack on a previous > president. The move makes it appear that the White House is more concerned > with dodging responsibility for responding to the Syrian attack than they > are with the use of the weapons themselves. > It is likely that the Trump team has not mapped out an American response > to the attacks—especially because of the Trump campaign and transition > eagerness to pursue a Russia-friendly compromise in Syria despite Russia's > backing of the regime that perpetrated these attacks. Actual Secretary of > State Rex Tillerson, for his part, is so far again absent from the > discussion. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Apr 7 10:33:01 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:33:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: American Unlimited Imperialism:Syria Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:30 AM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: American Unlimited Imperialism:Syria By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled "humanitarian intervention"/responsibility to protect. ________________________ Historically, this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to near genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley's military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America's economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the "open door" policy. But over the next four decades America's aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the "Pacific" would ineluctably pave the way for Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America's precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched and menaced by the Republican Bush Jr. administration and now the Democratic Obama administration are threatening to set off World War III. Ditto for Trump. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled "humanitarian intervention"/responsibility to protect. Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of two-thirds of the world's hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundament and energizer of the global economic system - oil and gas. The Bush Jr./ Obama administrations have already targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia for further conquest or domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation. In this regard, the Bush Jr. administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon's Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. Libya and the Libyans became the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the Obama administration. They will not be the last. This current bout of U.S. imperialism is what my teacher, mentor and friend Hans Morgenthau denominated "unlimited imperialism" in his seminal work Politics Among Nations (4th ed. 1968, at 52-53): "The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination-a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror's lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind... " It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Apr 7 11:12:36 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:12:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] American Unlimited Imperialism:Syria Message-ID: Trump already publicly admitted we are over there to steal their oil. At least he is honest-unlike his predecessors. You have to give the devil his due. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:33 AM To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: FW: American Unlimited Imperialism:Syria Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:30 AM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > Subject: American Unlimited Imperialism:Syria By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled "humanitarian intervention"/responsibility to protect. ________________________ Historically, this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to near genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley's military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America's economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the "open door" policy. But over the next four decades America's aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the "Pacific" would ineluctably pave the way for Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America's precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched and menaced by the Republican Bush Jr. administration and now the Democratic Obama administration are threatening to set off World War III. Ditto for Trump. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled "humanitarian intervention"/responsibility to protect. Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of two-thirds of the world's hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundament and energizer of the global economic system - oil and gas. The Bush Jr./ Obama administrations have already targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia for further conquest or domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation. In this regard, the Bush Jr. administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon's Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. Libya and the Libyans became the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the Obama administration. They will not be the last. This current bout of U.S. imperialism is what my teacher, mentor and friend Hans Morgenthau denominated "unlimited imperialism" in his seminal work Politics Among Nations (4th ed. 1968, at 52-53): "The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination-a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror's lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind... " It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 11:22:19 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:22:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] SJP UIUC's "Israeli Apartheid Week", 4/10-4/13 Message-ID: <66ae209b-4fda-dbfd-9b24-beee3fd3582b@gmail.com> Students for Justice in Palestine at UIUC is proud to announce Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) 2017: Culture Beyond Resistance. IAW is an annual week of events and demonstrations with the goal of raising consciousness on campus on the cause of Palestinian liberation. This year's IAW, themed "Culture Beyond Resistance", will showcase various aspects of Palestinian culture and how Palestinians around the world work to fight against erasure and appropriation. Events and Demonstrations: *The mock Israeli apartheid wall will be up from 9am to 5pm Monday through Thursday in front of the English building on the Quad side. *We invite all to stop by and learn more about the Palestinian people, their struggle for liberation, and Israel’s propagation of injustice and violence. *Monday, 4/10* *12pm at the Wall—Palestinian Solidarity Rally* This rally will center the voices of oppressed and marginalized communities facing cultural erasure and appropriation. In addition to centering the topic of Palestinian liberation, we have sought to make the rally a space where members of various communities represented on campus can detail their experiences with and methods of resistance to cultural erasure and appropriation. *6pm in Lincoln 1065: Feminism, Palestinian Liberation and Culture* Join us for a discussion with Dr. Maryam Kashani, assistant professor of Asian American Studies and Gender and Women’s Studies, on Arab/Muslim feminisms, Palestinian resistance and liberation, and culture. *Tuesday, 4/11* *6pm in Noyes 165: Film Screening—“5 Broken Cameras”* SJP is proud to host a screening of “5 Broken Cameras”, the 2011 documentary shot from the perspective of Palestinian Emad Burnet, chronicling the violent imposition of Israeli settlements in his village of Bil’in. The film features first hand representation of protests and rallies held to oppose the establishment of illegal Israeli settlements. The film was nominated for the 2011 Academy Award for Best Documentary. 5 Broken Cameras humanizes Palestinian resistance while also highlighting the everyday terror associated with living under Israel’s settler-colonial regime. Wednesday, 4/12—Day off! *Thursday, 4/13** **7pm at the Channing Murray Foundation—Palestinian Cultural Night* This year’s cultural night will feature various stations highlighting different aspects of Palestinian culture and life. Come to learn more about Palestinian music, food, intellectual history, and holy sites! Additionally, some of our members will discuss their life and experiences of living in Palestine, noting aspects of what it means to be Palestinian for them and how the occupation of their land affects everyday life. ***Please Note: *Filming at all events is prohibited* unless explicit permission is given by the Students for Justice in Palestine. No matter your perspective on these issues, we ask that everyone in attendance respect the personal boundaries and safety of everyone involved. Co-sponsors of Israeli Apartheid Week 2017: Jewish Voice for Peace Champaign-Urbana Black Students for Revolution Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztlán Campus Union for Trans Equality and Support Asian Pacific American Coalition Graduate Employees Organization Students and Youth for a New America United Muslim Minority Advocates Illini Progressives Arab Student Association /If your organization would like to co-sponsor IAW 2017, please contact us via Facebook page (SJP UIUC) or email (sjp.uiuc at gmail.com)./ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 11:37:25 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 06:37:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. Message-ID: Dear discuss, I agree with John. Plus point out that every time the US has "helped" change regimes, we also "help" choose the next brutal dictator.  - karen Medina Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message --------From: "John W. via Peace-discuss" Date: 4/7/17 02:47 (GMT-06:00) To: "Brussel, Morton K" Cc: peace , Peace-discuss AWARE , "Fields, A Belden" Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace]  Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. I never quite understand what all of you are arguing about.  All I know for sure is that every "leader" in the world, throughout human history - except for those precious few who (1) were democratically elected, and (2) possess a modicum of integrity, humility, and perspective - wants to keep his/her power, and doesn't care how many civilians s/he kills to do so. Given that there is a civil war raging in Syria among various factions, Assad would be killing his own people in order to retain power regardless of whether Russia and/or America was involved.  I don't have to be a mind reader or a close personal friend of Assad to know that retaining power is more important to him than the lives of the Syrian people.  Whether or not we intervene is at least as much of a practical question as a moral one. And it's a moot point because pResident tRump has chosen to bomb. John Wason On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace wrote: Belden, You don’t know  god damn thing about what has happened in Syria, what is happening there, and your so-called argument is worse than asinine. You have become an apologist for war—you, a human rights advocate. Shame!!! —mkb On Apr 6, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Fields, A Belden wrote: I would only point out that when Assad was asked by the press many months ago about his air force's use of barrel bombs in residential areas, which killed and maimed many civilians, his reply was "a bomb is a bomb. It makes no difference."  He is clearly willing to use any weapons at his disposal regardless of  the cost in civilian lives--by HIS OWN WORDS. No, the investigation is not yet done.  But we have heard him loud and clear, anything is fair in this war regardless of humans suffering and international law. Yes, the US has caused enormous suffering and violated human rights itself.  But Chomsky is  right.  Assad is a nasty piece of work and it ill suits people on the Left to pretend otherwise. Belden From: Peace [peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace [peace at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 4:19 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: peace; Peace-discuss AWARE Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. I certainly don’t know Assad’s mind and actions, how he is running/defending his country (or is it his country?). Does Chomsky? What does he clearly know about what is taking place in Syria?  So I commend you Karen for”going against the Chomsky grain in this matter. As to the gas attack, if that is what it was, a commentary by Gareth Porter is helpful:  https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: I disagree with Noam Chomsky’s assessment of Russia, having only one ally. Iran is also an ally, in the Med. This is very important and it’s geopolitical. As to Syria, he failed to look at the history of US involvement in Syria, just going along with mainstream US assessment that Assad is horrible, maybe he is, but look what we have done, we’ve had a presence in Syria, covertly under the Obama administration, not really, just not as openly as now under Trump and the Pentagon.  I know, “who am I to disagree with Chomsky” , hey I disagree with Presidents and the Pope when I think they’re wrong. See Wm. Blum et al. On Apr 5, 2017, at 18:36, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them. AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but that’s what’s happening. Meanwhile, there have been—it’s kind of like the North Korean case we were discussing. There have been possible opportunities to terminate the horrors. In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not pursued, so we don’t know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to—for a negotiated settlement, in which Assad would be phased out, not immediately. You know, you can’t tell them, "We’re going to murder you. Please negotiate." That’s not going to work. But some system in which, in the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some kind of settlement would be made. The West would not accept it, not just the United States. France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider it. At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn’t want to do this, so the war went on. Could it have worked? You never know for sure. But it could have been pursued. Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different from ISIS. So you have a horror story on all sides. The Syrian people are being decimated. AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria. But if the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything? NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a negotiated diplomatic settlement would be implemented, which would by no means be lovely, but it would at least cut down the level of violence, which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed. It’s descending to suicide. On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria” | April 5, 2017 The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 5, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: Good question. "Only fake news sub-zoology specimens can possibly believe Damascus would profit from staging a chemical attack just a few hours after the St. Petersburg metro tragedy. The timing is NOT accidental. No wonder hysterical block to block ‘coverage' in NATO-controlled MSM - actually editorials, blaming Damascus without any investigation whatsoever." [Pepe Escobar] "Rebel warehouse with chem weapons hit by Syrian airstrike in Idlib” Here are reports from US propaganda sources that suggest what may have happened: "Russia blames deadly Syrian gassing on rebels' own chemical arsenal” "Idlib Attack Aimed at Disrupting Talks, U.N. Envoy Says” Cui bono? Whose interests are being served by disrupting the talks? The Syrian government's military predominance over the rebels (established with Russia's help) could be recognized in Geneva. The Assad government would seem to have no motive for committing a war crime, but its enemies would certainly have a motive for saying it did. —CGE  On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: Trump White House responds to Syrian gas attack by blaming the Obama administration By Hunter   Daily Kos, Tuesday Apr 04, 2017 · 12:22 PM CDT Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, during the campaign, that the various bad actors on the world stage were only daring to commit aggressions and atrocities because our current leaders were "weak." Today's chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces against Syrian civilians will be one of his team's first true foreign policy tests: they quickly proved themselves to up to the task. White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." [...] "Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." This may be the first official White House condemnation of the use of chemical weapons to be affixed to a direct political attack on a previous president. The move makes it appear that the White House is more concerned with dodging responsibility for responding to the Syrian attack than they are with the use of the weapons themselves. It is likely that the Trump team has not mapped out an American response to the attacks—especially because of the Trump campaign and transition eagerness to pursue a Russia-friendly compromise in Syria despite Russia's backing of the regime that perpetrated these attacks. Actual Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for his part, is so far again absent from the discussion. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Apr 7 11:41:04 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:41:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Trump publicly admitted we are over there to steal their oil. At least he is honest about it—unlike his predecessors. You have to give the devil his due. Fab. From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:30 AM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: American Unlimited Imperialism:Syria By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled “humanitarian intervention”/responsibility to protect. ________________________ Historically, this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to near genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the “Pacific” would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched and menaced by the Republican Bush Jr. administration and now the Democratic Obama administration are threatening to set off World War III. Ditto for Trump. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled “humanitarian intervention”/responsibility to protect. Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of two-thirds of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundament and energizer of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Jr./ Obama administrations have already targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia for further conquest or domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation. In this regard, the Bush Jr. administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. Libya and the Libyans became the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the Obama administration. They will not be the last. This current bout of U.S. imperialism is what my teacher, mentor and friend Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal work Politics Among Nations (4th ed. 1968, at 52-53): “The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind… “ It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of kmedina67 via Peace Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 6:37 AM To: John W. ; Brussel, Morton K Cc: peace ; Fields, A Belden ; Peace-discuss AWARE Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. Dear discuss, I agree with John. Plus point out that every time the US has "helped" change regimes, we also "help" choose the next brutal dictator. - karen Medina Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: "John W. via Peace-discuss" > Date: 4/7/17 02:47 (GMT-06:00) To: "Brussel, Morton K" > Cc: peace >, Peace-discuss AWARE >, "Fields, A Belden" > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. I never quite understand what all of you are arguing about. All I know for sure is that every "leader" in the world, throughout human history - except for those precious few who (1) were democratically elected, and (2) possess a modicum of integrity, humility, and perspective - wants to keep his/her power, and doesn't care how many civilians s/he kills to do so. Given that there is a civil war raging in Syria among various factions, Assad would be killing his own people in order to retain power regardless of whether Russia and/or America was involved. I don't have to be a mind reader or a close personal friend of Assad to know that retaining power is more important to him than the lives of the Syrian people. Whether or not we intervene is at least as much of a practical question as a moral one. And it's a moot point because pResident tRump has chosen to bomb. John Wason On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace > wrote: Belden, You don’t know god damn thing about what has happened in Syria, what is happening there, and your so-called argument is worse than asinine. You have become an apologist for war—you, a human rights advocate. Shame!!! —mkb On Apr 6, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Fields, A Belden > wrote: I would only point out that when Assad was asked by the press many months ago about his air force's use of barrel bombs in residential areas, which killed and maimed many civilians, his reply was "a bomb is a bomb. It makes no difference." He is clearly willing to use any weapons at his disposal regardless of the cost in civilian lives--by HIS OWN WORDS. No, the investigation is not yet done. But we have heard him loud and clear, anything is fair in this war regardless of humans suffering and international law. Yes, the US has caused enormous suffering and violated human rights itself. But Chomsky is right. Assad is a nasty piece of work and it ill suits people on the Left to pretend otherwise. Belden ________________________________ From: Peace [peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace [peace at lists.chambana.net] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 4:19 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: peace; Peace-discuss AWARE Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 40517. I certainly don’t know Assad’s mind and actions, how he is running/defending his country (or is it his country?). Does Chomsky? What does he clearly know about what is taking place in Syria? So I commend you Karen for”going against the Chomsky grain in this matter. As to the gas attack, if that is what it was, a commentary by Gareth Porter is helpful: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:27 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: I disagree with Noam Chomsky’s assessment of Russia, having only one ally. Iran is also an ally, in the Med. This is very important and it’s geopolitical. As to Syria, he failed to look at the history of US involvement in Syria, just going along with mainstream US assessment that Assad is horrible, maybe he is, but look what we have done, we’ve had a presence in Syria, covertly under the Obama administration, not really, just not as openly as now under Trump and the Pentagon. I know, “who am I to disagree with Chomsky” , hey I disagree with Presidents and the Pope when I think they’re wrong. See Wm. Blum et al. On Apr 5, 2017, at 18:36, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them. AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but that’s what’s happening. Meanwhile, there have been—it’s kind of like the North Korean case we were discussing. There have been possible opportunities to terminate the horrors. In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not pursued, so we don’t know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to—for a negotiated settlement, in which Assad would be phased out, not immediately. You know, you can’t tell them, "We’re going to murder you. Please negotiate." That’s not going to work. But some system in which, in the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some kind of settlement would be made. The West would not accept it, not just the United States. France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider it. At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn’t want to do this, so the war went on. Could it have worked? You never know for sure. But it could have been pursued. Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different from ISIS. So you have a horror story on all sides. The Syrian people are being decimated. AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria. But if the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything? NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a negotiated diplomatic settlement would be implemented, which would by no means be lovely, but it would at least cut down the level of violence, which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed. It’s descending to suicide. On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria” | April 5, 2017 The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ On Apr 5, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Good question. "Only fake news sub-zoology specimens can possibly believe Damascus would profit from staging a chemical attack just a few hours after the St. Petersburg metro tragedy. The timing is NOT accidental. No wonder hysterical block to block ‘coverage' in NATO-controlled MSM - actually editorials, blaming Damascus without any investigation whatsoever." [Pepe Escobar] "Rebel warehouse with chem weapons hit by Syrian airstrike in Idlib” > Here are reports from US propaganda sources that suggest what may have happened: "Russia blames deadly Syrian gassing on rebels' own chemical arsenal” > "Idlib Attack Aimed at Disrupting Talks, U.N. Envoy Says” > Cui bono? Whose interests are being served by disrupting the talks? The Syrian government's military predominance over the rebels (established with Russia's help) could be recognized in Geneva. The Assad government would seem to have no motive for committing a war crime, but its enemies would certainly have a motive for saying it did. —CGE On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: Trump White House responds to Syrian gas attack by blaming the Obama administration By Hunter Daily Kos, Tuesday Apr 04, 2017 · 12:22 PM CDT Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, during the campaign, that the various bad actors on the world stage were only daring to commit aggressions and atrocities because our current leaders were "weak." Today's chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces against Syrian civilians will be one of his team's first true foreign policy tests: they quickly proved themselves to up to the task. White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." [...] "Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution." This may be the first official White House condemnation of the use of chemical weapons to be affixed to a direct political attack on a previous president. The move makes it appear that the White House is more concerned with dodging responsibility for responding to the Syrian attack than they are with the use of the weapons themselves. It is likely that the Trump team has not mapped out an American response to the attacks—especially because of the Trump campaign and transition eagerness to pursue a Russia-friendly compromise in Syria despite Russia's backing of the regime that perpetrated these attacks. Actual Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for his part, is so far again absent from the discussion. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace 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 Fri Apr 7 12:17:49 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 12:17:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: URGENT: Trump launched U.S. airstrike in Syria/and who to blame? In-Reply-To: <7172953E-24DF-4B1D-8C56-06D836CA4F64@illinois.edu> References: <95744e-2c2c7-58e704e8@list.moveon.org> <7172953E-24DF-4B1D-8C56-06D836CA4F64@illinois.edu> Message-ID: An obvious a propaganda piece against Syria, Iran and Russia. Let’s examine the statements: First we have a paragraph making unsubstantiated claims of “who was behind the chemical attacks” vilifying Assad after accusing him of being the culprit, then we label it a “civil war” in Syria, convincing everyone that it is a civil war, rather than the terrorist groups supported by the Saudi’s and therefore the US. We have some very positive statements within “such as we need to stop the killing, we need to support more refugees” etc.” Then we have the latter two statements #3 and 4, calling for “isolation of Syria at the UN, and sanctioning Russia and other nations enabling the Syrian government." These two statements provide the ultimate goal of the western powers and Israel. They proof our goal of “forget all diplomacy”, and they support more provocations against Russia, which hurt many people throughout Europe. Remember Orwell’s 1984? This is the way our government, “ move on.org” represents the Democrat position, and others within our government, and the way they manipulate the public. I suggest we do take on the Trump regime at this time, we should be out in the streets organizing and protesting, against any bombing of Syria, by our much hated President, who like every other President is merely a puppet of the elites/Deep State/establishment. We are supposed to be an anti-war group of peace lovers, lets prove it, lets have a protest against war on Sunday, I’m open to time and place. The U.S. cannot bomb its way to peace, but it does have an essential role to play in the world, including 1) welcoming increased numbers of refugees fleeing Syria, 2) fully supporting international relief efforts for those most affected by this brutal civil war, 3) engaging in multilateral diplomacy at the United Nations to isolate Syria, and 4) sanctioning Russia and other nations which enable the Assad regime. On Apr 6, 2017, at 20:21, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: From: "Ilya Sheyman, MoveOn.org Civic Action" > Subject: URGENT: Trump launched U.S. airstrike in Syria Date: April 6, 2017 at 10:18:00 PM CDT To: Ron Szoke > It's up to MoveOn members to lead a chorus of people in every corner of this nation saying NO to bombing the people of Syria. Dear MoveOn member, News is breaking that Donald Trump just ordered the launch of dozens of Tomahawk missiles to strike Syria.1 It's an illegal and unauthorized escalation that could have devastating consequences, killing innocent Syrians and costing the lives of U.S. service members. Things could spiral quickly in the coming hours, and it's up to MoveOn members to lead a chorus of progressives in every corner of this nation saying NO to bombing the people of Syria. Will you sign an emergency petition to Congress right now? Congress must force consideration of an Authorization for Use of Military Force, and members of Congress should vote "no" and halt Trump's march toward war. Let's be clear: There's no doubt that Bashar Assad is a brutal dictator who has slaughtered his own people and is complicit in the use of chemical weapons. But this is no humanitarian mission. These are missiles ordered by a flailing president with plummeting approval ratings, trying to show how "tough" he can be. The result will likely be increased suffering for the Syrian people. And this unilateral U.S. attack could possibly even draw in Russia and Iran, which have been close partners of the Assad regime. The U.S. cannot bomb its way to peace, but it does have an essential role to play in the world, including 1) welcoming increased numbers of refugees fleeing Syria, 2) fully supporting international relief efforts for those most affected by this brutal civil war, 3) engaging in multilateral diplomacy at the United Nations to isolate Syria, and 4) sanctioning Russia and other nations which enable the Assad regime. But none of this will be possible unless we first halt Trump's march toward war. Please click here to add your name to an emergency petition calling for Congress to act. Thanks for all you do. –Ilya, Jo, Iram, Stephen, and the rest of the team Source: 1. "Dozens of U.S. Missiles Hit Air Base in Syria," The New York Times, April 6, 2017 https://act.moveon.org/go/9363?t=4&akid=180935.9794638.e4Brxn [https://act.moveon.org/o.gif?akid=180935.9794638.e4Brxn] Want to support our work? The MoveOn community will work every moment, day by day and year by year, to resist Trump's agenda, contain the damage, defeat hate with love, and begin the process of swinging the nation's pendulum back toward sanity, decency, and the kind of future that we must never give up on. And to do it we need your ongoing support, now more than ever. Will you stand with us? Because you've saved your payment information with MoveOn, your donation will go straight through. Express Donate: $5 monthly Express Donate: $15 monthly Express Donate: $50 monthly Donate another amount monthly Or make a one-time gift Contributions to MoveOn.org Civic Action are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. This email was sent to Ron Szoke on April 7th, 2017. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here. _______________________________________________ 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 moboct1 at aim.com Fri Apr 7 13:41:58 2017 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:41:58 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: URGENT: Trump launched U.S. airstrike in Syria/and who to blame? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <15b48a66c0d-1b3f-8448@webprd-m65.mail.aol.com> Well, here we go again: "when in doubt (apparently not US) bomb 'em out," 100 years to the date of the "war to end all" (wars).  Shows the Deep State's in charge no matter who's elected.  Trump has made the first move on the devil's chessboard and just in time to salvage his low approval numbers!  I was really disappointed hearing Chomsky on DemocracyNow the other day--he and Amy were just fanning the flames of the reactionaries, giving Trump license to make coup against Assad, as if they were standing on the ground and know all the details.  I fear we are on the precipice of another conflagration.  So sad (pardon the trumpism)Midge O'Brien  -----Original Message-----From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss To: Szoke, Ron ; peace-discuss Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE Sent: Fri, Apr 7, 2017 7:18 amSubject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: URGENT: Trump launched U.S. airstrike in Syria/and who to blame? An obvious a propaganda piece against Syria, Iran and Russia.  Let’s examine the statements: First we have a paragraph making unsubstantiated claims of “who was behind the chemical attacks” vilifying Assad after accusing him of being the culprit, then we label it a “civil war” in Syria, convincing everyone that it is a civil war, rather than the terrorist groups supported by the Saudi’s and therefore the US.  We have some very positive statements within “such as we need to stop the killing, we need to support more refugees” etc.”    Then we have the latter two statements #3 and 4, calling for  “isolation of Syria at the UN, and sanctioning Russia and other nations enabling the Syrian government." These two statements provide the ultimate goal of the western powers and Israel. They proof our goal of “forget all diplomacy”, and they support more provocations against Russia, which hurt many people throughout Europe. Remember Orwell’s 1984? This is the way our government,  “ move on.org” represents the Democrat position, and others within our government, and the way they manipulate the public.  I suggest we do take on the Trump regime at this time, we should be out in the streets organizing and protesting, against any bombing of Syria, by our much hated President, who like every other President is merely a puppet of the elites/Deep State/establishment.  We are supposed to be an anti-war group of peace lovers, lets prove it, lets have a protest against war on Sunday, I’m open to time and place.  The U.S. cannot bomb its way to peace, but it does have an essential role to play in the world, including 1) welcoming increased numbers of refugees fleeing Syria, 2) fully supporting international relief efforts for those most affected by this brutal civil war, 3) engaging in multilateral diplomacy at the United Nations to isolate Syria, and 4) sanctioning Russia and other nations which enable the Assad regime. On Apr 6, 2017, at 20:21, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: From: "Ilya Sheyman, MoveOn.org Civic Action" Subject: URGENT: Trump launched U.S. airstrike in Syria Date: April 6, 2017 at 10:18:00 PM CDT To: Ron Szoke It's up to MoveOn members to lead a chorus of people in every corner of this nation saying NO to bombing the people of Syria. Dear MoveOn member, News is breaking that Donald Trump just ordered the launch of dozens of Tomahawk missiles to strike Syria.1 It's an illegal and unauthorized escalation that could have devastating consequences, killing innocent Syrians and costing the lives of U.S. service members. Things could spiral quickly in the coming hours, and it's up to MoveOn members to lead a chorus of progressives in every corner of this nation saying NO to bombing the people of Syria. Will you sign an emergency petition to Congress right now?  Congress must force consideration of an Authorization for Use of Military Force, and members of Congress should vote "no" and halt Trump's march toward war. Let's be clear: There's no doubt that Bashar Assad is a brutal dictator who has slaughtered his own people and is complicit in the use of chemical weapons. But this is no humanitarian mission. These are missiles ordered by a flailing president with plummeting approval ratings, trying to show how "tough" he can be. The result will likely be increased suffering for the Syrian people. And this unilateral U.S. attack could possibly even draw in Russia and Iran, which have been close partners of the Assad regime. The U.S. cannot bomb its way to peace, but it does have an essential role to play in the world, including 1) welcoming increased numbers of refugees fleeing Syria, 2) fully supporting international relief efforts for those most affected by this brutal civil war, 3) engaging in multilateral diplomacy at the United Nations to isolate Syria, and 4) sanctioning Russia and other nations which enable the Assad regime. But none of this will be possible unless we first halt Trump's march toward war.   Please click here to add your name to an emergency petition calling for Congress to act.  Thanks for all you do. –Ilya, Jo, Iram, Stephen, and the rest of the team Source: 1. "Dozens of U.S. Missiles Hit Air Base in Syria," The New York Times, April 6, 2017 https://act.moveon.org/go/9363?t=4&akid=180935.9794638.e4Brxn Want to support our work? The MoveOn community will work every moment, day by day and year by year, to resist Trump's agenda, contain the damage, defeat hate with love, and begin the process of swinging the nation's pendulum back toward sanity, decency, and the kind of future that we must never give up on. And to do it we need your ongoing support, now more than ever. Will you stand with us? Because you've saved your payment information with MoveOn, your donation will go straight through. Express Donate: $5 monthly Express Donate: $15 monthly Express Donate: $50 monthly Donate another amount monthly Or make a one-time gift Contributions to MoveOn.org Civic Action are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. This email was sent to Ron Szoke on April 7th, 2017. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 7 14:17:09 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:17:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The illegal bombing of Syria Message-ID: The bombing and destruction of Syria by the US, isn’t just about the oil, or even the gas pipelines passing through Syria. It is the goal of the US to control the oil in the region, and to splinter or partician Syria, making it easier to control, especially since we have been incapable of achieving regime change, under the Obama Administration. Then we go after Iran, a necessary second step to taking over Russia, a likely same scenario as Syria, regime change with another Yeltsin, to the detriment of the Russian people, or ……. Sanctions imposed against Syria, should be done according to “law”, by the UN after thorough investigation providing proof of guilt. That would be the civilized way of dealing with crimes, not “trial” by media, then bombing by the US, with sanctions against Russia who is assisting the Syrian Army, legally and according to International Law. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 7 15:08:46 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:08:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Protest the Trump bombing of Syria on Sunday Message-ID: Short notice, but I will be out there on the corner of Neil and Church St. at 2:00 pm or 11:00 am in front of Radio Maria. We cannot remain silent, or for those members of AWARE who have been protesting war for years, wait until the first of the month, to take action. We cannot allow the continued killings and destruction of the people of Syria, or elsewhere in the world, by our government. Please join me, and spread the word. From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 7 15:08:46 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:08:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Protest the Trump bombing of Syria on Sunday Message-ID: Short notice, but I will be out there on the corner of Neil and Church St. at 2:00 pm or 11:00 am in front of Radio Maria. We cannot remain silent, or for those members of AWARE who have been protesting war for years, wait until the first of the month, to take action. We cannot allow the continued killings and destruction of the people of Syria, or elsewhere in the world, by our government. Please join me, and spread the word. From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Apr 7 15:16:33 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:16:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Protest the Trump bombing of Syria on Sunday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7D84E57B-C170-4660-B926-B140D746BF5F@illinois.edu> Good for you. Sorry I’m hors de combat. > On Apr 7, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Short notice, but I will be out there on the corner of Neil and Church St. at 2:00 pm or 11:00 am in front of Radio Maria. > > We cannot remain silent, or for those members of AWARE who have been protesting war for years, wait until the first of the month, to take action. > We cannot allow the continued killings and destruction of the people of Syria, or elsewhere in the world, by our government. > > Please join me, and spread the word. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Apr 7 15:16:33 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:16:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Protest the Trump bombing of Syria on Sunday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7D84E57B-C170-4660-B926-B140D746BF5F@illinois.edu> Good for you. Sorry I’m hors de combat. > On Apr 7, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Short notice, but I will be out there on the corner of Neil and Church St. at 2:00 pm or 11:00 am in front of Radio Maria. > > We cannot remain silent, or for those members of AWARE who have been protesting war for years, wait until the first of the month, to take action. > We cannot allow the continued killings and destruction of the people of Syria, or elsewhere in the world, by our government. > > Please join me, and spread the word. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Apr 7 15:56:14 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:56:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump Bombing "Illegal" References: <828467937.86009.1491580187785.JavaMail.www-data@mw-press-ws-02.meltwater.com> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:53 AM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: FW: Trump Bombing "Illegal" Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Institute for Public Accuracy . [mailto:accuracy at accuracy.org] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:47 AM To: francis.a.boyle at gmail.com Subject: Trump Bombing "Illegal" [http://app.meltwaterpress.com/mpress/statistic.html?accessCode=7148434a0e2cf92a1c0cd5ca20f1de12cdcd7b40&distributionId=529748&contact=francis.a.boyle at gmail.com] FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle at illinois.edu Reuters reports: "Russia calls for emergency U.N. meeting after U.S. strikes on Syria." Trump claimed on Thursday: "There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council." Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He said today: "The U.S. strikes are a clear violation of international law and the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution. There is no evidence for any of Trump's claims." SAID ARIKAT, Arikat1 at aol.com, @SMArikat Washington correspondent for Al Quds daily, Arikat said today: "Contrary to what many are claiming, U.S. policies have directly or indirectly backed Al Qaeda or its offspring in Syria by training tens of thousands of fighters who have found their way into these groups. Also, in a sense, this attack isn't new because the U.S. has been bombing Syria, as well as Iraq, with thousands of strikes resulting in hundreds of deaths. Just last month, the U.S. bombed a mosque complex in Syria and Mosul in Iraq, killing hundreds of civilians." SAM HUSSEINI, samhusseini at gmail.com @samhusseini Communications director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, Husseini said today: "While many are claiming that Trump is being inconsistent since he had been saying the U.S. should focus on defeating ISIS, a closer examination shows a deeper pattern of remarkable consistency in U.S. policy toward Syria: When As'ad was losing the Syrian war, Obama refrained from strikes that would likely have taken him out in 2013. Now, when As'ad seems close to winning the war, Trump with a revamped NSC does a 180 on his previous pronouncements and attacks As'ad. "So, if you push away the personalities and rhetoric and focus on actual U.S. policy, it suggests that there is an underlying consistency on Syria, which is something that cannot possibly be stated publically: To prolong the Syrian war as much as possible. This would not at all be unprecedented. Through the 1980s, the U.S. backed both sides in the Iran-Iraq War, which resulted in horrific carnage." See Dahlia Wasfi's piece "Battling ISIS: Iran-Iraq war redux," which argued that "Obama’s unofficial strategy to fight ISIS may be that of Reagan’s for Iran and Iraq in the 1980s: a long, drawn-out war to strengthen U.S.-Israeli hegemony in the region." Husseini's recent pieces for CounterPunch include "Behind the Liberal Embrace of Trump" and "The Left Needs to Assess the Implications of the Flynn Scandal." Also see "Stated Goals vs Actual Goals." See recent pieces from Robert Parry of Consortium News: "NYT Retreats on 2013 Syria-Sarin Claims" and "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 April 7, 2017 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 16:05:51 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:05:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Protest the Trump bombing of Syria on Sunday In-Reply-To: <7D84E57B-C170-4660-B926-B140D746BF5F@illinois.edu> References: <7D84E57B-C170-4660-B926-B140D746BF5F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <6a28aa07-ae8b-4f29-9712-e489a7377c6e@gmail.com> Yes! I will happily join you - preferably at 11am, though I could do either time. On 4/7/17 10:16 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > Good for you. Sorry I’m hors de combat. > > >> On Apr 7, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Short notice, but I will be out there on the corner of Neil and Church St. at 2:00 pm or 11:00 am in front of Radio Maria. >> >> We cannot remain silent, or for those members of AWARE who have been protesting war for years, wait until the first of the month, to take action. >> We cannot allow the continued killings and destruction of the people of Syria, or elsewhere in the world, by our government. >> >> Please join me, and spread the word. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 7 16:34:43 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 16:34:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Protest the Trump bombing of Syria on Sunday In-Reply-To: <6a28aa07-ae8b-4f29-9712-e489a7377c6e@gmail.com> References: <7D84E57B-C170-4660-B926-B140D746BF5F@illinois.edu> <6a28aa07-ae8b-4f29-9712-e489a7377c6e@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you Stuart I will meet you at 11:00 in front of Radio Maria, and I will then go to the corner of Church and Neil St., and hopefully others will join as well at either or both. On Apr 7, 2017, at 09:05, Stuart Levy > wrote: Yes! I will happily join you - preferably at 11am, though I could do either time. On 4/7/17 10:16 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: Good for you. Sorry I’m hors de combat. On Apr 7, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Short notice, but I will be out there on the corner of Neil and Church St. at 2:00 pm or 11:00 am in front of Radio Maria. We cannot remain silent, or for those members of AWARE who have been protesting war for years, wait until the first of the month, to take action. We cannot allow the continued killings and destruction of the people of Syria, or elsewhere in the world, by our government. Please join me, and spread the word. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Apr 8 03:38:27 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 22:38:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Veterans for Peace condemns US actions in Syria Message-ID: <70921102-3624-410C-8011-4D31A39570CE@illinois.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Apr 8 12:48:41 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 12:48:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Veterans for Peace condemns US actions in Syria In-Reply-To: <70921102-3624-410C-8011-4D31A39570CE@illinois.edu> References: <70921102-3624-410C-8011-4D31A39570CE@illinois.edu> Message-ID: From: Institute for Public Accuracy . [mailto:accuracy at accuracy.org] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:47 AM To: francis.a.boyle at gmail.com Subject: Trump Bombing "Illegal" [http://app.meltwaterpress.com/mpress/statistic.html?accessCode=7148434a0e2cf92a1c0cd5ca20f1de12cdcd7b40&distributionId=529748&contact=francis.a.boyle at gmail.com] FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle at illinois.edu Reuters reports: "Russia calls for emergency U.N. meeting after U.S. strikes on Syria." Trump claimed on Thursday: "There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council." Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He said today: "The U.S. strikes are a clear violation of international law and the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution. There is no evidence for any of Trump's claims." SAID ARIKAT, Arikat1 at aol.com, @SMArikat Washington correspondent for Al Quds daily, Arikat said today: "Contrary to what many are claiming, U.S. policies have directly or indirectly backed Al Qaeda or its offspring in Syria by training tens of thousands of fighters who have found their way into these groups. Also, in a sense, this attack isn't new because the U.S. has been bombing Syria, as well as Iraq, with thousands of strikes resulting in hundreds of deaths. Just last month, the U.S. bombed a mosque complex in Syria and Mosul in Iraq, killing hundreds of civilians." SAM HUSSEINI, samhusseini at gmail.com @samhusseini Communications director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, Husseini said today: "While many are claiming that Trump is being inconsistent since he had been saying the U.S. should focus on defeating ISIS, a closer examination shows a deeper pattern of remarkable consistency in U.S. policy toward Syria: When As'ad was losing the Syrian war, Obama refrained from strikes that would likely have taken him out in 2013. Now, when As'ad seems close to winning the war, Trump with a revamped NSC does a 180 on his previous pronouncements and attacks As'ad. "So, if you push away the personalities and rhetoric and focus on actual U.S. policy, it suggests that there is an underlying consistency on Syria, which is something that cannot possibly be stated publically: To prolong the Syrian war as much as possible. This would not at all be unprecedented. Through the 1980s, the U.S. backed both sides in the Iran-Iraq War, which resulted in horrific carnage." See Dahlia Wasfi's piece "Battling ISIS: Iran-Iraq war redux," which argued that "Obama’s unofficial strategy to fight ISIS may be that of Reagan’s for Iran and Iraq in the 1980s: a long, drawn-out war to strengthen U.S.-Israeli hegemony in the region." Husseini's recent pieces for CounterPunch include "Behind the Liberal Embrace of Trump" and "The Left Needs to Assess the Implications of the Flynn Scandal." Also see "Stated Goals vs Actual Goals." See recent pieces from Robert Parry of Consortium News: "NYT Retreats on 2013 Syria-Sarin Claims" and "Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 April 7, 2017 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org Disclaimer: This email was sent to francis.a.boyle at gmail.com Institute for Public Accuracy, 980 National Press Building, Washington, DC, 20045, United States Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:38 PM To: Peace-discuss AWARE Cc: peace Subject: [Peace] Veterans for Peace condemns US actions in Syria https://www.veteransforpeace.org/our-work/position-statements/veterans-peace-condemns-us-actions-syria _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Apr 8 12:51:55 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 12:51:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Veterans for Peace condemns US actions in Syria In-Reply-To: <70921102-3624-410C-8011-4D31A39570CE@illinois.edu> References: <70921102-3624-410C-8011-4D31A39570CE@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:support at lists.aals.org] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 7:00 PM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - American Unlimited Imperialism:Syria | Countercurrents http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/04/07/american-unlimited-imperialismsyria/ Historically, this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to near genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley's military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America's economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the "open door" policy. But over the next four decades America's aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the "Pacific" would ineluctably pave the way for Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America's precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched and menaced by the Republican Bush Jr. administration and now the Democratic Obama administration are threatening to set off World War III. Ditto for Trump. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled "humanitarian intervention"/responsibility to protect. Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of two-thirds of the world's hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundament and energizer of the global economic system - oil and gas. The Bush Jr./ Obama administrations have already targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia for further conquest or domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation. In this regard, the Bush Jr. administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon's Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. Libya and the Libyans became the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the Obama administration. They will not be the last. This current bout of U.S. imperialism is what my teacher, mentor and friend Hans Morgenthau denominated "unlimited imperialism" in his seminal work Politics Among Nations (4th ed. 1968, at 52-53): "The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination-a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror's lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind... " It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include " Palestine, Palestinians and International Law" (2003), and " The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law" (2010). Share this: ________________________________ View post online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/st/?post=40201&anc=p40201#p40201 View mailing list online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/si/?topic=355 Start new thread via email: mailto:SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list: https://connect.aals.org/o/fo/?topic=355 Manage your subscription: https://connect.aals.org/p/us/to/ This email has been sent to: fboyle at illinois.edu This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 ________________________________ Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:38 PM To: Peace-discuss AWARE Cc: peace Subject: [Peace] Veterans for Peace condemns US actions in Syria https://www.veteransforpeace.org/our-work/position-statements/veterans-peace-condemns-us-actions-syria _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Apr 8 13:22:47 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:22:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Syria Attack: Quick way to contact your senators and rep References: <3307171682.1675387545@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: Please complete the petition……we need to stop the killing and utilize our tax dollars for social services in the US. [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/RA_Header.jpg] [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/donate3bucks200b.png] No more tax dollars for war in Syria! [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/syriacongressEMAIL.jpg] [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 It’s urgent that your senators and representative in Congress hear directly from you about the U.S. missile attack on Syria. As a constituent, you can quickly send a message to all three of them by clicking here. The missile attack puts the United States and Russia -- the world’s two nuclear superpowers -- on a collision course while threatening to make the Syrian conflict even more deadly. Yet many members of Congress have been praising the attack. In a democracy, when the people lead, the leaders can be compelled to follow. But that can only happen if we assert ourselves. Fifty years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. denounced what he called “the madness of militarism.” Today, that madness is all too prevalent. Please click here to tell your senators and representative that you favor a complete cutoff of funding for U.S. military actions in Syria. The elected officials who are supposed to represent you in Congress must hear from you. Links below go to key information and astute analysis in the aftermath of the missile attack on Syria. After emailing Congress, please use the tools on the next webpage to share this urgent action 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, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others. Background: >> Robert Parry, Consortium News: “Trump’s ‘Wag the Dog’ Moment” >> Greg Grandin, The Nation: “The Real Targets of Trump’s Strike Were His Domestic Critics” >> Marjorie Cohn, Truthout: “Donald Trump’s War Crimes” >> Jim Naureckas, FAIR.org: “The Essential Pundit Take: ‘Trump Became President’ by Bombing Syria” >> Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept: “The Spoils of War: Trump Lavished With Media and Bipartisan Praise for Bombing Syria” >> Adam Johnson, FAIR.org: “Five Top Papers Run 18 Opinion Pieces Praising Syria Strikes – Zero Are Critical” 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 Sat Apr 8 15:07:38 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 10:07:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Veterans for Peace condemns US actions in Syria In-Reply-To: <70921102-3624-410C-8011-4D31A39570CE@illinois.edu> References: <70921102-3624-410C-8011-4D31A39570CE@illinois.edu> Message-ID: On 4/7/17 10:38 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > https://www.veteransforpeace.org/our-work/position-statements/veterans-peace-condemns-us-actions-syria Thank you, Carl. This is a good statement. Karen Aram, what do you think about offering copies of this when we are flyering downtown tomorrow (though most of us aren't veterans, we /are/ for peace)? Here's the text of the Veterans for Peace statement - Veterans For Peace Condemns U.S. Actions In Syria Veterans For Peace condemns the illegal U.S. attack in Syria. We call on the Trump Administration to immediately end all military actions in Syria and to begin intense U.S. diplomatic efforts to end the conflict in the region. We call on our members and all those who want an end to U.S. wars to contact the President and Congress, to meet and talk to people about peaceful means to end the war in Syria and hit the streets to make our resistance to war visible. *Call the White House 202-456-1111 and your Senators and Congressional Representatives 202-224-3121 and tell them that military action only increases the dangers and intensifies the humanitarian catastrophe in the region.* Veterans For Peace mourns the deaths of those recently killed in the chemical attack and the hundreds of thousands of lives that have passed over the last six years of this conflict. The physical effects of a chemical attack and the way it kills is horrendous. The president stated, “No child should ever suffer such horror.” But the ongoing war itself is horrific with many more children dying due to countless attacks by all forces involved, disease, and other war related crises. The madness of this multi-sided war must end. We demand the Trump administration remove all military operations within Syria and to stop flooding the region with arms sales. The United States is not innocent in the death of over 400,000 people in Syria and across the region since 2011. For more than two decades, the U.S. has been the most powerful destabilizing factor in the region. For the last few years, the U.S. has and continues to support and conduct military operations within the borders of Syria with devastating effects, including the bombing and killing of civilians. Further, the 1991 U.S. led invasion of Iraq, the no-fly zones led by U.S. forces, the war in Afghanistan and the second invasion of Iraq are twenty-six years of continuous U.S. military operations. The cumulative effects of U.S. war-making, decisions made as part of the occupation of Iraq and the subsequent rise of ISIL are the most impactful factors in creating the refugee crisis and the regional destabilization the president referred to in his statement. It should be clear after more than a generation of war that more war and violence as witnessed in last night’s attacks will not bring an end to the killing and suffering. There are no positive effects coming out of U.S. involvement in Syria and it only further contributes to the death and destruction of the Syrian people. We call on the President to stop ratcheting up tension at home and around the world. The “peace and harmony” he calls for cannot prevail through cycles of violence. VFP has learned that there are various protests across the country today and tomorrow. We've assembled this list , to the best of our ability. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 3dceb4258f24e7d2e82efffb82f8bf1b_f2350.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 22961 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Apr 8 15:36:26 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 15:36:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Veterans for Peace condemns US actions in Syria In-Reply-To: References: <70921102-3624-410C-8011-4D31A39570CE@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I was going to make copies of last weeks flyers that Carl created, but this is more up to date and relevant. If you can create copies of this one, I’m all for it. I’ve worked with Veterans for peace in the past, not this particular group, but others in the peace movement during the seventies. They welcomed non Vets assistance in ending war and bringing home the troops. They welcomed that we weren’t condemning them, but our government for that which occurred in S.E. Asia. See you at 10:30 or 11:00 in front of “Radio Maria Restaurant,” or inside “Kapi Coffee”? Then some of us will be on the corner of Church and Neil St. at 2:00pm. On Apr 8, 2017, at 08:07, Stuart Levy > wrote: On 4/7/17 10:38 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: https://www.veteransforpeace.org/our-work/position-statements/veterans-peace-condemns-us-actions-syria Thank you, Carl. This is a good statement. Karen Aram, what do you think about offering copies of this when we are flyering downtown tomorrow (though most of us aren't veterans, we are for peace)? Here's the text of the Veterans for Peace statement - Veterans For Peace Condemns U.S. Actions In Syria <3dceb4258f24e7d2e82efffb82f8bf1b_f2350.jpg> Veterans For Peace condemns the illegal U.S. attack in Syria. We call on the Trump Administration to immediately end all military actions in Syria and to begin intense U.S. diplomatic efforts to end the conflict in the region. We call on our members and all those who want an end to U.S. wars to contact the President and Congress, to meet and talk to people about peaceful means to end the war in Syria and hit the streets to make our resistance to war visible. Call the White House 202-456-1111 and your Senators and Congressional Representatives 202-224-3121 and tell them that military action only increases the dangers and intensifies the humanitarian catastrophe in the region. Veterans For Peace mourns the deaths of those recently killed in the chemical attack and the hundreds of thousands of lives that have passed over the last six years of this conflict. The physical effects of a chemical attack and the way it kills is horrendous. The president stated, “No child should ever suffer such horror.” But the ongoing war itself is horrific with many more children dying due to countless attacks by all forces involved, disease, and other war related crises. The madness of this multi-sided war must end. We demand the Trump administration remove all military operations within Syria and to stop flooding the region with arms sales. The United States is not innocent in the death of over 400,000 people in Syria and across the region since 2011. For more than two decades, the U.S. has been the most powerful destabilizing factor in the region. For the last few years, the U.S. has and continues to support and conduct military operations within the borders of Syria with devastating effects, including the bombing and killing of civilians. Further, the 1991 U.S. led invasion of Iraq, the no-fly zones led by U.S. forces, the war in Afghanistan and the second invasion of Iraq are twenty-six years of continuous U.S. military operations. The cumulative effects of U.S. war-making, decisions made as part of the occupation of Iraq and the subsequent rise of ISIL are the most impactful factors in creating the refugee crisis and the regional destabilization the president referred to in his statement. It should be clear after more than a generation of war that more war and violence as witnessed in last night’s attacks will not bring an end to the killing and suffering. There are no positive effects coming out of U.S. involvement in Syria and it only further contributes to the death and destruction of the Syrian people. We call on the President to stop ratcheting up tension at home and around the world. The “peace and harmony” he calls for cannot prevail through cycles of violence. VFP has learned that there are various protests across the country today and tomorrow. We've assembled this list, to the best of our ability. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Apr 9 11:56:32 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:56:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria Message-ID: Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria ________________________________ [syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg] WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and covert military action by the U.S. Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists covering the war. ________________________________ Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a revived antiwar movement Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org @GreenPartyUS For Immediate Release: Saturday, April 8, 2017 Contact: Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614, scott at gp.org ________________________________ Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, especially children, who are fleeing the war. Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb the latters' strongholds in Iraq. Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a wider regional or global military confrontation. The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their country's civil war. The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the U.S. faces no threat from other countries. MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191 @GreenPartyUS Green candidate database and campaign information News Center Ballot Access Green Papers Google+ Twitter Livestream YouTube Facebook Green merchandise Green Pages: The official publication of record of the Green Party of the United States ~ END ~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Apr 9 11:56:32 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:56:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria Message-ID: Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria ________________________________ [syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg] WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and covert military action by the U.S. Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists covering the war. ________________________________ Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a revived antiwar movement Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org @GreenPartyUS For Immediate Release: Saturday, April 8, 2017 Contact: Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614, scott at gp.org ________________________________ Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, especially children, who are fleeing the war. Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb the latters' strongholds in Iraq. Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a wider regional or global military confrontation. The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their country's civil war. The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the U.S. faces no threat from other countries. MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191 @GreenPartyUS Green candidate database and campaign information News Center Ballot Access Green Papers Google+ Twitter Livestream YouTube Facebook Green merchandise Green Pages: The official publication of record of the Green Party of the United States ~ END ~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Apr 9 13:05:32 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:05:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Andrew, you must be another “pretender” at being a socialist, or simply another pawn of the mainstream media and the USG. We are bombing and destroying a sovereign nation, this could lead to all out war with Russia, if nothing else. The majority of killings and death taking place everywhere in the Middle East are due to the US attempts at hegemony, with support from our allies. The most obvious goals have and continue to be implementation of regime change, and control of other nations resources. The US has been supporting those so called “rebels,” or terrorists, with weapons and training, and now air strikes. What is pathetic is liberal insensitivity to the horrors we are inflicting on others, what is pathetic is the lack of historical perspective, what is pathetic is the ignoring of all laws, and a rush to judgement, killing others and then using the “oops, we made a mistake,” years later, as have both Democrats and Republicans. On Apr 9, 2017, at 05:45, Andrew Pollack > wrote: Pathetic denial of Syrian agency, i.e. not a word of support for the masses organizing and fighting every day against Assad and Daesh. On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria ________________________________ [syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg] WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and covert military action by the U.S. Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists covering the war. ________________________________ Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a revived antiwar movement Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org @GreenPartyUS For Immediate Release: Saturday, April 8, 2017 Contact: Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614, scott at gp.org ________________________________ Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, especially children, who are fleeing the war. Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb the latters' strongholds in Iraq. Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a wider regional or global military confrontation. The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their country's civil war. The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the U.S. faces no threat from other countries. MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191 @GreenPartyUS Green candidate database and campaign information News Center Ballot Access Green Papers Google+ Twitter Livestream YouTube Facebook Green merchandise Green Pages: The official publication of record of the Green Party of the United States ~ END ~ _______________________________________________ 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/acpollack2%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: acpollack2 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Apr 9 13:05:32 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:05:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Andrew, you must be another “pretender” at being a socialist, or simply another pawn of the mainstream media and the USG. We are bombing and destroying a sovereign nation, this could lead to all out war with Russia, if nothing else. The majority of killings and death taking place everywhere in the Middle East are due to the US attempts at hegemony, with support from our allies. The most obvious goals have and continue to be implementation of regime change, and control of other nations resources. The US has been supporting those so called “rebels,” or terrorists, with weapons and training, and now air strikes. What is pathetic is liberal insensitivity to the horrors we are inflicting on others, what is pathetic is the lack of historical perspective, what is pathetic is the ignoring of all laws, and a rush to judgement, killing others and then using the “oops, we made a mistake,” years later, as have both Democrats and Republicans. On Apr 9, 2017, at 05:45, Andrew Pollack > wrote: Pathetic denial of Syrian agency, i.e. not a word of support for the masses organizing and fighting every day against Assad and Daesh. On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria ________________________________ [syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg] WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and covert military action by the U.S. Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists covering the war. ________________________________ Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a revived antiwar movement Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org @GreenPartyUS For Immediate Release: Saturday, April 8, 2017 Contact: Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614, scott at gp.org ________________________________ Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, especially children, who are fleeing the war. Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb the latters' strongholds in Iraq. Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a wider regional or global military confrontation. The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their country's civil war. The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the U.S. faces no threat from other countries. MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191 @GreenPartyUS Green candidate database and campaign information News Center Ballot Access Green Papers Google+ Twitter Livestream YouTube Facebook Green merchandise Green Pages: The official publication of record of the Green Party of the United States ~ END ~ _______________________________________________ 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/acpollack2%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: acpollack2 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Apr 9 13:25:49 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:25:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Letter to the Editor: Lessons of World War I for Today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 8:22 AM To: 'Dan Corkery' Subject: Letter to the Editor: Lessons of World War I for Today Importance: High In my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press: 1999) I analyzed the history of American Foreign Policy from the Spanish American War of 1898 through the First World War and the establishment of the League of Nations. There was no good reason for the United States of America to have entered that war. All of Our Men were murdered for nothing. The same thing happened two generations later during the Vietnam War. We must cast a jaundiced eye upon all the warmongering coming out of Washington DC and on the mainstream news media today. Otherwise history will repeat itself with yet another generation of American Men and Women murdered for nothing. Francis A. Boyle Professor of 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) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Apr 9 14:24:38 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:24:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reminder: Message-ID: Please join Stuart and I, plus others in downtown Champaign, in front of “Radio Maria Restaurant” at 11:00 am, and/or 2:00 pm at the Corner of Church and Neil in our protest on behalf of AWARE, "anti-war, anti-racism” against the recent bombing of Syria, by the USG. A very dangerous first step to continued and perpetual war in the Middle East, regime change in Syria, and potential war with Russia. There is no evidence that the Syrian government is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on it’s people, no investigation has taken place, and when we accused the Syrian government in 2013 of using chemical weapons, it was later proven untrue. Our continued breaking of our own laws, International laws, and yes even God’s laws, supported by all religions, that of “thou shalt not kill.” This criminality needs to be disputed. We need to be loud and clear, those of us, within the nation most responsible for the continuing atrocities, if we are not to be considered complicit, by historians, and generations to come. If you don’t reside in Champaign, Illinois then get involved in your community opposing continued war…… From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Apr 9 14:24:38 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:24:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reminder: Message-ID: Please join Stuart and I, plus others in downtown Champaign, in front of “Radio Maria Restaurant” at 11:00 am, and/or 2:00 pm at the Corner of Church and Neil in our protest on behalf of AWARE, "anti-war, anti-racism” against the recent bombing of Syria, by the USG. A very dangerous first step to continued and perpetual war in the Middle East, regime change in Syria, and potential war with Russia. There is no evidence that the Syrian government is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on it’s people, no investigation has taken place, and when we accused the Syrian government in 2013 of using chemical weapons, it was later proven untrue. Our continued breaking of our own laws, International laws, and yes even God’s laws, supported by all religions, that of “thou shalt not kill.” This criminality needs to be disputed. We need to be loud and clear, those of us, within the nation most responsible for the continuing atrocities, if we are not to be considered complicit, by historians, and generations to come. If you don’t reside in Champaign, Illinois then get involved in your community opposing continued war…… From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Apr 9 14:27:28 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:27:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reminder: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Subject: Letter to the Editor: Lessons of World War I for Today Importance: High In my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press: 1999) I analyzed the history of American Foreign Policy from the Spanish American War of 1898 through the First World War and the establishment of the League of Nations. There was no good reason for the United States of America to have entered that war. All of Our Men were murdered for nothing. The same thing happened two generations later during the Vietnam War. We must cast a jaundiced eye upon all the warmongering coming out of Washington DC and on the mainstream news media today. Otherwise history will repeat itself with yet another generation of American Men and Women murdered for nothing. Francis A. Boyle Professor of 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) 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: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 9:25 AM To: Peace-discuss List ; Peace-discuss AWARE ; Prairie Green Party ; peace ; ufpj-activist Subject: [Peace] Reminder: Please join Stuart and I, plus others in downtown Champaign, in front of “Radio Maria Restaurant” at 11:00 am, and/or 2:00 pm at the Corner of Church and Neil in our protest on behalf of AWARE, "anti-war, anti-racism” against the recent bombing of Syria, by the USG. A very dangerous first step to continued and perpetual war in the Middle East, regime change in Syria, and potential war with Russia. There is no evidence that the Syrian government is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on it’s people, no investigation has taken place, and when we accused the Syrian government in 2013 of using chemical weapons, it was later proven untrue. Our continued breaking of our own laws, International laws, and yes even God’s laws, supported by all religions, that of “thou shalt not kill.” This criminality needs to be disputed. We need to be loud and clear, those of us, within the nation most responsible for the continuing atrocities, if we are not to be considered complicit, by historians, and generations to come. If you don’t reside in Champaign, Illinois then get involved in your community opposing continued war…… _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Apr 9 14:27:28 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:27:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reminder: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Subject: Letter to the Editor: Lessons of World War I for Today Importance: High In my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press: 1999) I analyzed the history of American Foreign Policy from the Spanish American War of 1898 through the First World War and the establishment of the League of Nations. There was no good reason for the United States of America to have entered that war. All of Our Men were murdered for nothing. The same thing happened two generations later during the Vietnam War. We must cast a jaundiced eye upon all the warmongering coming out of Washington DC and on the mainstream news media today. Otherwise history will repeat itself with yet another generation of American Men and Women murdered for nothing. Francis A. Boyle Professor of 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) 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: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 9:25 AM To: Peace-discuss List ; Peace-discuss AWARE ; Prairie Green Party ; peace ; ufpj-activist Subject: [Peace] Reminder: Please join Stuart and I, plus others in downtown Champaign, in front of “Radio Maria Restaurant” at 11:00 am, and/or 2:00 pm at the Corner of Church and Neil in our protest on behalf of AWARE, "anti-war, anti-racism” against the recent bombing of Syria, by the USG. A very dangerous first step to continued and perpetual war in the Middle East, regime change in Syria, and potential war with Russia. There is no evidence that the Syrian government is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on it’s people, no investigation has taken place, and when we accused the Syrian government in 2013 of using chemical weapons, it was later proven untrue. Our continued breaking of our own laws, International laws, and yes even God’s laws, supported by all religions, that of “thou shalt not kill.” This criminality needs to be disputed. We need to be loud and clear, those of us, within the nation most responsible for the continuing atrocities, if we are not to be considered complicit, by historians, and generations to come. If you don’t reside in Champaign, Illinois then get involved in your community opposing continued war…… _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Apr 9 14:39:22 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:39:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A day behind everyone else. But it's a start. We can say that the Green Party tried to show up in some way. Now how about if the Green Party would actually try to organize some activity, any kind of activity, against Trump's action? There's nothing in the Green Party statement that asks anyone who supports the Green Party to do anything. It's all about, the Green Party calls for this, the Green Party calls for that, the Green Party calls for dismantling of the military industrial complex, the Green Party calls for unicorns and ponies, all children under the age of sixteen, are now sixteen. Compare and contrast: in less than twenty-four hours, Just Foreign Policy rallied 7,419 people to defend the War Powers Resolution. And this was our *second* alert on the topic since Trump's strike. Join @RepPeterDeFazio, @RepMarkPocan: tell @realDonaldTrump he has 48 hours to report on Syria http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/join-reppeterdefazio?r_by=941832 And we're just one little NGO, one of many working on this front - we don't advertise ourselves to be a national political party. Also: how come the Green Party is still silent on U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war and blockade in Yemen? The Green Party has produced a long statement. It's not like they didn't have room to talk about U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Here was a perfect opportunity to mention it: "Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians." "Mad Dog" Mattis' proposal to attack Hodeida and push Yemen into famine is still reportedly in the inbox of McMaster and Trump's national security team. It sure would be great if the Green Party would speak up on this. Tell @realDonaldTrump: Come to Congress Before You Attack Hodeida http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/help-repmarkpocan-justinamas?r_by=1135580 Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria > ------------------------------ > > *[image: syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg]* > > *WASHINGTON, D.C.* -- The *Green Party of the United States* strongly > condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a > Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and > covert military action by the U.S. > > Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial > investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores > of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. > The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is > responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists > covering the war. > ------------------------------ > > *Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert > military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian > casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides > and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians* > > *An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations > are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict* > > *Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a > revived antiwar movement* > > *Green Party of the United States* > http://www.gp.org > @GreenPartyUS > > *For Immediate Release:* > Saturday, April 8, 2017 > > *Contact:* > Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614 <(202)%20904-7614>, > scott at gp.org > ------------------------------ > > Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called > for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on > another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. > violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. > > The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, > especially children, who are fleeing the war. > > Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand > the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the > context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, > a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that > have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb > the latters' strongholds in Iraq. > > Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency > negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest > in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a > wider regional or global military confrontation. > > The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which > is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes > bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. > > In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way > defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible > for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of > civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war > crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead > to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in > Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. > > The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who > are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance > towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- > offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile > strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. > > Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of > reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. > Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his > protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the > Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on > Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These > crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration > proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their > country's civil war. > > The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes > military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars > for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, > and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump > administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage > against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. > > The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' > services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that > the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the > U.S. faces no threat from other countries. > > > *MORE INFORMATION* > > Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org > 202-319-7191 <(202)%20319-7191> > @GreenPartyUS > > Green candidate database and campaign information > > News Center > Ballot Access > Green Papers > Google+ > Twitter > Livestream > YouTube > Facebook > Green merchandise > > Green Pages: The official publication of > record of the Green Party of the United States > > > *~ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Apr 9 15:29:26 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:29:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Michael for your worthwhile insight, I agree we aren’t an organization with the funds or structure as of yet, to make immediate press releases, we are also egalitarian in that we don’t want a couple people speaking on behalf of the whole group. I am a Green within a small community and we will be protesting today at a couple locations in our town of Champaign, Illinois. I have also called for others locally and across the nation to join, or organize against the recent bombing of Syria. At this point we are demonstrating not on behalf of the Greens but on behalf of AWARE, an anti-war group, of which most if not all of our members are also Greens. Robert Naiman’s disdain for the Green Party, as well as all competitors of the Democrats is well known to most of us. Thus he will vilify us every chance he gets. More people now see, the Democrat Party for what it is, opportunists jumping on every opportunity to promote themselves while at the same time supporting foreign wars. The Republican Party isn’t even worth a line of discussion, being the bad cop vs. the Democrats. On Apr 9, 2017, at 08:14, Mitchel Cohen > wrote: Thank you, Karen, for your statement on Syria, which I've forwarded to some lists I coordinate, particularly the ActionGreens listserve (which is a private list of activists concerned with Green (and other) issues, and is not an official Green Party list). As to Robert Naiman's criticism, while I share his sentiment that the Green Party statement could and should be stronger and more expansive, the GP is not set up to issue immediate responses to whatever matter is before us. There usually needs to be discussion and some sort of decision first. Yes, I find that frustrating. Nor do I like (and never have liked) the tendency of many Left groups as well as the Green Party to "call on" this or that to happen, rather than to organize to make it happen. We don't need "Resolutionary Socialism", "sending a message," "raising the consciousness of others," and so forth. My guiding principle here is best articulated oh so sharply in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is all about the Left and worth re-showing every year. Unicorns, indeed! But the Greens don't have (and don't want to have) one person who is empowered to make those decisions for the party as a whole. We're simply not set up that way, where one or two individuals could make decisions for the entire Party and write press releases without wide consultation first. Meanwhile, the GP in NYC has indeed initiated quite a few antiwar demonstrations in the last few months, and its members have participated in hundreds of'm ... including efforts to get anti-war issues included in the general "No Ban, No Wall" protests -- as have rank-and-file Green members across the country. No Ban, No Wall, No War ! I agree that the sentence about Mosul and Saudi Arabia should have been included. We need to work together. Mitchel Cohen Brooklyn Greens/Green Party At 10:39 AM 4/9/2017, Robert Naiman wrote: A day behind everyone else. But it's a start. We can say that the Green Party tried to show up in some way.  Now how about if the Green Party would actually try to organize some activity, any kind of activity, against Trump's action? There's nothing in the Green Party statement that asks anyone who supports the Green Party to do anything. It's all about, the Green Party calls for this, the Green Party calls for that, the Green Party calls for dismantling of the military industrial complex, the Green Party calls for unicorns and ponies, all children under the age of sixteen, are now sixteen. Compare and contrast: in less than twenty-four hours, Just Foreign Policy rallied 7,419 people to defend the War Powers Resolution. And this was our second alert on the topic since Trump's strike. Join @RepPeterDeFazio, @RepMarkPocan: tell @realDonaldTrump he has 48 hours to report on Syria http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/join-reppeterdefazio?r_by=941832 And we're just one little NGO, one of many working on this front - we don't advertise ourselves to be a national political party. Also: how come the Green Party is still silent on U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war and blockade in Yemen? The Green Party has produced a long statement. It's not like they didn't have room to talk about U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Here was a perfect opportunity to mention it: "Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians." "Mad Dog" Mattis' proposal to attack Hodeida and push Yemen into famine is still reportedly in the inbox of McMaster and Trump's national security team. It sure would be great if the Green Party would speak up on this. Tell @realDonaldTrump: Come to Congress Before You Attack Hodeida http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/help-repmarkpocan-justinamas?r_by=1135580 Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria ________________________________ [syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg] WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and covert military action by the U.S. Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists covering the war. ________________________________ Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a revived antiwar movement Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org @GreenPartyUS For Immediate Release: Saturday, April 8, 2017 Contact: Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614, scott at gp.org ________________________________ Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, especially children, who are fleeing the war. Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb the latters' strongholds in Iraq. Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a wider regional or global military confrontation. The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their country's civil war. The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the U.S. faces no threat from other countries. MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191 @GreenPartyUS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Apr 9 15:29:26 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:29:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Michael for your worthwhile insight, I agree we aren’t an organization with the funds or structure as of yet, to make immediate press releases, we are also egalitarian in that we don’t want a couple people speaking on behalf of the whole group. I am a Green within a small community and we will be protesting today at a couple locations in our town of Champaign, Illinois. I have also called for others locally and across the nation to join, or organize against the recent bombing of Syria. At this point we are demonstrating not on behalf of the Greens but on behalf of AWARE, an anti-war group, of which most if not all of our members are also Greens. Robert Naiman’s disdain for the Green Party, as well as all competitors of the Democrats is well known to most of us. Thus he will vilify us every chance he gets. More people now see, the Democrat Party for what it is, opportunists jumping on every opportunity to promote themselves while at the same time supporting foreign wars. The Republican Party isn’t even worth a line of discussion, being the bad cop vs. the Democrats. On Apr 9, 2017, at 08:14, Mitchel Cohen > wrote: Thank you, Karen, for your statement on Syria, which I've forwarded to some lists I coordinate, particularly the ActionGreens listserve (which is a private list of activists concerned with Green (and other) issues, and is not an official Green Party list). As to Robert Naiman's criticism, while I share his sentiment that the Green Party statement could and should be stronger and more expansive, the GP is not set up to issue immediate responses to whatever matter is before us. There usually needs to be discussion and some sort of decision first. Yes, I find that frustrating. Nor do I like (and never have liked) the tendency of many Left groups as well as the Green Party to "call on" this or that to happen, rather than to organize to make it happen. We don't need "Resolutionary Socialism", "sending a message," "raising the consciousness of others," and so forth. My guiding principle here is best articulated oh so sharply in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is all about the Left and worth re-showing every year. Unicorns, indeed! But the Greens don't have (and don't want to have) one person who is empowered to make those decisions for the party as a whole. We're simply not set up that way, where one or two individuals could make decisions for the entire Party and write press releases without wide consultation first. Meanwhile, the GP in NYC has indeed initiated quite a few antiwar demonstrations in the last few months, and its members have participated in hundreds of'm ... including efforts to get anti-war issues included in the general "No Ban, No Wall" protests -- as have rank-and-file Green members across the country. No Ban, No Wall, No War ! I agree that the sentence about Mosul and Saudi Arabia should have been included. We need to work together. Mitchel Cohen Brooklyn Greens/Green Party At 10:39 AM 4/9/2017, Robert Naiman wrote: A day behind everyone else. But it's a start. We can say that the Green Party tried to show up in some way.  Now how about if the Green Party would actually try to organize some activity, any kind of activity, against Trump's action? There's nothing in the Green Party statement that asks anyone who supports the Green Party to do anything. It's all about, the Green Party calls for this, the Green Party calls for that, the Green Party calls for dismantling of the military industrial complex, the Green Party calls for unicorns and ponies, all children under the age of sixteen, are now sixteen. Compare and contrast: in less than twenty-four hours, Just Foreign Policy rallied 7,419 people to defend the War Powers Resolution. And this was our second alert on the topic since Trump's strike. Join @RepPeterDeFazio, @RepMarkPocan: tell @realDonaldTrump he has 48 hours to report on Syria http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/join-reppeterdefazio?r_by=941832 And we're just one little NGO, one of many working on this front - we don't advertise ourselves to be a national political party. Also: how come the Green Party is still silent on U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war and blockade in Yemen? The Green Party has produced a long statement. It's not like they didn't have room to talk about U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Here was a perfect opportunity to mention it: "Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians." "Mad Dog" Mattis' proposal to attack Hodeida and push Yemen into famine is still reportedly in the inbox of McMaster and Trump's national security team. It sure would be great if the Green Party would speak up on this. Tell @realDonaldTrump: Come to Congress Before You Attack Hodeida http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/help-repmarkpocan-justinamas?r_by=1135580 Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria ________________________________ [syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg] WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and covert military action by the U.S. Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists covering the war. ________________________________ Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a revived antiwar movement Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org @GreenPartyUS For Immediate Release: Saturday, April 8, 2017 Contact: Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614, scott at gp.org ________________________________ Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, especially children, who are fleeing the war. Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb the latters' strongholds in Iraq. Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a wider regional or global military confrontation. The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their country's civil war. The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the U.S. faces no threat from other countries. MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191 @GreenPartyUS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Apr 9 15:41:46 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:41:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah, there we were all doing our best to get the Urbana City Council to re-affirm Urbana as a Sanctuary City for the Undocumented. And Naiman shows up to waste all of our time and distract attention by arguing who should become the next Chair of the DNC. Truly pathetic! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 10:29 AM To: Mitchel Cohen Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss AWARE ; Green Party of the United States ; ufpj-activist ; actiongreens at yahoogroups.com; Scott McLarty ; peace ; Prairie Green Party ; medea benjamin ; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace] [ufpj-activist] [Peace-discuss] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria Thank you Michael for your worthwhile insight, I agree we aren’t an organization with the funds or structure as of yet, to make immediate press releases, we are also egalitarian in that we don’t want a couple people speaking on behalf of the whole group. I am a Green within a small community and we will be protesting today at a couple locations in our town of Champaign, Illinois. I have also called for others locally and across the nation to join, or organize against the recent bombing of Syria. At this point we are demonstrating not on behalf of the Greens but on behalf of AWARE, an anti-war group, of which most if not all of our members are also Greens. Robert Naiman’s disdain for the Green Party, as well as all competitors of the Democrats is well known to most of us. Thus he will vilify us every chance he gets. More people now see, the Democrat Party for what it is, opportunists jumping on every opportunity to promote themselves while at the same time supporting foreign wars. The Republican Party isn’t even worth a line of discussion, being the bad cop vs. the Democrats. On Apr 9, 2017, at 08:14, Mitchel Cohen > wrote: Thank you, Karen, for your statement on Syria, which I've forwarded to some lists I coordinate, particularly the ActionGreens listserve (which is a private list of activists concerned with Green (and other) issues, and is not an official Green Party list). As to Robert Naiman's criticism, while I share his sentiment that the Green Party statement could and should be stronger and more expansive, the GP is not set up to issue immediate responses to whatever matter is before us. There usually needs to be discussion and some sort of decision first. Yes, I find that frustrating. Nor do I like (and never have liked) the tendency of many Left groups as well as the Green Party to "call on" this or that to happen, rather than to organize to make it happen. We don't need "Resolutionary Socialism", "sending a message," "raising the consciousness of others," and so forth. My guiding principle here is best articulated oh so sharply in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is all about the Left and worth re-showing every year. Unicorns, indeed! But the Greens don't have (and don't want to have) one person who is empowered to make those decisions for the party as a whole. We're simply not set up that way, where one or two individuals could make decisions for the entire Party and write press releases without wide consultation first. Meanwhile, the GP in NYC has indeed initiated quite a few antiwar demonstrations in the last few months, and its members have participated in hundreds of'm ... including efforts to get anti-war issues included in the general "No Ban, No Wall" protests -- as have rank-and-file Green members across the country. No Ban, No Wall, No War ! I agree that the sentence about Mosul and Saudi Arabia should have been included. We need to work together. Mitchel Cohen Brooklyn Greens/Green Party At 10:39 AM 4/9/2017, Robert Naiman wrote: A day behind everyone else. But it's a start. We can say that the Green Party tried to show up in some way.  Now how about if the Green Party would actually try to organize some activity, any kind of activity, against Trump's action? There's nothing in the Green Party statement that asks anyone who supports the Green Party to do anything. It's all about, the Green Party calls for this, the Green Party calls for that, the Green Party calls for dismantling of the military industrial complex, the Green Party calls for unicorns and ponies, all children under the age of sixteen, are now sixteen. Compare and contrast: in less than twenty-four hours, Just Foreign Policy rallied 7,419 people to defend the War Powers Resolution. And this was our second alert on the topic since Trump's strike. Join @RepPeterDeFazio, @RepMarkPocan: tell @realDonaldTrump he has 48 hours to report on Syria http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/join-reppeterdefazio?r_by=941832 And we're just one little NGO, one of many working on this front - we don't advertise ourselves to be a national political party. Also: how come the Green Party is still silent on U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war and blockade in Yemen? The Green Party has produced a long statement. It's not like they didn't have room to talk about U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Here was a perfect opportunity to mention it: "Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians." "Mad Dog" Mattis' proposal to attack Hodeida and push Yemen into famine is still reportedly in the inbox of McMaster and Trump's national security team. It sure would be great if the Green Party would speak up on this. Tell @realDonaldTrump: Come to Congress Before You Attack Hodeida http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/help-repmarkpocan-justinamas?r_by=1135580 Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria ________________________________ [syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg] WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and covert military action by the U.S. Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists covering the war. ________________________________ Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a revived antiwar movement Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org @GreenPartyUS For Immediate Release: Saturday, April 8, 2017 Contact: Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614, scott at gp.org ________________________________ Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, especially children, who are fleeing the war. Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb the latters' strongholds in Iraq. Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a wider regional or global military confrontation. The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their country's civil war. The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the U.S. faces no threat from other countries. MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191 @GreenPartyUS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Apr 9 15:41:46 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:41:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah, there we were all doing our best to get the Urbana City Council to re-affirm Urbana as a Sanctuary City for the Undocumented. And Naiman shows up to waste all of our time and distract attention by arguing who should become the next Chair of the DNC. Truly pathetic! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 10:29 AM To: Mitchel Cohen Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss AWARE ; Green Party of the United States ; ufpj-activist ; actiongreens at yahoogroups.com; Scott McLarty ; peace ; Prairie Green Party ; medea benjamin ; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace] [ufpj-activist] [Peace-discuss] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria Thank you Michael for your worthwhile insight, I agree we aren’t an organization with the funds or structure as of yet, to make immediate press releases, we are also egalitarian in that we don’t want a couple people speaking on behalf of the whole group. I am a Green within a small community and we will be protesting today at a couple locations in our town of Champaign, Illinois. I have also called for others locally and across the nation to join, or organize against the recent bombing of Syria. At this point we are demonstrating not on behalf of the Greens but on behalf of AWARE, an anti-war group, of which most if not all of our members are also Greens. Robert Naiman’s disdain for the Green Party, as well as all competitors of the Democrats is well known to most of us. Thus he will vilify us every chance he gets. More people now see, the Democrat Party for what it is, opportunists jumping on every opportunity to promote themselves while at the same time supporting foreign wars. The Republican Party isn’t even worth a line of discussion, being the bad cop vs. the Democrats. On Apr 9, 2017, at 08:14, Mitchel Cohen > wrote: Thank you, Karen, for your statement on Syria, which I've forwarded to some lists I coordinate, particularly the ActionGreens listserve (which is a private list of activists concerned with Green (and other) issues, and is not an official Green Party list). As to Robert Naiman's criticism, while I share his sentiment that the Green Party statement could and should be stronger and more expansive, the GP is not set up to issue immediate responses to whatever matter is before us. There usually needs to be discussion and some sort of decision first. Yes, I find that frustrating. Nor do I like (and never have liked) the tendency of many Left groups as well as the Green Party to "call on" this or that to happen, rather than to organize to make it happen. We don't need "Resolutionary Socialism", "sending a message," "raising the consciousness of others," and so forth. My guiding principle here is best articulated oh so sharply in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is all about the Left and worth re-showing every year. Unicorns, indeed! But the Greens don't have (and don't want to have) one person who is empowered to make those decisions for the party as a whole. We're simply not set up that way, where one or two individuals could make decisions for the entire Party and write press releases without wide consultation first. Meanwhile, the GP in NYC has indeed initiated quite a few antiwar demonstrations in the last few months, and its members have participated in hundreds of'm ... including efforts to get anti-war issues included in the general "No Ban, No Wall" protests -- as have rank-and-file Green members across the country. No Ban, No Wall, No War ! I agree that the sentence about Mosul and Saudi Arabia should have been included. We need to work together. Mitchel Cohen Brooklyn Greens/Green Party At 10:39 AM 4/9/2017, Robert Naiman wrote: A day behind everyone else. But it's a start. We can say that the Green Party tried to show up in some way.  Now how about if the Green Party would actually try to organize some activity, any kind of activity, against Trump's action? There's nothing in the Green Party statement that asks anyone who supports the Green Party to do anything. It's all about, the Green Party calls for this, the Green Party calls for that, the Green Party calls for dismantling of the military industrial complex, the Green Party calls for unicorns and ponies, all children under the age of sixteen, are now sixteen. Compare and contrast: in less than twenty-four hours, Just Foreign Policy rallied 7,419 people to defend the War Powers Resolution. And this was our second alert on the topic since Trump's strike. Join @RepPeterDeFazio, @RepMarkPocan: tell @realDonaldTrump he has 48 hours to report on Syria http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/join-reppeterdefazio?r_by=941832 And we're just one little NGO, one of many working on this front - we don't advertise ourselves to be a national political party. Also: how come the Green Party is still silent on U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war and blockade in Yemen? The Green Party has produced a long statement. It's not like they didn't have room to talk about U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Here was a perfect opportunity to mention it: "Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians." "Mad Dog" Mattis' proposal to attack Hodeida and push Yemen into famine is still reportedly in the inbox of McMaster and Trump's national security team. It sure would be great if the Green Party would speak up on this. Tell @realDonaldTrump: Come to Congress Before You Attack Hodeida http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/help-repmarkpocan-justinamas?r_by=1135580 Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria ________________________________ [syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg] WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and covert military action by the U.S. Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists covering the war. ________________________________ Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a revived antiwar movement Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org @GreenPartyUS For Immediate Release: Saturday, April 8, 2017 Contact: Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614, scott at gp.org ________________________________ Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, especially children, who are fleeing the war. Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb the latters' strongholds in Iraq. Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a wider regional or global military confrontation. The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their country's civil war. The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the U.S. faces no threat from other countries. MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191 @GreenPartyUS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Apr 9 15:42:00 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 10:42:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Disdain" is a mild characterization of my views of the Green Party. But here I was trying to make constructive suggestions for improvement in the Green Party's advocacy against U.S. wars. I really would like to see something from the Green Party, sooner rather than later, on U.S. support for the Saudi blockade at Hodeida. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Thank you Michael for your worthwhile insight, I agree we aren’t an > organization with the funds or structure as of yet, to make immediate press > releases, we are also egalitarian in that we don’t want a couple people > speaking on behalf of the whole group. > > I am a Green within a small community and we will be protesting today at a > couple locations in our town of Champaign, Illinois. I have also called for > others locally and across the nation to join, or organize against the > recent bombing of Syria. At this point we are demonstrating not on behalf > of the Greens but on behalf of AWARE, an anti-war group, of which most if > not all of our members are also Greens. > > Robert Naiman’s disdain for the Green Party, as well as all competitors of > the Democrats is well known to most of us. Thus he will vilify us every > chance he gets. > > More people now see, the Democrat Party for what it is, opportunists > jumping on every opportunity to promote themselves while at the same time > supporting foreign wars. The Republican Party isn’t even worth a line of > discussion, being the bad cop vs. the Democrats. > > On Apr 9, 2017, at 08:14, Mitchel Cohen > wrote: > > Thank you, Karen, for your statement on Syria, which I've forwarded to > some lists I coordinate, particularly the ActionGreens listserve (which is > a private list of activists concerned with Green (and other) issues, and is > not an official Green Party list). > > As to Robert Naiman's criticism, while I share his sentiment that the > Green Party statement could and should be stronger and more expansive, the > GP is not set up to issue immediate responses to whatever matter is before > us. There usually needs to be discussion and some sort of decision first. > > Yes, I find that frustrating. Nor do I like (and never have liked) the > tendency of many Left groups as well as the Green Party to "call on" this > or that to happen, rather than to organize to *make* it happen. We don't > need "Resolutionary Socialism", "sending a message," "raising the > consciousness of others," and so forth. My guiding principle here is best > articulated oh so sharply in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is all > about the Left and worth re-showing every year. Unicorns, indeed! > > But the Greens don't have (and don't want to have) one person who is > empowered to make those decisions for the party as a whole. We're simply > not set up that way, where one or two individuals could make decisions for > the entire Party and write press releases without wide consultation first. > > Meanwhile, the GP in NYC has indeed initiated quite a few antiwar > demonstrations in the last few months, and its members have participated in > hundreds of'm ... including efforts to get anti-war issues included in the > general "No Ban, No Wall" protests -- as have rank-and-file Green members > across the country. No Ban, No Wall, No War ! > > I agree that the sentence about Mosul and Saudi Arabia should have been > included. > > We need to work together. > > Mitchel Cohen > Brooklyn Greens/Green Party > > > > > At 10:39 AM 4/9/2017, Robert Naiman wrote: > > A day behind everyone else. But it's a start. We can say that the Green > Party tried to show up in some way.  > > Now how about if the Green Party would actually try to organize some > activity, any kind of activity, against Trump's action? There's nothing in > the Green Party statement that asks anyone who supports the Green Party to > do anything. It's all about, the Green Party calls for this, the Green > Party calls for that, the Green Party calls for dismantling of the military > industrial complex, the Green Party calls for unicorns and ponies, all > children under the age of sixteen, are now sixteen. > > Compare and contrast: in less than twenty-four hours, Just Foreign Policy > rallied 7,419 people to defend the War Powers Resolution. And this was our > *second* alert on the topic since Trump's strike. > > Join @RepPeterDeFazio, @RepMarkPocan: tell @realDonaldTrump he has 48 > hours to report on Syria > http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/join-reppeterdefazio?r_by=941832 > > And we're just one little NGO, one of many working on this front - we > don't advertise ourselves to be a national political party. > > Also: how come the Green Party is still silent on U.S. support for Saudi > Arabia's war and blockade in Yemen? The Green Party has produced a long > statement. It's not like they didn't have room to talk about U.S. support > for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Here was a perfect opportunity to mention > it: "Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for > civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has > ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo > that have killed scores of civilians." > > "Mad Dog" Mattis' proposal to attack Hodeida and push Yemen into famine is > still reportedly in the inbox of McMaster and Trump's national security > team. It sure would be great if the Green Party would speak up on this. > > Tell @realDonaldTrump: Come to Congress Before You Attack Hodeida > http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/help-repmarkpocan-justinamas?r_by=1135580 > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898> > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > *Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria* > > ------------------------------ > [image: syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg] > > WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly > condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a > Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and > covert military action by the U.S. > > Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial > investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores > of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. > The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is > responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists > covering the war. > ------------------------------ > Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert military > intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian casualties and > escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides and an open > door for fleeing Syrian civilians > > An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations are > necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict > > Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a > revived antiwar movement > > Green Party of the United States > http://www.gp.org > @GreenPartyUS > > For Immediate Release: > Saturday, April 8, 2017 > > Contact: > Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614 <(202)%20904-7614>, > scott at gp.org > ------------------------------ > Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called > for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on > another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. > violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. > > The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, > especially children, who are fleeing the war. > > Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand > the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the > context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, > a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that > have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb > the latters' strongholds in Iraq. > > Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency > negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest > in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a > wider regional or global military confrontation. > > The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which > is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes > bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. > > In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way > defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible > for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of > civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war > crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead > to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in > Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. > > The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who > are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance > towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- > offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile > strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. > > Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of > reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. > Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his > protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the > Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on > Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These > crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration > proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their > country's civil war. > > The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes > military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars > for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, > and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump > administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage > against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. > > The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' > services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that > the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the > U.S. faces no threat from other countries. > > > MORE INFORMATION > > Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org > 202-319-7191 <(202)%20319-7191> > @GreenPartyUS > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Apr 9 15:42:00 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 10:42:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Disdain" is a mild characterization of my views of the Green Party. But here I was trying to make constructive suggestions for improvement in the Green Party's advocacy against U.S. wars. I really would like to see something from the Green Party, sooner rather than later, on U.S. support for the Saudi blockade at Hodeida. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Thank you Michael for your worthwhile insight, I agree we aren’t an > organization with the funds or structure as of yet, to make immediate press > releases, we are also egalitarian in that we don’t want a couple people > speaking on behalf of the whole group. > > I am a Green within a small community and we will be protesting today at a > couple locations in our town of Champaign, Illinois. I have also called for > others locally and across the nation to join, or organize against the > recent bombing of Syria. At this point we are demonstrating not on behalf > of the Greens but on behalf of AWARE, an anti-war group, of which most if > not all of our members are also Greens. > > Robert Naiman’s disdain for the Green Party, as well as all competitors of > the Democrats is well known to most of us. Thus he will vilify us every > chance he gets. > > More people now see, the Democrat Party for what it is, opportunists > jumping on every opportunity to promote themselves while at the same time > supporting foreign wars. The Republican Party isn’t even worth a line of > discussion, being the bad cop vs. the Democrats. > > On Apr 9, 2017, at 08:14, Mitchel Cohen > wrote: > > Thank you, Karen, for your statement on Syria, which I've forwarded to > some lists I coordinate, particularly the ActionGreens listserve (which is > a private list of activists concerned with Green (and other) issues, and is > not an official Green Party list). > > As to Robert Naiman's criticism, while I share his sentiment that the > Green Party statement could and should be stronger and more expansive, the > GP is not set up to issue immediate responses to whatever matter is before > us. There usually needs to be discussion and some sort of decision first. > > Yes, I find that frustrating. Nor do I like (and never have liked) the > tendency of many Left groups as well as the Green Party to "call on" this > or that to happen, rather than to organize to *make* it happen. We don't > need "Resolutionary Socialism", "sending a message," "raising the > consciousness of others," and so forth. My guiding principle here is best > articulated oh so sharply in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is all > about the Left and worth re-showing every year. Unicorns, indeed! > > But the Greens don't have (and don't want to have) one person who is > empowered to make those decisions for the party as a whole. We're simply > not set up that way, where one or two individuals could make decisions for > the entire Party and write press releases without wide consultation first. > > Meanwhile, the GP in NYC has indeed initiated quite a few antiwar > demonstrations in the last few months, and its members have participated in > hundreds of'm ... including efforts to get anti-war issues included in the > general "No Ban, No Wall" protests -- as have rank-and-file Green members > across the country. No Ban, No Wall, No War ! > > I agree that the sentence about Mosul and Saudi Arabia should have been > included. > > We need to work together. > > Mitchel Cohen > Brooklyn Greens/Green Party > > > > > At 10:39 AM 4/9/2017, Robert Naiman wrote: > > A day behind everyone else. But it's a start. We can say that the Green > Party tried to show up in some way.  > > Now how about if the Green Party would actually try to organize some > activity, any kind of activity, against Trump's action? There's nothing in > the Green Party statement that asks anyone who supports the Green Party to > do anything. It's all about, the Green Party calls for this, the Green > Party calls for that, the Green Party calls for dismantling of the military > industrial complex, the Green Party calls for unicorns and ponies, all > children under the age of sixteen, are now sixteen. > > Compare and contrast: in less than twenty-four hours, Just Foreign Policy > rallied 7,419 people to defend the War Powers Resolution. And this was our > *second* alert on the topic since Trump's strike. > > Join @RepPeterDeFazio, @RepMarkPocan: tell @realDonaldTrump he has 48 > hours to report on Syria > http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/join-reppeterdefazio?r_by=941832 > > And we're just one little NGO, one of many working on this front - we > don't advertise ourselves to be a national political party. > > Also: how come the Green Party is still silent on U.S. support for Saudi > Arabia's war and blockade in Yemen? The Green Party has produced a long > statement. It's not like they didn't have room to talk about U.S. support > for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Here was a perfect opportunity to mention > it: "Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for > civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has > ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo > that have killed scores of civilians." > > "Mad Dog" Mattis' proposal to attack Hodeida and push Yemen into famine is > still reportedly in the inbox of McMaster and Trump's national security > team. It sure would be great if the Green Party would speak up on this. > > Tell @realDonaldTrump: Come to Congress Before You Attack Hodeida > http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/help-repmarkpocan-justinamas?r_by=1135580 > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898> > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > *Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria* > > ------------------------------ > [image: syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg] > > WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly > condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a > Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and > covert military action by the U.S. > > Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial > investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores > of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. > The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is > responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists > covering the war. > ------------------------------ > Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert military > intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian casualties and > escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides and an open > door for fleeing Syrian civilians > > An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations are > necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict > > Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a > revived antiwar movement > > Green Party of the United States > http://www.gp.org > @GreenPartyUS > > For Immediate Release: > Saturday, April 8, 2017 > > Contact: > Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614 <(202)%20904-7614>, > scott at gp.org > ------------------------------ > Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called > for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on > another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. > violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. > > The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, > especially children, who are fleeing the war. > > Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand > the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the > context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, > a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that > have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb > the latters' strongholds in Iraq. > > Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency > negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest > in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a > wider regional or global military confrontation. > > The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which > is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes > bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. > > In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way > defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible > for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of > civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war > crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead > to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in > Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. > > The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who > are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance > towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- > offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile > strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. > > Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of > reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. > Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his > protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the > Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on > Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These > crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration > proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their > country's civil war. > > The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes > military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars > for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, > and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump > administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage > against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. > > The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' > services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that > the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the > U.S. faces no threat from other countries. > > > MORE INFORMATION > > Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org > 202-319-7191 <(202)%20319-7191> > @GreenPartyUS > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 9 16:03:27 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:03:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Helpful article in today's N-G References: <1157080104.3271467.1491753807455.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1157080104.3271467.1491753807455@mail.yahoo.com> PROGRESSIVE MEDIAPROJECT The real health carestory is in the states By BEN PALMQUISTTribune News ServiceAlthough House Speaker Paul Ryan’s plan tostrip health care from 24 million people came up short, Congress and the Trumpadministration are planning a series of actions and legislation that would domuch of the same. The question is not whether they will cut and privatize healthcare, but how deeply they will drive the knife.But a bigger and more inspiring story isdeveloping in the states. From Maine to Hawaii, people are not only resistingRepublican attacks on health care, but are laying the foundation for a profoundtransformation of the American health care system.By redefining health care as a human right,grassroots campaigns are challenging the core logic of the private insuranceindustry: that health care is a commodity that should be available only tothose who can afford it.Though calls to replace private insurance withuniversal, publicly financed coverage are not new, this political moment offersa unique opportunity. As health care access is attacked, people are turning outto town halls in droves, demanding more public involvement in health care, notless.Polls show that a large majority of peoplerecognize that government has an obligation to make sure everyone can get care.Bernie Sanders’ call for Medicare for allhelped make him one of the most popular politicians in the country. And theinsurance and drug industries have approval ratings even lower than DonaldTrump. The public is way ahead of both parties.But the insurance industry and its allies holdpowerful control over the Republicans and Democrats and have so farsuccessfully blocked every attempt at universal health care since the days ofHarry Truman. To win, we need a mass people’s movement. But with Washingtonunder the control of free-market ideologues, our path to power runs through thestates.In just about every state in the country,there is an active and organized grassroots campaign for universal health care,and state campaigns have already achieved significant success. The Campaign forNew York Health has twice passed a bill for universal health care through thestate assembly. And the Healthy California campaign has just introduced a billin Sacramento that has powerful backing from the coalition’s 150 memberorganizations and their 4 million members.Some of the most remarkable organizing isbeing led by the members of the Vermont Workers’ Center, Put People FirstPennsylvania, and Southern Maine Workers’ Center, whose Healthcare Is a HumanRight campaigns focus on the leadership of poor and working class people whoare directly impacted by the injustices of the health care system.We now have the chance of a lifetime, but ifwe’re going to win universal health care and refocus our economy on meetinghuman needs, we can’t afford to be passive, and we certainly can’t follow thelead of the Democratic Party. It’s time to turn down the Washington rhetoric,tune into our friends and neighbors, and get to work.Ben Palmquist is a campaign manager with theNational Economic and Social Rights Initiative and helps coordinate theHealthcare Is a Human Right Collaborative. He wrote this for Progressive MediaProject, a source of liberal commentary on domestic and international issues;it is affiliated with The Progressive magazine. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Apr 9 19:05:11 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 19:05:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Korea crisis deepens as the US dispatches the Carl Vinson strike group to the region Message-ID: <350BB71B-1677-4CCC-9A96-E7310D77435A@illinois.edu> A “more assertive roll”: Navy Times April 9, 2017 By David B. Larter MC3 Kurtis Hatcher/Navy) https://www.navytimes.com/articles/korea-crisis-deepens-as-the-us-dispatches-the-carl-vinson-strike-group-to-the-region Korea crisis deepens as the US dispatches the Carl Vinson strike group to the region The head of all U.S. forces in the Pacific canceled a planned carrier exercises and port visits in Australia and redirected the Carl Vinson carrier strike group to the waters off the Korean Peninsula as the U.S. weighs a series of limited options for dealing with an increasingly unbalanced and dangerous North Korean regime. In a release Saturday afternoon, U.S. Pacific Command announced the cancellation and redeployment of Vinson. Announcing carrier movements in advance is rare, and generally done to send a clear message. "Admiral Harry Harris, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, has directed the Carl Vinson Strike Group to sail north and report on station in the Western Pacific Ocean after departing Singapore April 8," the release said. “Carl Vinson Strike Group, including Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), embarked Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 2, Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG 108) and USS Michael Murphy (DDG 112), and Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain (CG 57), will operate in the Western Pacific rather than executing previously planned port visits to Australia.” The release does not specifically mention North Korea, but two defense officials who spoke to Navy Times Sunday said the move is designed to send a message to North Korea and to increasingly nervous allies such as Japan and South Korea that the U.S. is ready to defend them. “It’s designed to send a message to our allies and all the nations in the region,” one official said. “With Vinson comes a lot of options for leadership.” The regime of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has launched about half a dozen missiles since President Trump took office in January, which is seen as a test of the new administration. The rising threat has prompted the U.S. and South Korean governments to agree to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile system, designed to shoot down some missiles, over strenuous Chinese opposition and widespread anxiety over the move in South Korea itself. North Korea's missiles are already capable for striking many key U.S. allies, including Japan and South Korea. Experts warn that the tests show North Korea is getting closer to its goal of producing a nuclear-tipped rocket able to reach the United States, and that they are working on solid-state rocket fuel that can enable a launch with very short notice. Many see that as an unacceptable situation. The Trump administration has been floating the possibility of preemptive strikes, but China is pushing the U.S. to engage in direct diplomacy with Kim's government to try and get them to halt their development. The strike group brings with it a ton of firepower, including the strike- and air-combat capabilities of the Hornets, early warning radars, electronic-warfare capabilities and more than 300 missile tubes on the carrier’s escorts. The Trump administration is pleased with the Navy and the Pentagon, generally, in the wake of the limited strike on Syria, launched as punishment for breaking a 2013 agreement with the Obama administration to scrap all chemical weapons, according to one defense official with knowledge of the discussions between the White House and Pentagon. Trump was moved to action by horrific images of children gassed to death by sarin gas, which the Pentagon said was launched by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces, according to the White House and multiple media reports. Trump views North Korea as the biggest threat to peace in the world, and several officials who have spoken to Navy Times in recent weeks said the Pentagon and U.S. Pacific Command has been sharpening plans for military strikes on the North as an option should the administration want to pursue that action. The risks of such a strike, however, are enormous. Even if the U.S. managed to eliminate North Korea’s nukes, the South Korean capital of Seoul is in range of North Korean long-range artillery. Furthermore, some defense officials, including former Defense Secretary Ash Carter, have said that a punitive strike from the U.S. could trigger an invasion of the south by North Korea's force of more than a million soldiers. That would mean an all-out regional conflict that would bring the U.S. and its allies head-to-head with not only North Korea, but perhaps with China, which has an interest in keeping the Kim dynasty in power. The crisis was almost certainly discussed over the weekend when Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Trump at his Florida retreat at Mar-a-Lago. Experts said the move to send a carrier to the waters off the Korean Peninsula is a smart one in the wake of the strike in Syria, but that policymakers shouldn't get too carried away in thinking that it fundamentally changed Kim Jong Un's calculus. "During the Clinton administration, when he ordered missile strikes on Iraq and then on Sudan and Afghanistan, far from being seen as a sign of American strength, over time it was seen as a sign of American timidity and its unwillingness to commit ground troops," said Michael O'Hanlon, an influential analyst with the Brookings Institution. "It's really important that we not start beating our chest over one strike." O'Hanlon said moving the carrier was a good idea but that Kim might just wait until the carrier leaves and begin strikes again. A better move would be to set clear markers for the Kim regime, letting them know what the U.S. intends to do if it, for example, intends to launch a long-range ballistic missile. A limited strike on a missile before it launches or shooting down a missile after it launches and while its still in the boost phase is an option that has the potential to impact Kim's decision making without triggering a wider conflict. Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the move on the heels of the Syrian strike should send a message to the allies and the North Koreans that, after years of perceived U.S. unwillingness to overly entangle itself in foreign conflicts, the U.S. is moving back to a more assertive roll. "It's a well-timed move," Clark said. "We obviously don't have the ability to strike their nuclear facilities, they are buried deep underground, but we can go after the missiles themselves while they are fueling. It's a signal to the North Koreans that we will, for the time being, have the ability to attack those facilities." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amistadmarder at gmail.com Sun Apr 9 15:58:07 2017 From: amistadmarder at gmail.com (Alfred Marder) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Reminder: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mobilize! Al Marder President, US Peace Council On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > Please join Stuart and I, plus others in downtown Champaign, in front of > “Radio Maria Restaurant” at 11:00 am, and/or 2:00 pm at the Corner of > Church and Neil in our protest on behalf of AWARE, "anti-war, anti-racism” > against the recent bombing of Syria, by the USG. > > A very dangerous first step to continued and perpetual war in the Middle > East, regime change in Syria, and potential war with Russia. > > There is no evidence that the Syrian government is responsible for the use > of chemical weapons on it’s people, no investigation has taken place, and > when we accused the Syrian government in 2013 of using chemical weapons, it > was later proven untrue. > > Our continued breaking of our own laws, International laws, and yes even > God’s laws, supported by all religions, that of “thou shalt not kill.” This > criminality needs to be disputed. > > We need to be loud and clear, those of us, within the nation most > responsible for the continuing atrocities, if we are not to be considered > complicit, by historians, and generations to come. > > If you don’t reside in Champaign, Illinois then get involved in your > community opposing continued war…… > _______________________________________________ > 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/amistadmarder%40gmail.com > > You are subscribed as: amistadmarder at gmail.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amistadmarder at gmail.com Sun Apr 9 15:58:07 2017 From: amistadmarder at gmail.com (Alfred Marder) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Reminder: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mobilize! Al Marder President, US Peace Council On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > Please join Stuart and I, plus others in downtown Champaign, in front of > “Radio Maria Restaurant” at 11:00 am, and/or 2:00 pm at the Corner of > Church and Neil in our protest on behalf of AWARE, "anti-war, anti-racism” > against the recent bombing of Syria, by the USG. > > A very dangerous first step to continued and perpetual war in the Middle > East, regime change in Syria, and potential war with Russia. > > There is no evidence that the Syrian government is responsible for the use > of chemical weapons on it’s people, no investigation has taken place, and > when we accused the Syrian government in 2013 of using chemical weapons, it > was later proven untrue. > > Our continued breaking of our own laws, International laws, and yes even > God’s laws, supported by all religions, that of “thou shalt not kill.” This > criminality needs to be disputed. > > We need to be loud and clear, those of us, within the nation most > responsible for the continuing atrocities, if we are not to be considered > complicit, by historians, and generations to come. > > If you don’t reside in Champaign, Illinois then get involved in your > community opposing continued war…… > _______________________________________________ > 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/amistadmarder%40gmail.com > > You are subscribed as: amistadmarder at gmail.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From acpollack2 at gmail.com Sun Apr 9 12:45:42 2017 From: acpollack2 at gmail.com (Andrew Pollack) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:45:42 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pathetic denial of Syrian agency, i.e. not a word of support for the masses organizing and fighting every day against Assad and Daesh. On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria > ------------------------------ > > *[image: syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg]* > > *WASHINGTON, D.C.* -- The *Green Party of the United States* strongly > condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a > Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and > covert military action by the U.S. > > Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial > investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores > of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. > The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is > responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists > covering the war. > ------------------------------ > > *Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert > military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian > casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides > and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians* > > *An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations > are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict* > > *Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a > revived antiwar movement* > > *Green Party of the United States* > http://www.gp.org > @GreenPartyUS > > *For Immediate Release:* > Saturday, April 8, 2017 > > *Contact:* > Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614 <(202)%20904-7614>, > scott at gp.org > ------------------------------ > > Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called > for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on > another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. > violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. > > The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, > especially children, who are fleeing the war. > > Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand > the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the > context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, > a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that > have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb > the latters' strongholds in Iraq. > > Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency > negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest > in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a > wider regional or global military confrontation. > > The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which > is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes > bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. > > In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way > defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible > for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of > civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war > crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead > to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in > Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. > > The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who > are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance > towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- > offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile > strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. > > Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of > reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. > Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his > protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the > Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on > Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These > crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration > proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their > country's civil war. > > The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes > military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars > for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, > and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump > administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage > against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. > > The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' > services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that > the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the > U.S. faces no threat from other countries. > > > *MORE INFORMATION* > > Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org > 202-319-7191 <(202)%20319-7191> > @GreenPartyUS > > Green candidate database and campaign information > > News Center > Ballot Access > Green Papers > Google+ > Twitter > Livestream > YouTube > Facebook > Green merchandise > > Green Pages: The official publication of > record of the Green Party of the United States > > > *~ END ~* > > _______________________________________________ > 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/acpollack2%40gmail.com > > You are subscribed as: acpollack2 at gmail.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbzeese at gmail.com Sun Apr 9 15:40:11 2017 From: kbzeese at gmail.com (Kevin Zeese) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:40:11 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Whenever Robert Naiman speaks about the Green Party it is important to remember he got caught during the campaign urging people to put out lies about Jill Stein. To repeat falsehoods that the Democrats were saying about her. He apologized for getting caught but not for encouraging a campaign of lies. While I like some of Robert's work on opposing wars and organizing in Congress, he cannot be trusted when it comes to electoral politics. The Green Party is a political party that works on campaigns. Many Greens are activists, but the party should not be criticized, as Robert does, for not being something it does not pretend to be. KZ *@KBZeese* *Build power and resistance* *Popular Resistance* *www.PopularResistance.org )* *Shift Wealth:** Economic Democracy* *Its Our Economy * *www.ItsOurEconomy.US )* *Democratize the MediaClearing the FOG (Forces of Greed) Radio http://www.ClearingTheFOGRadio.org )* On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > A day behind everyone else. But it's a start. We can say that the Green > Party tried to show up in some way. > > Now how about if the Green Party would actually try to organize some > activity, any kind of activity, against Trump's action? There's nothing in > the Green Party statement that asks anyone who supports the Green Party to > do anything. It's all about, the Green Party calls for this, the Green > Party calls for that, the Green Party calls for dismantling of the military > industrial complex, the Green Party calls for unicorns and ponies, all > children under the age of sixteen, are now sixteen. > > Compare and contrast: in less than twenty-four hours, Just Foreign Policy > rallied 7,419 people to defend the War Powers Resolution. And this was our > *second* alert on the topic since Trump's strike. > > Join @RepPeterDeFazio, @RepMarkPocan: tell @realDonaldTrump he has 48 > hours to report on Syria > http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/join-reppeterdefazio?r_by=941832 > > And we're just one little NGO, one of many working on this front - we > don't advertise ourselves to be a national political party. > > Also: how come the Green Party is still silent on U.S. support for Saudi > Arabia's war and blockade in Yemen? The Green Party has produced a long > statement. It's not like they didn't have room to talk about U.S. support > for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Here was a perfect opportunity to mention > it: "Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for > civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has > ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo > that have killed scores of civilians." > > "Mad Dog" Mattis' proposal to attack Hodeida and push Yemen into famine is > still reportedly in the inbox of McMaster and Trump's national security > team. It sure would be great if the Green Party would speak up on this. > > Tell @realDonaldTrump: Come to Congress Before You Attack Hodeida > http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/help-repmarkpocan-justinamas?r_by=1135580 > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898> > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria >> ------------------------------ >> >> *[image: syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg]* >> >> *WASHINGTON, D.C.* -- The *Green Party of the United States* strongly >> condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a >> Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and >> covert military action by the U.S. >> >> Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial >> investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores >> of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. >> The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is >> responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists >> covering the war. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert >> military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian >> casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides >> and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians* >> >> *An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations >> are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict* >> >> *Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a >> revived antiwar movement* >> >> *Green Party of the United States* >> http://www.gp.org >> @GreenPartyUS >> >> *For Immediate Release:* >> Saturday, April 8, 2017 >> >> *Contact:* >> Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614 <(202)%20904-7614>, >> scott at gp.org >> ------------------------------ >> >> Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called >> for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on >> another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. >> violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. >> >> The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, >> especially children, who are fleeing the war. >> >> Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to >> expand the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in >> the context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi >> Arabia, a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel >> groups that have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. >> continues to bomb the latters' strongholds in Iraq. >> >> Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency >> negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest >> in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a >> wider regional or global military confrontation. >> >> The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, >> which is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes >> bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. >> >> In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way >> defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible >> for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of >> civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war >> crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead >> to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in >> Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. >> >> The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who >> are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance >> towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- >> offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile >> strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. >> >> Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of >> reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. >> Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his >> protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the >> Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on >> Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These >> crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration >> proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their >> country's civil war. >> >> The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes >> military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars >> for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, >> and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump >> administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage >> against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. >> >> The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' >> services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that >> the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the >> U.S. faces no threat from other countries. >> >> >> *MORE INFORMATION* >> >> Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org >> 202-319-7191 <(202)%20319-7191> >> @GreenPartyUS >> >> Green candidate database and campaign information >> >> News Center >> Ballot Access >> Green Papers >> Google+ >> Twitter >> Livestream >> YouTube >> Facebook >> Green merchandise >> >> Green Pages: The official publication >> of record of the Green Party of the United States >> >> >> *~ END ~* >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > ufpj-activist mailing list > > Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org > List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist > > To Unsubscribe > Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org > Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/ > mailman/options/ufpj-activist/kbzeese%40gmail.com > > You are subscribed as: kbzeese at gmail.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kbzeese at gmail.com Sun Apr 9 18:44:57 2017 From: kbzeese at gmail.com (Kevin Zeese) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:44:57 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes - disdain is mild. Words like hatred, liar, anger at their existence would be more accurate. Your advice is silly. It would be like the Greens saying -- how many candidates did Just Foreign Policy run? You are asking a political party, that runs candidates, focusing on political advocacy and lobbying of other parties. That is not the role of a political party. I suspect you know that and are just finding a way to criticize because you would prefer your Dems are not challenged by peace candidates on the left. Your advice is not needed or welcome. Stick with the war mongering Democrats that you like so much. Keep lying about Green candidates as you did in the last election. Now everyone knows, when it comes to elections you cannot be trusted. When it comes to Greens, people should first assume you are lying, since that is your history. KZ *@KBZeese* *Build power and resistance* *Popular Resistance* *www.PopularResistance.org )* *Shift Wealth:** Economic Democracy* *Its Our Economy * *www.ItsOurEconomy.US )* *Democratize the MediaClearing the FOG (Forces of Greed) Radio http://www.ClearingTheFOGRadio.org )* On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > "Disdain" is a mild characterization of my views of the Green Party. > > But here I was trying to make constructive suggestions for improvement in > the Green Party's advocacy against U.S. wars. I really would like to see > something from the Green Party, sooner rather than later, on U.S. support > for the Saudi blockade at Hodeida. > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898> > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Thank you Michael for your worthwhile insight, I agree we aren’t an >> organization with the funds or structure as of yet, to make immediate press >> releases, we are also egalitarian in that we don’t want a couple people >> speaking on behalf of the whole group. >> >> I am a Green within a small community and we will be protesting today at >> a couple locations in our town of Champaign, Illinois. I have also called >> for others locally and across the nation to join, or organize against the >> recent bombing of Syria. At this point we are demonstrating not on behalf >> of the Greens but on behalf of AWARE, an anti-war group, of which most if >> not all of our members are also Greens. >> >> Robert Naiman’s disdain for the Green Party, as well as all competitors >> of the Democrats is well known to most of us. Thus he will vilify us every >> chance he gets. >> >> More people now see, the Democrat Party for what it is, opportunists >> jumping on every opportunity to promote themselves while at the same time >> supporting foreign wars. The Republican Party isn’t even worth a line of >> discussion, being the bad cop vs. the Democrats. >> >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 08:14, Mitchel Cohen >> wrote: >> >> Thank you, Karen, for your statement on Syria, which I've forwarded to >> some lists I coordinate, particularly the ActionGreens listserve (which is >> a private list of activists concerned with Green (and other) issues, and is >> not an official Green Party list). >> >> As to Robert Naiman's criticism, while I share his sentiment that the >> Green Party statement could and should be stronger and more expansive, the >> GP is not set up to issue immediate responses to whatever matter is before >> us. There usually needs to be discussion and some sort of decision first. >> >> Yes, I find that frustrating. Nor do I like (and never have liked) the >> tendency of many Left groups as well as the Green Party to "call on" this >> or that to happen, rather than to organize to *make* it happen. We don't >> need "Resolutionary Socialism", "sending a message," "raising the >> consciousness of others," and so forth. My guiding principle here is best >> articulated oh so sharply in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is all >> about the Left and worth re-showing every year. Unicorns, indeed! >> >> But the Greens don't have (and don't want to have) one person who is >> empowered to make those decisions for the party as a whole. We're simply >> not set up that way, where one or two individuals could make decisions for >> the entire Party and write press releases without wide consultation first. >> >> Meanwhile, the GP in NYC has indeed initiated quite a few antiwar >> demonstrations in the last few months, and its members have participated in >> hundreds of'm ... including efforts to get anti-war issues included in the >> general "No Ban, No Wall" protests -- as have rank-and-file Green members >> across the country. No Ban, No Wall, No War ! >> >> I agree that the sentence about Mosul and Saudi Arabia should have been >> included. >> >> We need to work together. >> >> Mitchel Cohen >> Brooklyn Greens/Green Party >> >> >> >> >> At 10:39 AM 4/9/2017, Robert Naiman wrote: >> >> A day behind everyone else. But it's a start. We can say that the Green >> Party tried to show up in some way.  >> >> Now how about if the Green Party would actually try to organize some >> activity, any kind of activity, against Trump's action? There's nothing in >> the Green Party statement that asks anyone who supports the Green Party to >> do anything. It's all about, the Green Party calls for this, the Green >> Party calls for that, the Green Party calls for dismantling of the military >> industrial complex, the Green Party calls for unicorns and ponies, all >> children under the age of sixteen, are now sixteen. >> >> Compare and contrast: in less than twenty-four hours, Just Foreign Policy >> rallied 7,419 people to defend the War Powers Resolution. And this was our >> *second* alert on the topic since Trump's strike. >> >> Join @RepPeterDeFazio, @RepMarkPocan: tell @realDonaldTrump he has 48 >> hours to report on Syria >> http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/join-reppeterdefazio?r_by=941832 >> >> And we're just one little NGO, one of many working on this front - we >> don't advertise ourselves to be a national political party. >> >> Also: how come the Green Party is still silent on U.S. support for Saudi >> Arabia's war and blockade in Yemen? The Green Party has produced a long >> statement. It's not like they didn't have room to talk about U.S. support >> for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Here was a perfect opportunity to mention >> it: "Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for >> civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has >> ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo >> that have killed scores of civilians." >> >> "Mad Dog" Mattis' proposal to attack Hodeida and push Yemen into famine >> is still reportedly in the inbox of McMaster and Trump's national security >> team. It sure would be great if the Green Party would speak up on this. >> >> Tell @realDonaldTrump: Come to Congress Before You Attack Hodeida >> http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/help-repmarkpocan-justinama >> s?r_by=1135580 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898> >> >> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> *Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria* >> >> ------------------------------ >> [image: syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg] >> >> WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly >> condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a >> Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and >> covert military action by the U.S. >> >> Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial >> investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores >> of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. >> The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is >> responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists >> covering the war. >> ------------------------------ >> Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert >> military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian >> casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides >> and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians >> >> An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations >> are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict >> >> Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a >> revived antiwar movement >> >> Green Party of the United States >> http://www.gp.org >> @GreenPartyUS >> >> For Immediate Release: >> Saturday, April 8, 2017 >> >> Contact: >> Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614 <(202)%20904-7614>, >> scott at gp.org >> ------------------------------ >> Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called >> for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on >> another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. >> violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. >> >> The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, >> especially children, who are fleeing the war. >> >> Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to >> expand the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in >> the context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi >> Arabia, a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel >> groups that have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. >> continues to bomb the latters' strongholds in Iraq. >> >> Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency >> negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest >> in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a >> wider regional or global military confrontation. >> >> The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, >> which is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes >> bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. >> >> In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way >> defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible >> for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of >> civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war >> crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead >> to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in >> Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. >> >> The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who >> are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance >> towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- >> offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile >> strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. >> >> Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of >> reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. >> Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his >> protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the >> Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on >> Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These >> crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration >> proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their >> country's civil war. >> >> The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes >> military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars >> for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, >> and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump >> administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage >> against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. >> >> The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' >> services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that >> the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the >> U.S. faces no threat from other countries. >> >> >> MORE INFORMATION >> >> Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org >> 202-319-7191 <(202)%20319-7191> >> @GreenPartyUS >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > ufpj-activist mailing list > > Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org > List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist > > To Unsubscribe > Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org > Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/ > mailman/options/ufpj-activist/kbzeese%40gmail.com > > You are subscribed as: kbzeese at gmail.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mitchelcohen at mindspring.com Sun Apr 9 15:14:43 2017 From: mitchelcohen at mindspring.com (Mitchel Cohen) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 11:14:43 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you, Karen, for your statement on Syria, which I've forwarded to some lists I coordinate, particularly the ActionGreens listserve (which is a private list of activists concerned with Green (and other) issues, and is not an official Green Party list). As to Robert Naiman's criticism, while I share his sentiment that the Green Party statement could and should be stronger and more expansive, the GP is not set up to issue immediate responses to whatever matter is before us. There usually needs to be discussion and some sort of decision first. Yes, I find that frustrating. Nor do I like (and never have liked) the tendency of many Left groups as well as the Green Party to "call on" this or that to happen, rather than to organize to make it happen. We don't need "Resolutionary Socialism", "sending a message," "raising the consciousness of others," and so forth. My guiding principle here is best articulated oh so sharply in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is all about the Left and worth re-showing every year. Unicorns, indeed! But the Greens don't have (and don't want to have) one person who is empowered to make those decisions for the party as a whole. We're simply not set up that way, where one or two individuals could make decisions for the entire Party and write press releases without wide consultation first. Meanwhile, the GP in NYC has indeed initiated quite a few antiwar demonstrations in the last few months, and its members have participated in hundreds of'm ... including efforts to get anti-war issues included in the general "No Ban, No Wall" protests -- as have rank-and-file Green members across the country. No Ban, No Wall, No War ! I agree that the sentence about Mosul and Saudi Arabia should have been included. We need to work together. Mitchel Cohen Brooklyn Greens/Green Party At 10:39 AM 4/9/2017, Robert Naiman wrote: >A day behind everyone else. But it's a start. We >can say that the Green Party tried to show up in some way.  > >Now how about if the Green Party would actually >try to organize some activity, any kind of >activity, against Trump's action? There's >nothing in the Green Party statement that asks >anyone who supports the Green Party to do >anything. It's all about, the Green Party calls >for this, the Green Party calls for that, the >Green Party calls for dismantling of the >military industrial complex, the Green Party >calls for unicorns and ponies, all children >under the age of sixteen, are now sixteen. > >Compare and contrast: in less than twenty-four >hours, Just Foreign Policy rallied 7,419 people >to defend the War Powers Resolution. And this >was our second alert on the topic since Trump's strike. > >Join @RepPeterDeFazio, @RepMarkPocan: tell >@realDonaldTrump he has 48 hours to report on Syria >http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/join-reppeterdefazio?r_by=941832 > >And we're just one little NGO, one of many >working on this front - we don't advertise >ourselves to be a national political party. > >Also: how come the Green Party is still silent >on U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war and >blockade in Yemen? The Green Party has produced >a long statement. It's not like they didn't have >room to talk about U.S. support for Saudi >Arabia's war in Yemen. Here was a perfect >opportunity to mention it: "Since his >inauguration and despite his protestations of >sympathy for civilians, including children, >killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has >ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul >and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians." > >"Mad Dog" Mattis' proposal to attack Hodeida and >push Yemen into famine is still reportedly in >the inbox of McMaster and Trump's national >security team. It sure would be great if the >Green Party would speak up on this. > >Tell @realDonaldTrump: Come to Congress Before You Attack Hodeida >http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/help-repmarkpocan-justinamas?r_by=1135580 > > > > > > >Robert Naiman >Policy Director >Just Foreign Policy >www.justforeignpolicy.org >naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >(202) 448-2898 x1 > >On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karen Aram via >Peace-discuss ><peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> >wrote: > > >Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria > > > > >---------- >syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg > > >WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the >United States strongly condemned President >Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike >on a Syrian government airfield and called for a >halt to further overt and covert military action by the U.S. > >Greens called for an internationally cooperative >and impartial investigation of the nerve gas >attack in Idlib province that killed scores of >civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump >to order the strikes. The U.S. alleges that the >President Bashar al-Assad government is >responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed >by some journalists covering the war. > >---------- >Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing >overt and covert military intervention in Syria, >which will inflict even more civilian casualties >and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms >embargo on all sides and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians > >An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and >emergency negotiations are necessary to stop >further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict > >Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats >and U.S. media, call for a revived antiwar movement > >Green Party of the United States >http://www.gp.org >@GreenPartyUS > >For Immediate Release: >Saturday, April 8, 2017 > >Contact: >Scott McLarty, Media Director, >202-904-7614, scott at gp.org > >---------- >Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other >leaders have also called for an investigation. >Green Party leaders noted that unilateral >attacks on another sovereign country that poses >no immediate threat to the U.S. violate >international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. > >The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit >Syrian civilians, especially children, who are fleeing the war. > >Greens said that the strike ordered by President >Trump threatens to expand the Syrian conflict >into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in >the context of a new Cold War between the two >powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, >have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian >rebel groups that have strengthened ISIL and >al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb >the latters' strongholds in Iraq. > >Green Party leaders asserted that the >investigation and emergency negotiations with >Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an >interest in the Syrian war are necessary to stop >further bloodshed and prevent a wider regional >or global military confrontation. > >The Green Party supports an international arms >embargo on all sides, which is only possible >through multilateral negotiation. The party >refutes bipartisan claims that military >solutions can bring peace and stability. > >In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, >the Green Party in no way defends either the >Assad government or rebel forces, which are >responsible for the slaughter, maiming, and >displacement of hundreds of thousands of >civilians. The party supports an international >investigation into war crimes on all sides. >Greens warned that U.S. military action will >only lead to more mass civilian casualties, as >shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in Iraq, >Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. > >The Green Party sharply criticized major media >and warhawk Democrats who are cheering the >missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly >stance towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats >enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- offered a >chance for cooperation between Washington and >Moscow. The missile strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. > >Greens said that Trump Administration's >belligerence risks a new era of reckless warfare >comparable to -- or worse than -- President >George W. Bush's disastrous first term. Since >his inauguration and despite his protestations >of sympathy for civilians, including children, >killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has >ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul >and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores >of civilians. These crimes are compounded by his >administration's anti-Muslim immigration >proposals and deportations, especially targeting >Syrians fleeing their country's civil war. > >The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar >movement that opposes military action that >threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects >wars for oil and other resources and for U.S. >political and economic domination, and that >recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, >Obama, and Trump administrations' war policies. >These same policies have ignited rage against >the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. > >The party also urges deep cuts in defense >spending (except for veterans' services) and >dismantling of the military-industrial complex, >noting that the U.S. military budget is ten >times greater than Russia's and that the U.S. >faces no threat from other countries. > > >MORE INFORMATION > >Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org >202-319-7191 >@GreenPartyUS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sun Apr 9 20:21:49 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:21:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Mobilization for Nursing Home-Tuesday night, 5:30 p.m. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00aea156-1e09-d7a8-9350-3148b02b0e44@gmail.com> /(forwarding from Build Programs, Not Jails...)/ CC-Care, which led the election effort to support the Nursing Home is calling for a massive turnout on Tuesday night to show opposition to any effort to sell the nursing home by the County Board. They are asking people to gather at the nursing home at 5:30 for a short press conference and rally, followed by a march to the Brookens Center for the 6 p.m. party caucuses and the 6:30 county board meeting. People who are willing to speak during public participation to keep the nursing home in county hands are encouraged to do so. Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/1680244648946026/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Apr 9 21:46:33 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:46:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01c501d2b17a$c1dc4350$4594c9f0$@comcast.net> Thank you Kevin for your spot on analysis of Robert Naimann ! Just so you and everyone else on the central Illinois Peace list knows that Naimann just recently called me a “ rabid ultra leftist dog “ because I advocated single payer health care and criticized a local non profiteer for their refusal to publicly advocate for single payer health care, instead of their consistent advocacy of the ACA ( possible Kaiser – Permanente grant money ? ). Naimann said that he is “ boycotting any and all campaigns for single payer “. He also told me a few years ago that in regards to any advocacy of anti-war organizing that he refuses to work / organize with anyone who is a ; Green, a Trotskyist, an “ ultra-Leftist “ a “ Sectarian “ or an Anarchist. In his inaccurate and bizarre definition of the terms “ ultra leftist “ and “ sectarian “ means anyone who is not a liberal democrat. He also opposes Union democracy activists and in 2014 advocated for our local INDY Media center ( U-C IMC ) to be ; “ burned to the ground “. He also supported a millionaire Attorney in the 2014 democratic primary election for State Representative in Champaign Urbana Illinois, whose family is connected to the Rahm Emmanuelle machine in Chicago and cheated the city of Urbana Illinois out of tens of thousands of dollars in property tax revenue for his client Carle Foundation Hospital / Clinic, against an African American Woman community activist who actually beat the millionaire scumbag ( 62 % - 38 % due to grassroots organizing ) and the entire State of Illinois democratic party and the local democratic party establishment even though she was out spent 10 to 1. He has no support in Champaign-Urbana. Even the progressive democrats hate him. David Johnson Champaign, IL. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Zeese via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 1:45 PM To: Robert Naiman Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE; Green Party of the United States; ufpj-activist; actiongreens at yahoogroups.com; Scott McLarty; peace; Prairie Green Party; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria Yes - disdain is mild. Words like hatred, liar, anger at their existence would be more accurate. Your advice is silly. It would be like the Greens saying -- how many candidates did Just Foreign Policy run? You are asking a political party, that runs candidates, focusing on political advocacy and lobbying of other parties. That is not the role of a political party. I suspect you know that and are just finding a way to criticize because you would prefer your Dems are not challenged by peace candidates on the left. Your advice is not needed or welcome. Stick with the war mongering Democrats that you like so much. Keep lying about Green candidates as you did in the last election. Now everyone knows, when it comes to elections you cannot be trusted. When it comes to Greens, people should first assume you are lying, since that is your history. KZ @KBZeese Build power and resistance Popular Resistance www.PopularResistance.org) Shift Wealth: Economic Democracy Its Our Economy www.ItsOurEconomy.US) Democratize the Media Clearing the FOG (Forces of Greed) Radio http://www.ClearingTheFOGRadio.org) On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: "Disdain" is a mild characterization of my views of the Green Party. But here I was trying to make constructive suggestions for improvement in the Green Party's advocacy against U.S. wars. I really would like to see something from the Green Party, sooner rather than later, on U.S. support for the Saudi blockade at Hodeida. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Thank you Michael for your worthwhile insight, I agree we aren’t an organization with the funds or structure as of yet, to make immediate press releases, we are also egalitarian in that we don’t want a couple people speaking on behalf of the whole group. I am a Green within a small community and we will be protesting today at a couple locations in our town of Champaign, Illinois. I have also called for others locally and across the nation to join, or organize against the recent bombing of Syria. At this point we are demonstrating not on behalf of the Greens but on behalf of AWARE, an anti-war group, of which most if not all of our members are also Greens. Robert Naiman’s disdain for the Green Party, as well as all competitors of the Democrats is well known to most of us. Thus he will vilify us every chance he gets. More people now see, the Democrat Party for what it is, opportunists jumping on every opportunity to promote themselves while at the same time supporting foreign wars. The Republican Party isn’t even worth a line of discussion, being the bad cop vs. the Democrats. On Apr 9, 2017, at 08:14, Mitchel Cohen wrote: Thank you, Karen, for your statement on Syria, which I've forwarded to some lists I coordinate, particularly the ActionGreens listserve (which is a private list of activists concerned with Green (and other) issues, and is not an official Green Party list). As to Robert Naiman's criticism, while I share his sentiment that the Green Party statement could and should be stronger and more expansive, the GP is not set up to issue immediate responses to whatever matter is before us. There usually needs to be discussion and some sort of decision first. Yes, I find that frustrating. Nor do I like (and never have liked) the tendency of many Left groups as well as the Green Party to "call on" this or that to happen, rather than to organize to make it happen. We don't need "Resolutionary Socialism", "sending a message," "raising the consciousness of others," and so forth. My guiding principle here is best articulated oh so sharply in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is all about the Left and worth re-showing every year. Unicorns, indeed! But the Greens don't have (and don't want to have) one person who is empowered to make those decisions for the party as a whole. We're simply not set up that way, where one or two individuals could make decisions for the entire Party and write press releases without wide consultation first. Meanwhile, the GP in NYC has indeed initiated quite a few antiwar demonstrations in the last few months, and its members have participated in hundreds of'm ... including efforts to get anti-war issues included in the general "No Ban, No Wall" protests -- as have rank-and-file Green members across the country. No Ban, No Wall, No War ! I agree that the sentence about Mosul and Saudi Arabia should have been included. We need to work together. Mitchel Cohen Brooklyn Greens/Green Party At 10:39 AM 4/9/2017, Robert Naiman wrote: A day behind everyone else. But it's a start. We can say that the Green Party tried to show up in some way.  Now how about if the Green Party would actually try to organize some activity, any kind of activity, against Trump's action? There's nothing in the Green Party statement that asks anyone who supports the Green Party to do anything. It's all about, the Green Party calls for this, the Green Party calls for that, the Green Party calls for dismantling of the military industrial complex, the Green Party calls for unicorns and ponies, all children under the age of sixteen, are now sixteen. Compare and contrast: in less than twenty-four hours, Just Foreign Policy rallied 7,419 people to defend the War Powers Resolution. And this was our second alert on the topic since Trump's strike. Join @RepPeterDeFazio, @RepMarkPocan: tell @realDonaldTrump he has 48 hours to report on Syria http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/join-reppeterdefazio?r_by=941832 And we're just one little NGO, one of many working on this front - we don't advertise ourselves to be a national political party. Also: how come the Green Party is still silent on U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war and blockade in Yemen? The Green Party has produced a long statement. It's not like they didn't have room to talk about U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Here was a perfect opportunity to mention it: "Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians." "Mad Dog" Mattis' proposal to attack Hodeida and push Yemen into famine is still reportedly in the inbox of McMaster and Trump's national security team. It sure would be great if the Green Party would speak up on this. Tell @realDonaldTrump: Come to Congress Before You Attack Hodeida http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/help-repmarkpocan-justinamas?r_by=1135580 Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > wrote: Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria _____ Description: Image removed by sender. syria-sanctuary-not-missiles.jpg WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and covert military action by the U.S. Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists covering the war. _____ Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a revived antiwar movement Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org @GreenPartyUS For Immediate Release: Saturday, April 8, 2017 Contact: Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614 , scott at gp.org _____ Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, especially children, who are fleeing the war. Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb the latters' strongholds in Iraq. Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a wider regional or global military confrontation. The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their country's civil war. The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the U.S. faces no threat from other countries. MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191 @GreenPartyUS _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/kbzeese%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: kbzeese at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Apr 9 22:36:56 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 22:36:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 40843 Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Blame DJT.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 245191 bytes Desc: Blame DJT.rtfd.zip URL: From niloofar.peace at gmail.com Sun Apr 9 23:16:19 2017 From: niloofar.peace at gmail.com (Niloofar Shambayati) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 18:16:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Helpful article in today's N-G In-Reply-To: <1157080104.3271467.1491753807455@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1157080104.3271467.1491753807455.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1157080104.3271467.1491753807455@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks, David! I agree with the writer that the states can pave the way for changes at the federal level, but also accept Michael's point about the legal constraints that make raising funds very difficult. On the other hand, Karen and Stuart can correct me, Martire's presentation about Illinois budget showed areas of potential savings that are fair and common sense. Martire argued that Illinois grassroots groups should campaign for health care for all at the state level too. Niloofar On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:03 AM, David Green wrote: > PROGRESSIVE MEDIA PROJECT > *The real health care story is in the states * > By BEN PALMQUIST > Tribune News Service > Although House Speaker Paul Ryan’s plan to strip health care from 24 > million people came up short, Congress and the Trump administration are > planning a series of actions and legislation that would do much of the > same. The question is not whether they will cut and privatize health care, > but how deeply they will drive the knife. > But a bigger and more inspiring story is developing in the states. From > Maine to Hawaii, people are not only resisting Republican attacks on health > care, but are laying the foundation for a profound transformation of the > American health care system. > By redefining health care as a human right, grassroots campaigns are > challenging the core logic of the private insurance industry: that health > care is a commodity that should be available only to those who can afford > it. > Though calls to replace private insurance with universal, publicly > financed coverage are not new, this political moment offers a unique > opportunity. As health care access is attacked, people are turning out to > town halls in droves, demanding more public involvement in health care, not > less. > Polls show that a large majority of people recognize that government has > an obligation to make sure everyone can get care. > Bernie Sanders’ call for Medicare for all helped make him one of the most > popular politicians in the country. And the insurance and drug industries > have approval ratings even lower than Donald Trump. The public is way ahead > of both parties. > But the insurance industry and its allies hold powerful control over the > Republicans and Democrats and have so far successfully blocked every > attempt at universal health care since the days of Harry Truman. To win, we > need a mass people’s movement. But with Washington under the control of > free-market ideologues, our path to power runs through the states. > In just about every state in the country, there is an active and organized > grassroots campaign for universal health care, and state campaigns have > already achieved significant success. The Campaign for New York Health has > twice passed a bill for universal health care through the state assembly. > And the Healthy California campaign has just introduced a bill in > Sacramento that has powerful backing from the coalition’s 150 member > organizations and their 4 million members. > Some of the most remarkable organizing is being led by the members of the > Vermont Workers’ Center, Put People First Pennsylvania, and Southern Maine > Workers’ Center, whose Healthcare Is a Human Right campaigns focus on the > leadership of poor and working class people who are directly impacted by > the injustices of the health care system. > We now have the chance of a lifetime, but if we’re going to win universal > health care and refocus our economy on meeting human needs, we can’t afford > to be passive, and we certainly can’t follow the lead of the Democratic > Party. It’s time to turn down the Washington rhetoric, tune into our > friends and neighbors, and get to work. > Ben Palmquist is a campaign manager with the National Economic and Social > Rights Initiative and helps coordinate the Healthcare Is a Human Right > Collaborative. He wrote this for Progressive Media Project, a source of > liberal commentary on domestic and international issues; it is affiliated > with The Progressive magazine. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Apr 9 23:29:06 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 23:29:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Identity vs. class again Message-ID: Studies confirm: Trump voters were motivated by racial prejudice — not ‘economic anxiety’ Raw Story TRAVIS GETTYS 06 APR 2017 AT 14:47 ET . . . Progressives like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and filmmaker Michael Moore have argued that income inequality — and not bigotry and xenophobia — fueled Trump’s rise, but many analysts aren’t buying that explanation. “Income predicted support for (John) McCain and (Mitt) Romney, but not Trump,” wrote analysts Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel recently in The Nation. Trump won the votes of a majority of non-college-educated whites, but he also won a majority of college-educated whites, and he drew the support of more young white voters than Clinton and a majority of white women. In fact, white voters backed Trump regardless of their age, gender, income and education. “Racial identity and attitudes have further displaced class as the central battleground of American politics,” McElwee and McDaniel wrote. ———— Note that I am as skeptical of the “studies show that …” & the “there is no evidence that …” lines as of most other assertions in this area. ~~ Ron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cge at shout.net Tue Apr 11 04:43:00 2017 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 23:43:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE ON THE AIR - open recording noon Tuesday 11 April @ UPTV In-Reply-To: <69C63627-8D2A-48F2-A4E5-BE3C6285D920@illinois.edu> References: <7AD73427-6AF0-4CAF-BC80-76EE41776305@illinois.edu> <69C63627-8D2A-48F2-A4E5-BE3C6285D920@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <9deaafe53cb57f5c13fa6b970141c26a@shout.net> This week's edition of AWARE ON THE AIR - an unrehearsed panel discussion of US government war-making - will be recorded at noon on Tuesday, 11 April, at the studios of Urbana Public Television, 100 Vine St., Urbana (in the Urbana City Council chambers). The program will be cablecast and available on YouTube. Members and friends of AWARE, the ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT of Champaign-Urbana are invited to attend as members of the audience or the panel.* --CGE ________________ * You, too, Bob. From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 11 14:15:16 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:15:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria Message-ID: Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former ex Chief of Staff to Colin Powell: The US Army and it’s contractors destroyed the stocks of chemical weapons, and to blame Russia for anything in relation to the use of chemical weapons in Syria is lies and preposterous. We need to stop bombing and start talking. See: RT.com From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 11 14:15:16 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:15:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria Message-ID: Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former ex Chief of Staff to Colin Powell: The US Army and it’s contractors destroyed the stocks of chemical weapons, and to blame Russia for anything in relation to the use of chemical weapons in Syria is lies and preposterous. We need to stop bombing and start talking. See: RT.com From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 11 16:26:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:26:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Podcast related to the Pivot to Asia. Message-ID: About a year old, an excellent podcast in relation to the US "Pivot to Asia". The speaker is quite entertaining with his presentation. However, I have one very strong disagreement, or clarification. This final statement in which he suggests: that we the US socialists or working classes need to "support" and "unite" with the Japanese anti-war movement against their military government of Abe, in respect to the continued expansion of US hegemony in Japan, and Okinawa. This is the type of narrative, that lends itself often to supporting "so called rebels" for example in Syria, rebels who are really propped up terrorists by the CIA, against their dictatorial government, the same thing we have heard in reference to other nations despots that the USG planned to replace with our puppet. To be clear, Abe of Japan is our current puppet, but any suggestion that the Japanese people, or the Asian people, in general, need Americans to support their anti-war movements, is a form of "white mans burden" which needs to be guarded against. The best thing Americans, anti-war activists, and socialists can do to help those we wish to support, elsewhere in the world with their governments, is to focus on building our own socialist, anti-war movements, focus on preventing our own government from further imperialism, and war. We need to focus on creating a united front against our own despots. This is not "isolationism, this is not turning our backs on others. This is a recognition that we the American people have the power to stop the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world" to quote Martin Luther King, and only then are we in a position to assist anyone else, if they still need our help, and ask for it. Until such time, we should be supplying humanitarian assistance only, in areas that need it. Not weapons, bombs, and warfare. Bases, Straits, and Islands: Imperialist Conflict in the Pacific | WeAreMany.org The U.S. is carrying out a new geopolitical and military strategy in the Asia-Pacific region called the Pivot to Asia. Through this strategy, the U.S. is leading a new round of nationalism, militarization, and conflict in the region as the U.S. and its allies rally against the rise of China. This ta... WEAREMANY.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 11 16:26:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:26:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Podcast related to the Pivot to Asia. Message-ID: About a year old, an excellent podcast in relation to the US "Pivot to Asia". The speaker is quite entertaining with his presentation. However, I have one very strong disagreement, or clarification. This final statement in which he suggests: that we the US socialists or working classes need to "support" and "unite" with the Japanese anti-war movement against their military government of Abe, in respect to the continued expansion of US hegemony in Japan, and Okinawa. This is the type of narrative, that lends itself often to supporting "so called rebels" for example in Syria, rebels who are really propped up terrorists by the CIA, against their dictatorial government, the same thing we have heard in reference to other nations despots that the USG planned to replace with our puppet. To be clear, Abe of Japan is our current puppet, but any suggestion that the Japanese people, or the Asian people, in general, need Americans to support their anti-war movements, is a form of "white mans burden" which needs to be guarded against. The best thing Americans, anti-war activists, and socialists can do to help those we wish to support, elsewhere in the world with their governments, is to focus on building our own socialist, anti-war movements, focus on preventing our own government from further imperialism, and war. We need to focus on creating a united front against our own despots. This is not "isolationism, this is not turning our backs on others. This is a recognition that we the American people have the power to stop the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world" to quote Martin Luther King, and only then are we in a position to assist anyone else, if they still need our help, and ask for it. Until such time, we should be supplying humanitarian assistance only, in areas that need it. Not weapons, bombs, and warfare. Bases, Straits, and Islands: Imperialist Conflict in the Pacific | WeAreMany.org The U.S. is carrying out a new geopolitical and military strategy in the Asia-Pacific region called the Pivot to Asia. Through this strategy, the U.S. is leading a new round of nationalism, militarization, and conflict in the region as the U.S. and its allies rally against the rise of China. This ta... WEAREMANY.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cge at shout.net Wed Apr 12 03:00:25 2017 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 22:00:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE ON THE AIR for Tuesday 11 April In-Reply-To: <9deaafe53cb57f5c13fa6b970141c26a@shout.net> References: <7AD73427-6AF0-4CAF-BC80-76EE41776305@illinois.edu> <69C63627-8D2A-48F2-A4E5-BE3C6285D920@illinois.edu> <9deaafe53cb57f5c13fa6b970141c26a@shout.net> Message-ID: <8e793b4d6f874e9ab0afc72311b21e13@shout.net> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYtIbQA3q98 ...You've been watching AWARE ON THE AIR, presented by members and friends of AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, a local peace group - in the 15th week of 2017 [April 11]. ~ Another week in which the world can see that the most extensive global terrorism is not made up of just the attacks by ISIS and its sympathizers around the world - but by US world-wide war-making. ~ My thanks to J. B. Nicholson for research. ~ Our show is produced and directed by Jason Liggett, Yosef Kash, and Andrew Scolari - thanks to whom also this program & others like it will be available on YouTube. ~ And see the Facebook page 'AWARE of Champaign Urbana Illinois' for articles referred tonight by the panel. ~ Finally, AWARE honors those who reveal the crimes of the US government - which the rest of the world knows about, but Americans don't - Manning, Assange, Snowden, and others - who truth-tellers persecuted by the US government. ~ Now this is Carl Estabrook for Karen Aram, Karen Evans-Levy, Stuart Levy, David Green, David Johnson, & other members & friends of AWARE - saying, in the words of the late Edward Murrow, “Good night - and good luck." ### From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Apr 12 03:13:22 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 03:13:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FB is blocking me from posting, so I'll post it to the Peace List for now. Message-ID: NPR reported Sean Spicer's comment that "even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons," in respect to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad, an obvious tactic to further vilify Assad and give credence to more destruction of Syria. He later recanted his statement and apologized. Everyone's upset over his incorrect statement, now calling for his resignation. NPR hasn't recanted their statement that "Assad used chemical weapons." and no one is calling for Spicer's resignation for his lies and accusations. In fact they are further promoting it, when they don't refer to the use of chemical weapons as "alleged". And, no one seems concerned over the bombing of Syria by the US, more killing and destruction, or placing us in direct conflict with Russia. NPR is of course part of the mainstream corporate owned media, where truth on somethings, but on major issues, no way. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Apr 12 13:34:43 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 08:34:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why AWARE needs to redouble its efforts - esp. vs. Democrats Message-ID: <67103455-BD1B-40C0-9B86-648ECDCD5D60@illinois.edu> https://www.blackagendareport.com/trump_joins_war_party -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Apr 12 15:05:47 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:05:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FB is blocking me from posting, so I'll post it to the Peace List for now. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Roger You only care about supporting the US war machine. Please stay on the Peace List, and don’t contact me personally. Food for thought in relation to your question: Airforce opposing Assad? Airforce supporting the rebels? How about the US, UK, France, Germany, Israel, and even Denmark as of last year. There needs to be an INVESTIGATION not a rush to judgement and war, it took us what less than three days to bring on the air strike? It takes longer to organize such an event, you know that. CUI BONO: What does Assad gain by bombing areas which he has control over? The Turks claim it’s sarin? If sarin, we wouldn’t have pictures of people touching the bodies, sarin is lethal. Assad is winning, the US even verbally claiming “no more regime change” as a result. So why would he do this at this time. Keep this on the peace discuss list. I don’t have time to argue with you, knowing that’s all you want to do, argue. You don’t want to do any research on your own, because you don’t care about the truth. You just want to defend the USG despots with their continued killing sprees. There are so many former US military leaders and CIA employees, who are speaking out against the USG government, some are “former” precisely because they refuse to be part of the corporate military industrial complex, or retired and having the opportunity to examine the “big picture”, recognizing our media sham. I have worked with “Veterans opposed to war” and they suffer daily as a result of their experiences in Vietnam, working to absolve themselves from guilt. There are now many veterans hurting from their experiences in the MENA. Our focus must remain on alleviating the suffering of the victims, and preventing such atrocities, for the good of all. On Apr 12, 2017, at 05:49, Roger Helbig > wrote: By whom, where? - none of the forces opposing Assad have an Air Force! Given that, how did an aircraft that was not one of his of his Russian allies deliver the chemical attack that triggered this response? On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: If you’re referring to that which was publicized in 2013, that was debunked as well. On Apr 11, 2017, at 20:35, Roger Helbig > wrote: It is pretty well established that Assad used chemical weapons - if not now, in the past! On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: NPR reported Sean Spicer's comment that "even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons," in respect to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad, an obvious tactic to further vilify Assad and give credence to more destruction of Syria. He later recanted his statement and apologized. Everyone's upset over his incorrect statement, now calling for his resignation. NPR hasn't recanted their statement that "Assad used chemical weapons." and no one is calling for Spicer's resignation for his lies and accusations. In fact they are further promoting it, when they don't refer to the use of chemical weapons as "alleged". And, no one seems concerned over the bombing of Syria by the US, more killing and destruction, or placing us in direct conflict with Russia. NPR is of course part of the mainstream corporate owned media, where truth on somethings, but on major issues, no way. _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Apr 12 15:11:02 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:11:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FB is blocking me from posting, so I'll post it to the Peace List for now. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <65848240-74D1-41A7-B21C-9BA9028D2A5F@illinois.edu> https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/06/nyt-retreats-on-2013-syria-sarin-claims/ "Even as The New York Times leads the charge against the Syrian government for this week’s alleged chemical attack, it is quietly retreating on its earlier certainty about the 2013 Syria-sarin case, reports Robert Parry." —CGE > On Apr 12, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Roger > > > You only care about supporting the US war machine. > Please stay on the Peace List, and don’t contact me personally. > > Food for thought in relation to your question: > > Airforce opposing Assad? Airforce supporting the rebels? How about the US, UK, France, Germany, Israel, and even Denmark as of last year. > > There needs to be an INVESTIGATION not a rush to judgement and war, it took us what less than three days to bring on the air strike? It takes longer to organize such an event, you know that. > > CUI BONO: What does Assad gain by bombing areas which he has control over? > > The Turks claim it’s sarin? If sarin, we wouldn’t have pictures of people touching the bodies, sarin is lethal. > > Assad is winning, the US even verbally claiming “no more regime change” as a result. So why would he do this at this time. > > Keep this on the peace discuss list. I don’t have time to argue with you, knowing that’s all you want to do, argue. You don’t want to do any research on your own, because you don’t care about the truth. > > You just want to defend the USG despots with their continued killing sprees. There are so many former US military leaders and CIA employees, who are speaking out against the USG government, some are “former” precisely because they refuse to be part of the corporate military industrial complex, or retired and having the opportunity to examine the “big picture”, recognizing our media sham. I have worked with “Veterans opposed to war” and they suffer daily as a result of their experiences in Vietnam, working to absolve themselves from guilt. > > There are now many veterans hurting from their experiences in the MENA. Our focus must remain on alleviating the suffering of the victims, and preventing such atrocities, for the good of all. > > > > >> On Apr 12, 2017, at 05:49, Roger Helbig > wrote: >> >> By whom, where? - none of the forces opposing Assad have an Air Force! Given that, how did an aircraft that was not one of his of his Russian allies deliver the chemical attack that triggered this response? >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: >> If you’re referring to that which was publicized in 2013, that was debunked as well. >> >>> On Apr 11, 2017, at 20:35, Roger Helbig > wrote: >>> >>> It is pretty well established that Assad used chemical weapons - if not now, in the past! >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> >>> NPR reported Sean Spicer's comment that "even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons," in respect to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad, an obvious tactic to further vilify Assad and give credence to more destruction >>> of Syria. He later recanted his statement and apologized. Everyone's upset over his incorrect statement, now calling for his resignation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> NPR hasn't recanted their statement that "Assad used chemical weapons." and no one is calling for Spicer's resignation for his lies and accusations. In fact they are further promoting it, when they don't refer to the >>> use of chemical weapons as "alleged". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> And, no one seems concerned over the bombing of Syria by the US, more killing and destruction, or placing us in direct conflict with Russia. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> NPR is of course part of the mainstream corporate owned media, where truth on somethings, but on major issues, no way. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Apr 12 15:29:08 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:29:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 41217 References: Message-ID: Why, Barak Obama, of course! As always. Subject: In explaining his reasons for the Syria strike, Trump focuses on Obama from The Washington Post Date: April 12, 2017 at 10:23:08 AM CDT http://wapo.st/2oXDooL?tid=ss_mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Apr 12 19:10:49 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:10:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME? Part 41217 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02BFD4C8-2890-4ABD-8F32-8717BDAE7B6B@illinois.edu> The US elected the candidate who criticized Obama’s war-making but got instead the policies of the candidate who said she would continue them. > On Apr 12, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > Why, Barak Obama, of course! As always. > >> Subject: In explaining his reasons for the Syria strike, Trump focuses on Obama from The Washington Post >> Date: April 12, 2017 at 10:23:08 AM CDT >> >> http://wapo.st/2oXDooL?tid=ss_mail > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Apr 12 19:29:37 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:29:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] MIT Professor claims White House accusations false: See the report below: Message-ID: RUSSIA VETOES WEST’S SYRIA RESOLUTION AT UN SECURITY COUNCIL HomeAmerica White House claims on Syria chemical attack ‘obviously false’ – MIT professor Published time: 12 Apr, 2017 17:18Edited time: 12 Apr, 2017 19:24 Get short URL [White House claims on Syria chemical attack ‘obviously false’ – MIT professor] Idlib, Syria April 4, 2017. © Ammar Abdullah / Reuters 7871 A professor who challenged the 2013 claims of a chemical attack in Syria is now questioning the Trump administration’s narrative blaming the Assad government for the April 4 attack in the Idlib province town of Khan Shaykhun. On Tuesday, the White House released a declassified intelligence brief accusing Syrian President Bashar Assad of ordering and organizing the attack, in which Syrian planes allegedly dropped chemical ordnance on civilians in the rebel-held town. The report “contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft,” wrote Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Professor Theodore Postol, who reviewed it and put together a 14-page assessment, which he provided to RT on Wednesday. [View image on Twitter][View image on Twitter][View image on Twitter][View image on Twitter] Follow [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/800387860847280133/VcYL2aLR_normal.jpg]EHSANI2 @EHSANI22 Leading CW expert Theodor Postol of MIT just published a 14-page document questioning WH claims that Sarin was dropped from #Syrian AF plane 8:36 AM - 12 Apr 2017 * * 402402 Retweets * 339339 likes “I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun,” wrote Postol. A chemical attack with a nerve agent did occur, he said, but the available evidence does not support the US government’s conclusions. Read more [A Syrian man receives treatment in the town of Maaret al-Noman following a suspected toxic gas attack in Khan Sheikhun, on April 4, 2017]US accuses Moscow of ‘sowing doubt’ over narrative of Assad’s culpability in chemical attack “I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct,” Postol wrote. It is “very clear who planned this attack, who authorized this attack and who conducted this attack itself,” Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday. Earlier in the day, White House spokesman Sean Spicer also said that doubting the evidence would be “doubting the entire international reporting crew documenting this.” The report offered by the White House, however, cited “a wide body of open-source material” and “social media accounts” from the rebel-held area, including footage provided by the White Helmets rescue group documented to have ties with jihadist rebels, Western and Gulf Arab governments. Follow [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/839145450296991748/EQdAGjG8_normal.jpg]Alexey Yaroshevsky ✔@Yaro_RT I have just EXCLUSIVELY interviewed Prof. Postol. Airs at 4 and 5 pm EST on @RT_America (two parts) https://twitter.com/maxabrahms/status/852233382285193216 … 12:01 PM - 12 Apr 2017 * * 33 Retweets * 66 likes Postol was not convinced by such evidence. “Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real,” he wrote. “No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it.” Instead, “the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides.” “We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report,” he concluded, recalling the 2013 situation when the Obama administration claimed Assad had used chemical weapons against the rebels in Ghouta, near Damascus. “What the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true,” Postol wrote, “and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security.” On Tuesday, Russian General Staff spokesman Colonel-General Sergey Rudskoy questioned the “authenticity” of media reports concerning the attack. He said that using social media to reconstruct the course of events raised “serious doubts” not only among the Russian military but also “among many respected experts and organizations.” Rudskoy noted that, under the 2013 agreement to give up its chemical weapons, the Syrian government destroyed its stockpiles at 10 sites that were under its control. This was verified by the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). However, the remaining two facilities were in territory controlled by the rebels, he said, and it remains unclear what happened to the chemicals stored there. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Apr 12 19:29:37 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:29:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] MIT Professor claims White House accusations false: See the report below: Message-ID: RUSSIA VETOES WEST’S SYRIA RESOLUTION AT UN SECURITY COUNCIL HomeAmerica White House claims on Syria chemical attack ‘obviously false’ – MIT professor Published time: 12 Apr, 2017 17:18Edited time: 12 Apr, 2017 19:24 Get short URL [White House claims on Syria chemical attack ‘obviously false’ – MIT professor] Idlib, Syria April 4, 2017. © Ammar Abdullah / Reuters 7871 A professor who challenged the 2013 claims of a chemical attack in Syria is now questioning the Trump administration’s narrative blaming the Assad government for the April 4 attack in the Idlib province town of Khan Shaykhun. On Tuesday, the White House released a declassified intelligence brief accusing Syrian President Bashar Assad of ordering and organizing the attack, in which Syrian planes allegedly dropped chemical ordnance on civilians in the rebel-held town. The report “contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft,” wrote Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Professor Theodore Postol, who reviewed it and put together a 14-page assessment, which he provided to RT on Wednesday. [View image on Twitter][View image on Twitter][View image on Twitter][View image on Twitter] Follow [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/800387860847280133/VcYL2aLR_normal.jpg]EHSANI2 @EHSANI22 Leading CW expert Theodor Postol of MIT just published a 14-page document questioning WH claims that Sarin was dropped from #Syrian AF plane 8:36 AM - 12 Apr 2017 * * 402402 Retweets * 339339 likes “I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun,” wrote Postol. A chemical attack with a nerve agent did occur, he said, but the available evidence does not support the US government’s conclusions. Read more [A Syrian man receives treatment in the town of Maaret al-Noman following a suspected toxic gas attack in Khan Sheikhun, on April 4, 2017]US accuses Moscow of ‘sowing doubt’ over narrative of Assad’s culpability in chemical attack “I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct,” Postol wrote. It is “very clear who planned this attack, who authorized this attack and who conducted this attack itself,” Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday. Earlier in the day, White House spokesman Sean Spicer also said that doubting the evidence would be “doubting the entire international reporting crew documenting this.” The report offered by the White House, however, cited “a wide body of open-source material” and “social media accounts” from the rebel-held area, including footage provided by the White Helmets rescue group documented to have ties with jihadist rebels, Western and Gulf Arab governments. Follow [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/839145450296991748/EQdAGjG8_normal.jpg]Alexey Yaroshevsky ✔@Yaro_RT I have just EXCLUSIVELY interviewed Prof. Postol. Airs at 4 and 5 pm EST on @RT_America (two parts) https://twitter.com/maxabrahms/status/852233382285193216 … 12:01 PM - 12 Apr 2017 * * 33 Retweets * 66 likes Postol was not convinced by such evidence. “Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real,” he wrote. “No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it.” Instead, “the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides.” “We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report,” he concluded, recalling the 2013 situation when the Obama administration claimed Assad had used chemical weapons against the rebels in Ghouta, near Damascus. “What the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true,” Postol wrote, “and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security.” On Tuesday, Russian General Staff spokesman Colonel-General Sergey Rudskoy questioned the “authenticity” of media reports concerning the attack. He said that using social media to reconstruct the course of events raised “serious doubts” not only among the Russian military but also “among many respected experts and organizations.” Rudskoy noted that, under the 2013 agreement to give up its chemical weapons, the Syrian government destroyed its stockpiles at 10 sites that were under its control. This was verified by the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). However, the remaining two facilities were in territory controlled by the rebels, he said, and it remains unclear what happened to the chemicals stored there. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Apr 13 02:26:20 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:26:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: <01c501d2b17a$c1dc4350$4594c9f0$@comcast.net> References: <01c501d2b17a$c1dc4350$4594c9f0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1D097A9C-6C85-4885-A6CA-CC40C6065786@illinois.edu> What might be called the ‘ÜberNaiman’ of the local Democrats seems unlikely. But they should simply be abandoned on other grounds. And one should be careful with what the late Alex Cockburn called ‘Truth(Left)Out.’ —CGE > On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:46 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Thank you Kevin for your spot on analysis of Robert Naimann ! > > Just so you and everyone else on the central Illinois Peace list knows that Naimann just recently called me a “ rabid ultra leftist dog “ because I advocated single payer health care and criticized a local non profiteer for their refusal to publicly advocate for single payer health care, instead of their consistent advocacy of the ACA (possible Kaiser – Permanente grant money?). > Naimann said that he is “ boycotting any and all campaigns for single payer “. > > He also told me a few years ago that in regards to any advocacy of anti-war organizing that he refuses to work / organize with anyone who is a ; Green, a Trotskyist, an “ ultra-Leftist “ a “ Sectarian “ or an Anarchist. In his inaccurate and bizarre definition of the terms “ ultra leftist “ and “ sectarian “ means anyone who is not a liberal democrat. > > He also opposes Union democracy activists and in 2014 advocated for our local INDY Media center ( U-C IMC ) to be ; “ burned to the ground “. > > He also supported a millionaire Attorney in the 2014 democratic primary election for State Representative in Champaign Urbana Illinois, whose family is connected to the Rahm Emmanuelle machine in Chicago and cheated the city of Urbana Illinois out of tens of thousands of dollars in property tax revenue for his client Carle Foundation Hospital / Clinic, against an African American Woman community activist who actually beat the millionaire scumbag ( 62 % - 38 % due to grassroots organizing ) and the entire State of Illinois democratic party and the local democratic party establishment even though she was out spent 10 to 1. > > He has no support in Champaign-Urbana. Even the progressive democrats hate him. > > David Johnson > Champaign, IL. > > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Zeese via Peace-discuss > Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 1:45 PM > To: Robert Naiman > Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE; Green Party of the United States; ufpj-activist; actiongreens at yahoogroups.com; Scott McLarty; peace; Prairie Green Party; Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria > > Yes - disdain is mild. Words like hatred, liar, anger at their existence would be more accurate. > > Your advice is silly. It would be like the Greens saying -- how many candidates did Just Foreign Policy run? > > You are asking a political party, that runs candidates, focusing on political advocacy and lobbying of other parties. > > That is not the role of a political party. > > I suspect you know that and are just finding a way to criticize because you would prefer your Dems are not challenged by peace candidates on the left. > > Your advice is not needed or welcome. Stick with the war mongering Democrats that you like so much. > > Keep lying about Green candidates as you did in the last election. > > Now everyone knows, when it comes to elections you cannot be trusted. > > When it comes to Greens, people should first assume you are lying, since that is your history. > > KZ > > > @KBZeese > Build power and resistance > Popular Resistance > www.PopularResistance.org) > Shift Wealth: Economic Democracy > Its Our Economy > www.ItsOurEconomy.US) > Democratize the Media > Clearing the FOG (Forces of Greed) > Radio http://www.ClearingTheFOGRadio.org) > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > "Disdain" is a mild characterization of my views of the Green Party. > > But here I was trying to make constructive suggestions for improvement in the Green Party's advocacy against U.S. wars. I really would like to see something from the Green Party, sooner rather than later, on U.S. support for the Saudi blockade at Hodeida. > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > Thank you Michael for your worthwhile insight, I agree we aren’t an organization with the funds or structure as of yet, to make immediate press releases, we are also egalitarian in that we don’t want a couple people speaking on behalf of the whole group. > > I am a Green within a small community and we will be protesting today at a couple locations in our town of Champaign, Illinois. I have also called for others locally and across the nation to join, or organize against the recent bombing of Syria. At this point we are demonstrating not on behalf of the Greens but on behalf of AWARE, an anti-war group, of which most if not all of our members are also Greens. > > Robert Naiman’s disdain for the Green Party, as well as all competitors of the Democrats is well known to most of us. Thus he will vilify us every chance he gets. > > More people now see, the Democrat Party for what it is, opportunists jumping on every opportunity to promote themselves while at the same time supporting foreign wars. The Republican Party isn’t even worth a line of discussion, being the bad cop vs. the Democrats. > >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 08:14, Mitchel Cohen wrote: >> >> Thank you, Karen, for your statement on Syria, which I've forwarded to some lists I coordinate, particularly the ActionGreens listserve (which is a private list of activists concerned with Green (and other) issues, and is not an official Green Party list). >> >> As to Robert Naiman's criticism, while I share his sentiment that the Green Party statement could and should be stronger and more expansive, the GP is not set up to issue immediate responses to whatever matter is before us. There usually needs to be discussion and some sort of decision first. >> >> Yes, I find that frustrating. Nor do I like (and never have liked) the tendency of many Left groups as well as the Green Party to "call on" this or that to happen, rather than to organize to make it happen. We don't need "Resolutionary Socialism", "sending a message," "raising the consciousness of others," and so forth. My guiding principle here is best articulated oh so sharply in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is all about the Left and worth re-showing every year. Unicorns, indeed! >> >> But the Greens don't have (and don't want to have) one person who is empowered to make those decisions for the party as a whole. We're simply not set up that way, where one or two individuals could make decisions for the entire Party and write press releases without wide consultation first. >> >> Meanwhile, the GP in NYC has indeed initiated quite a few antiwar demonstrations in the last few months, and its members have participated in hundreds of'm ... including efforts to get anti-war issues included in the general "No Ban, No Wall" protests -- as have rank-and-file Green members across the country. No Ban, No Wall, No War ! >> >> I agree that the sentence about Mosul and Saudi Arabia should have been included. >> >> We need to work together. >> >> Mitchel Cohen >> Brooklyn Greens/Green Party >> >> >> At 10:39 AM 4/9/2017, Robert Naiman wrote: >> >> A day behind everyone else. But it's a start. We can say that the Green Party tried to show up in some way.  >> >> Now how about if the Green Party would actually try to organize some activity, any kind of activity, against Trump's action? There's nothing in the Green Party statement that asks anyone who supports the Green Party to do anything. It's all about, the Green Party calls for this, the Green Party calls for that, the Green Party calls for dismantling of the military industrial complex, the Green Party calls for unicorns and ponies, all children under the age of sixteen, are now sixteen. >> >> Compare and contrast: in less than twenty-four hours, Just Foreign Policy rallied 7,419 people to defend the War Powers Resolution. And this was our secondalert on the topic since Trump's strike. >> >> Join @RepPeterDeFazio, @RepMarkPocan: tell @realDonaldTrump he has 48 hours to report on Syria >> http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/join-reppeterdefazio?r_by=941832 >> >> And we're just one little NGO, one of many working on this front - we don't advertise ourselves to be a national political party. >> >> Also: how come the Green Party is still silent on U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war and blockade in Yemen? The Green Party has produced a long statement. It's not like they didn't have room to talk about U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Here was a perfect opportunity to mention it: "Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians." >> >> "Mad Dog" Mattis' proposal to attack Hodeida and push Yemen into famine is still reportedly in the inbox of McMaster and Trump's national security team. It sure would be great if the Green Party would speak up on this. >> >> Tell @realDonaldTrump: Come to Congress Before You Attack Hodeida >> http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/help-repmarkpocan-justinamas?r_by=1135580 >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria >> >> <~WRD000.jpg> >> >> WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and covert military action by the U.S. >> >> Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists covering the war. >> Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians >> >> An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict >> >> Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a revived antiwar movement >> >> Green Party of the United States >> http://www.gp.org >> @GreenPartyUS >> >> For Immediate Release: >> Saturday, April 8, 2017 >> >> Contact: >> Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614, scott at gp.org >> Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. >> >> The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, especially children, who are fleeing the war. >> >> Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb the latters' strongholds in Iraq. >> >> Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a wider regional or global military confrontation. >> >> The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. >> >> In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. >> >> The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. >> >> Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their country's civil war. >> >> The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. >> >> The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the U.S. faces no threat from other countries. >> >> >> MORE INFORMATION >> >> Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org >> 202-319-7191 >> @GreenPartyUS >> > From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Apr 13 19:18:57 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:18:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria In-Reply-To: <1D097A9C-6C85-4885-A6CA-CC40C6065786@illinois.edu> References: <01c501d2b17a$c1dc4350$4594c9f0$@comcast.net> <1D097A9C-6C85-4885-A6CA-CC40C6065786@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <6F32D1DF-FF5D-45D7-9FE0-F4206803171D@illinois.edu> https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704131052591096-trump-syria-violation-un-charter-us-constitution/ > On Apr 12, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > What might be called the ‘ÜberNaiman’ of the local Democrats seems unlikely. But they should simply be abandoned on other grounds. > > And one should be careful with what the late Alex Cockburn called ‘Truth(Left)Out.’ —CGE > > >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:46 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Thank you Kevin for your spot on analysis of Robert Naimann ! >> >> Just so you and everyone else on the central Illinois Peace list knows that Naimann just recently called me a “ rabid ultra leftist dog “ because I advocated single payer health care and criticized a local non profiteer for their refusal to publicly advocate for single payer health care, instead of their consistent advocacy of the ACA (possible Kaiser – Permanente grant money?). >> Naimann said that he is “ boycotting any and all campaigns for single payer “. >> >> He also told me a few years ago that in regards to any advocacy of anti-war organizing that he refuses to work / organize with anyone who is a ; Green, a Trotskyist, an “ ultra-Leftist “ a “ Sectarian “ or an Anarchist. In his inaccurate and bizarre definition of the terms “ ultra leftist “ and “ sectarian “ means anyone who is not a liberal democrat. >> >> He also opposes Union democracy activists and in 2014 advocated for our local INDY Media center ( U-C IMC ) to be ; “ burned to the ground “. >> >> He also supported a millionaire Attorney in the 2014 democratic primary election for State Representative in Champaign Urbana Illinois, whose family is connected to the Rahm Emmanuelle machine in Chicago and cheated the city of Urbana Illinois out of tens of thousands of dollars in property tax revenue for his client Carle Foundation Hospital / Clinic, against an African American Woman community activist who actually beat the millionaire scumbag ( 62 % - 38 % due to grassroots organizing ) and the entire State of Illinois democratic party and the local democratic party establishment even though she was out spent 10 to 1. >> >> He has no support in Champaign-Urbana. Even the progressive democrats hate him. >> >> David Johnson >> Champaign, IL. >> >> >> >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Zeese via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 1:45 PM >> To: Robert Naiman >> Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE; Green Party of the United States; ufpj-activist; actiongreens at yahoogroups.com; Scott McLarty; peace; Prairie Green Party; Peace-discuss List >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria >> >> Yes - disdain is mild. Words like hatred, liar, anger at their existence would be more accurate. >> >> Your advice is silly. It would be like the Greens saying -- how many candidates did Just Foreign Policy run? >> >> You are asking a political party, that runs candidates, focusing on political advocacy and lobbying of other parties. >> >> That is not the role of a political party. >> >> I suspect you know that and are just finding a way to criticize because you would prefer your Dems are not challenged by peace candidates on the left. >> >> Your advice is not needed or welcome. Stick with the war mongering Democrats that you like so much. >> >> Keep lying about Green candidates as you did in the last election. >> >> Now everyone knows, when it comes to elections you cannot be trusted. >> >> When it comes to Greens, people should first assume you are lying, since that is your history. >> >> KZ >> >> >> @KBZeese >> Build power and resistance >> Popular Resistance >> www.PopularResistance.org) >> Shift Wealth: Economic Democracy >> Its Our Economy >> www.ItsOurEconomy.US) >> Democratize the Media >> Clearing the FOG (Forces of Greed) >> Radio http://www.ClearingTheFOGRadio.org) >> >> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: >> "Disdain" is a mild characterization of my views of the Green Party. >> >> But here I was trying to make constructive suggestions for improvement in the Green Party's advocacy against U.S. wars. I really would like to see something from the Green Party, sooner rather than later, on U.S. support for the Saudi blockade at Hodeida. >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> Thank you Michael for your worthwhile insight, I agree we aren’t an organization with the funds or structure as of yet, to make immediate press releases, we are also egalitarian in that we don’t want a couple people speaking on behalf of the whole group. >> >> I am a Green within a small community and we will be protesting today at a couple locations in our town of Champaign, Illinois. I have also called for others locally and across the nation to join, or organize against the recent bombing of Syria. At this point we are demonstrating not on behalf of the Greens but on behalf of AWARE, an anti-war group, of which most if not all of our members are also Greens. >> >> Robert Naiman’s disdain for the Green Party, as well as all competitors of the Democrats is well known to most of us. Thus he will vilify us every chance he gets. >> >> More people now see, the Democrat Party for what it is, opportunists jumping on every opportunity to promote themselves while at the same time supporting foreign wars. The Republican Party isn’t even worth a line of discussion, being the bad cop vs. the Democrats. >> >>> On Apr 9, 2017, at 08:14, Mitchel Cohen wrote: >>> >>> Thank you, Karen, for your statement on Syria, which I've forwarded to some lists I coordinate, particularly the ActionGreens listserve (which is a private list of activists concerned with Green (and other) issues, and is not an official Green Party list). >>> >>> As to Robert Naiman's criticism, while I share his sentiment that the Green Party statement could and should be stronger and more expansive, the GP is not set up to issue immediate responses to whatever matter is before us. There usually needs to be discussion and some sort of decision first. >>> >>> Yes, I find that frustrating. Nor do I like (and never have liked) the tendency of many Left groups as well as the Green Party to "call on" this or that to happen, rather than to organize to make it happen. We don't need "Resolutionary Socialism", "sending a message," "raising the consciousness of others," and so forth. My guiding principle here is best articulated oh so sharply in Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is all about the Left and worth re-showing every year. Unicorns, indeed! >>> >>> But the Greens don't have (and don't want to have) one person who is empowered to make those decisions for the party as a whole. We're simply not set up that way, where one or two individuals could make decisions for the entire Party and write press releases without wide consultation first. >>> >>> Meanwhile, the GP in NYC has indeed initiated quite a few antiwar demonstrations in the last few months, and its members have participated in hundreds of'm ... including efforts to get anti-war issues included in the general "No Ban, No Wall" protests -- as have rank-and-file Green members across the country. No Ban, No Wall, No War ! >>> >>> I agree that the sentence about Mosul and Saudi Arabia should have been included. >>> >>> We need to work together. >>> >>> Mitchel Cohen >>> Brooklyn Greens/Green Party >>> >>> >>> At 10:39 AM 4/9/2017, Robert Naiman wrote: >>> >>> A day behind everyone else. But it's a start. We can say that the Green Party tried to show up in some way.  >>> >>> Now how about if the Green Party would actually try to organize some activity, any kind of activity, against Trump's action? There's nothing in the Green Party statement that asks anyone who supports the Green Party to do anything. It's all about, the Green Party calls for this, the Green Party calls for that, the Green Party calls for dismantling of the military industrial complex, the Green Party calls for unicorns and ponies, all children under the age of sixteen, are now sixteen. >>> >>> Compare and contrast: in less than twenty-four hours, Just Foreign Policy rallied 7,419 people to defend the War Powers Resolution. And this was our secondalert on the topic since Trump's strike. >>> >>> Join @RepPeterDeFazio, @RepMarkPocan: tell @realDonaldTrump he has 48 hours to report on Syria >>> http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/join-reppeterdefazio?r_by=941832 >>> >>> And we're just one little NGO, one of many working on this front - we don't advertise ourselves to be a national political party. >>> >>> Also: how come the Green Party is still silent on U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war and blockade in Yemen? The Green Party has produced a long statement. It's not like they didn't have room to talk about U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Here was a perfect opportunity to mention it: "Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians." >>> >>> "Mad Dog" Mattis' proposal to attack Hodeida and push Yemen into famine is still reportedly in the inbox of McMaster and Trump's national security team. It sure would be great if the Green Party would speak up on this. >>> >>> Tell @realDonaldTrump: Come to Congress Before You Attack Hodeida >>> http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/help-repmarkpocan-justinamas?r_by=1135580 >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> Green Party statement on Trump's missile strike in Syria >>> >>> <~WRD000.jpg> >>> >>> WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party of the United States strongly condemned President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile strike on a Syrian government airfield and called for a halt to further overt and covert military action by the U.S. >>> >>> Greens called for an internationally cooperative and impartial investigation of the nerve gas attack in Idlib province that killed scores of civilians, which supposedly motivated Mr. Trump to order the strikes. The U.S. alleges that the President Bashar al-Assad government is responsible for the gas attack, a claim disputed by some journalists covering the war. >>> Greens call for halt to U.S. attacks and ongoing overt and covert military intervention in Syria, which will inflict even more civilian casualties and escalate the war in Syria, urge an arms embargo on all sides and an open door for fleeing Syrian civilians >>> >>> An impartial probe of the Idlib gas attacks and emergency negotiations are necessary to stop further bloodshed, prevent expanded Cold War conflict >>> >>> Greens criticize war drumbeats from Democrats and U.S. media, call for a revived antiwar movement >>> >>> Green Party of the United States >>> http://www.gp.org >>> @GreenPartyUS >>> >>> For Immediate Release: >>> Saturday, April 8, 2017 >>> >>> Contact: >>> Scott McLarty, Media Director, 202-904-7614, scott at gp.org >>> Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders have also called for an investigation. Green Party leaders noted that unilateral attacks on another sovereign country that poses no immediate threat to the U.S. violate international law and treaties to which the U.S. is signatory. >>> >>> The Green Party also calls for the U.S. to admit Syrian civilians, especially children, who are fleeing the war. >>> >>> Greens said that the strike ordered by President Trump threatens to expand the Syrian conflict into a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia in the context of a new Cold War between the two powers. The CIA and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, have supplied funding and weapons to Syrian rebel groups that have strengthened ISIL and al-Qaeda, even while the U.S. continues to bomb the latters' strongholds in Iraq. >>> >>> Green Party leaders asserted that the investigation and emergency negotiations with Russia, Iran, and all others involved or with an interest in the Syrian war are necessary to stop further bloodshed and prevent a wider regional or global military confrontation. >>> >>> The Green Party supports an international arms embargo on all sides, which is only possible through multilateral negotiation. The party refutes bipartisan claims that military solutions can bring peace and stability. >>> >>> In calling for a halt to U.S. military action, the Green Party in no way defends either the Assad government or rebel forces, which are responsible for the slaughter, maiming, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. The party supports an international investigation into war crimes on all sides. Greens warned that U.S. military action will only lead to more mass civilian casualties, as shown by U.S. invasions and attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other Muslim countries since 2001. >>> >>> The Green Party sharply criticized major media and warhawk Democrats who are cheering the missile strikes. Mr. Trump's pre-attack friendly stance towards Russia -- opposed by Democrats enthusiastic for a new Cold War -- offered a chance for cooperation between Washington and Moscow. The missile strikes are likely to have scuttled that chance. >>> >>> Greens said that Trump Administration's belligerence risks a new era of reckless warfare comparable to -- or worse than -- President George W. Bush's disastrous first term. Since his inauguration and despite his protestations of sympathy for civilians, including children, killed in the Idlib assault, Mr. Trump has ordered raids in Yemen and air assaults on Mosul and a mosque near Aleppo that have killed scores of civilians. These crimes are compounded by his administration's anti-Muslim immigration proposals and deportations, especially targeting Syrians fleeing their country's civil war. >>> >>> The Green Party calls for a revived mass antiwar movement that opposes military action that threatens the lives of civilians, that rejects wars for oil and other resources and for U.S. political and economic domination, and that recognizes a dangerous continuity in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations' war policies. These same policies have ignited rage against the U.S. and may lead to new retaliatory violence against Americans. >>> >>> The party also urges deep cuts in defense spending (except for veterans' services) and dismantling of the military-industrial complex, noting that the U.S. military budget is ten times greater than Russia's and that the U.S. faces no threat from other countries. >>> >>> >>> MORE INFORMATION >>> >>> Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org >>> 202-319-7191 >>> @GreenPartyUS >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 01:06:04 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:06:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Message from Brian Dolinar related to ICE Message-ID: "Folks we're organizing a solidarity rally with C-U Immigration Forum at Shadowwood @ Friday noon! Tell a friend #StopICE BD” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 01:06:04 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:06:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Message from Brian Dolinar related to ICE Message-ID: "Folks we're organizing a solidarity rally with C-U Immigration Forum at Shadowwood @ Friday noon! Tell a friend #StopICE BD” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 01:13:15 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:13:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Peace] Message from Brian Dolinar related to ICE/See address below: References: <718F9383-E885-4D2A-9CDF-4FD8C046856B@gmail.com> Message-ID: Tomorrow, Friday, April 14, 12.00pm Shadowwood 1600 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61820 "Folks we're organizing a solidarity rally with C-U Immigration Forum at Shadowwood @ Friday noon! Tell a friend #StopICE BD” _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Apr 14 01:13:15 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:13:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Peace] Message from Brian Dolinar related to ICE/See address below: References: <718F9383-E885-4D2A-9CDF-4FD8C046856B@gmail.com> Message-ID: Tomorrow, Friday, April 14, 12.00pm Shadowwood 1600 N Market St, Champaign, IL 61820 "Folks we're organizing a solidarity rally with C-U Immigration Forum at Shadowwood @ Friday noon! Tell a friend #StopICE BD” _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Apr 14 02:04:56 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 02:04:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Message from Brian Dolinar: Demonstration tomorrow Message-ID: Join with CU-Immigration in a Solidarity Rally with Immigrants. Stop ICE roundups in Champaign. Those of us who are members of AWARE, Prairie Greens, etc. All those who are opposed to war, killing, racism, and all that being perpetrated by the USG, against vulnerable peoples, which includes us. Our lack of jobs poor healthcare, lack of housing, costly education, chemicals poisoning our land…… Whatever our issue, we need to unite, and work together, as one. Tomorrow in solidarity with Immigrants. Please try to make it. Tomorrow April 14th, 12:00 pm Shadow wood 1600 N. Market St., Champaign, Il 61802 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 02:04:56 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 02:04:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Message from Brian Dolinar: Demonstration tomorrow Message-ID: Join with CU-Immigration in a Solidarity Rally with Immigrants. Stop ICE roundups in Champaign. Those of us who are members of AWARE, Prairie Greens, etc. All those who are opposed to war, killing, racism, and all that being perpetrated by the USG, against vulnerable peoples, which includes us. Our lack of jobs poor healthcare, lack of housing, costly education, chemicals poisoning our land…… Whatever our issue, we need to unite, and work together, as one. Tomorrow in solidarity with Immigrants. Please try to make it. Tomorrow April 14th, 12:00 pm Shadow wood 1600 N. Market St., Champaign, Il 61802 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 02:29:43 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 02:29:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Largest non nuclear bomb dropped on Afghanistan, last week, by us. Message-ID: HomeAmerica US drops largest non-nuclear bomb on Afghanistan, first time used in combat Published time: 13 Apr, 2017 16:48Edited time: 13 Apr, 2017 20:23 The US military has used its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed “the mother of all bombs,” for the first time in combat. The US Air Force used it in Afghanistan to target Islamic State tunnels and personnel. The 21,000-pound (9,525 kg) bomb was dropped in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan. The Pentagon has confirmed the use of the MOAB, and is currently assessing damage. General John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, signed off on its use, CNN reported. Authority was also sought from General Joseph Votel, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM). See below: The Air Force developed the MOAB in 2003, but it had never been used in combat until 7pm local time on Thursday. The Pentagon produced 15 MOABs at a cost of $16 million per unit, according to military information website Deagel. The use of the bomb comes as the US involvement in Afghanistan heads into its 16th year in the fall, and days after Staff Sergeant Mark De Alencar, a US Special Forces operator, was killed in the same region. "The soldier was mortally wounded late Saturday during an operation in Nangarhar Province," US Navy Captain Bill Salvin tweeted. READ MORE: US-led coalition airstrike mistakenly killed 18 SDF ally fighters in Syria on April 11 – Pentagon The MOAB was designed to target large below-ground areas. It would have “feel like a nuclear weapon to anyone near the area," Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona (ret.) told CNN. The GPS-guided munition would have already been in country before it was dropped out of an MC-130 aircraft, operated by Air Force Special Operations Command, military sources told CNN’s Barbara Starr. 9h [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/658688193651277824/Kv_cNNub_normal.png]ABC News ✔ @ABC U.S. military statement on GBU-43 bomb used against ISIS in Afghanistan: "U.S. Forces took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties." pic.twitter.com/sWKRMhStvc Follow [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/658688193651277824/Kv_cNNub_normal.png]ABC News ✔@ABC CENTCOM after U.S. drops GBU-43 bomb on ISIS targets in Afghanistan: U.S. "will continue offensive operations until ISIS-K is destroyed." pic.twitter.com/qyrNXhpQbu 9:59 AM - 13 Apr 2017 [View image on Twitter] * * 254254 Retweets * 178178 likes “The strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. Forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction of ISIS-K fighters and facilities,” CENTCOM said in a statement, referring to Islamic State Khorasan, the branch of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. Nicholson described the MOAB as “the right munition to reduce” the improvised explosive devices (IEDs), bunkers and tunnels IS is using to “thicken their defense.” The bomb will also “maintain the momentum of our offensive against ISIS-K,” he said. The Air Force “took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties,” CENTCOM said. READ MORE: US Tomahawk strike on Syria as effective as dropping missiles from air balloons – Russia’s MoD President Donald Trump told reporters that he's given the military "total authorization," and "that's why they've been so successful lately." When asked if the use of the MOAB in Afghanistan might send a message to North Korea amid increased tensions with the isolated country, Trump replied: "I don't know if it sends a message, I don't care if it does or not." A peace conference on Afghanistan is scheduled to begin on Friday in Moscow, involving the Afghan government and representatives of twelve other nations. The US was invited to the conference, but reportedly declined to participate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 02:29:43 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 02:29:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Largest non nuclear bomb dropped on Afghanistan, last week, by us. Message-ID: HomeAmerica US drops largest non-nuclear bomb on Afghanistan, first time used in combat Published time: 13 Apr, 2017 16:48Edited time: 13 Apr, 2017 20:23 The US military has used its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed “the mother of all bombs,” for the first time in combat. The US Air Force used it in Afghanistan to target Islamic State tunnels and personnel. The 21,000-pound (9,525 kg) bomb was dropped in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan. The Pentagon has confirmed the use of the MOAB, and is currently assessing damage. General John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, signed off on its use, CNN reported. Authority was also sought from General Joseph Votel, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM). See below: The Air Force developed the MOAB in 2003, but it had never been used in combat until 7pm local time on Thursday. The Pentagon produced 15 MOABs at a cost of $16 million per unit, according to military information website Deagel. The use of the bomb comes as the US involvement in Afghanistan heads into its 16th year in the fall, and days after Staff Sergeant Mark De Alencar, a US Special Forces operator, was killed in the same region. "The soldier was mortally wounded late Saturday during an operation in Nangarhar Province," US Navy Captain Bill Salvin tweeted. READ MORE: US-led coalition airstrike mistakenly killed 18 SDF ally fighters in Syria on April 11 – Pentagon The MOAB was designed to target large below-ground areas. It would have “feel like a nuclear weapon to anyone near the area," Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona (ret.) told CNN. The GPS-guided munition would have already been in country before it was dropped out of an MC-130 aircraft, operated by Air Force Special Operations Command, military sources told CNN’s Barbara Starr. 9h [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/658688193651277824/Kv_cNNub_normal.png]ABC News ✔ @ABC U.S. military statement on GBU-43 bomb used against ISIS in Afghanistan: "U.S. Forces took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties." pic.twitter.com/sWKRMhStvc Follow [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/658688193651277824/Kv_cNNub_normal.png]ABC News ✔@ABC CENTCOM after U.S. drops GBU-43 bomb on ISIS targets in Afghanistan: U.S. "will continue offensive operations until ISIS-K is destroyed." pic.twitter.com/qyrNXhpQbu 9:59 AM - 13 Apr 2017 [View image on Twitter] * * 254254 Retweets * 178178 likes “The strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. Forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction of ISIS-K fighters and facilities,” CENTCOM said in a statement, referring to Islamic State Khorasan, the branch of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. Nicholson described the MOAB as “the right munition to reduce” the improvised explosive devices (IEDs), bunkers and tunnels IS is using to “thicken their defense.” The bomb will also “maintain the momentum of our offensive against ISIS-K,” he said. The Air Force “took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties,” CENTCOM said. READ MORE: US Tomahawk strike on Syria as effective as dropping missiles from air balloons – Russia’s MoD President Donald Trump told reporters that he's given the military "total authorization," and "that's why they've been so successful lately." When asked if the use of the MOAB in Afghanistan might send a message to North Korea amid increased tensions with the isolated country, Trump replied: "I don't know if it sends a message, I don't care if it does or not." A peace conference on Afghanistan is scheduled to begin on Friday in Moscow, involving the Afghan government and representatives of twelve other nations. The US was invited to the conference, but reportedly declined to participate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 03:53:03 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 22:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Largest non nuclear bomb dropped on Afghanistan, last week, by us. Message-ID: <8j6v2od99vf9hvf8wi3oegdt.1492141734144@email.android.com> There are fewer and fewer reasons for hope in the human race. I am human and i condemn this action -- I condemn the bombing, I condemn the government that had such a weapon developed -------- Original message --------From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Date: 4/13/17 21:29 (GMT-06:00) To: Peace-discuss List , Peace-discuss AWARE Subject: [Peace-discuss] Largest non nuclear bomb dropped on Afghanistan, last week, by us. HomeAmerica US drops largest non-nuclear bomb on Afghanistan, first time used in combat Published time: 13 Apr, 2017 16:48Edited time: 13 Apr, 2017 20:23 The US military has used its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed “the mother of all bombs,” for the first time in combat. The US Air Force used it in Afghanistan to target Islamic State tunnels and personnel. The 21,000-pound (9,525 kg) bomb was dropped in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan. The Pentagon has confirmed the use of the MOAB, and is currently assessing damage. General John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, signed off on its use, CNN reported. Authority was also sought from General Joseph Votel, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM).  See below: The Air Force developed the MOAB in 2003, but it had never been used in combat until 7pm local time on Thursday. The Pentagon produced 15 MOABs at a cost of $16 million per unit, according to military information website Deagel. The use of the bomb comes as the US involvement in Afghanistan heads into its 16th year in the fall, and days after Staff Sergeant Mark De Alencar, a US Special Forces operator, was killed in the same region. "The soldier was mortally wounded late Saturday during an operation in Nangarhar Province," US Navy Captain Bill Salvin tweeted. READ MORE: US-led coalition airstrike mistakenly killed 18 SDF ally fighters in Syria on April 11 – Pentagon The MOAB was designed to target large below-ground areas. It would have “feel like a nuclear weapon to anyone near the area," Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona (ret.) told CNN. The GPS-guided munition would have already been in country before it was dropped out of an MC-130 aircraft, operated by Air Force Special Operations Command, military sources told CNN’s Barbara Starr. 9h ABC News  ✔ @ABC U.S. military statement on GBU-43 bomb used against ISIS in Afghanistan: "U.S. Forces took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties." pic.twitter.com/sWKRMhStvc  Follow ABC News  ✔@ABC CENTCOM after U.S. drops GBU-43 bomb on ISIS targets in Afghanistan: U.S. "will continue offensive operations until ISIS-K is destroyed." pic.twitter.com/qyrNXhpQbu 9:59 AM - 13 Apr 2017    254254 Retweets   178178 likes “The strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. Forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction of ISIS-K fighters and facilities,” CENTCOM said in a statement, referring to Islamic State Khorasan, the branch of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. Nicholson described the MOAB as “the right munition to reduce” the improvised explosive devices (IEDs), bunkers and tunnels IS is using to “thicken their defense.” The bomb will also “maintain the momentum of our offensive against ISIS-K,” he said. The Air Force “took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties,” CENTCOM said. READ MORE: US Tomahawk strike on Syria as effective as dropping missiles from air balloons – Russia’s MoD President Donald Trump told reporters that he's given the military "total authorization," and "that's why they've been so successful lately." When asked if the use of the MOAB in Afghanistan might send a message to North Korea amid increased tensions with the isolated country, Trump replied: "I don't know if it sends a message, I don't care if it does or not." A peace conference on Afghanistan is scheduled to begin on Friday in Moscow, involving the Afghan government and representatives of twelve other nations. The US was invited to the conference, but reportedly declined to participate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 03:53:03 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 22:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Largest non nuclear bomb dropped on Afghanistan, last week, by us. Message-ID: <8j6v2od99vf9hvf8wi3oegdt.1492141734144@email.android.com> There are fewer and fewer reasons for hope in the human race. I am human and i condemn this action -- I condemn the bombing, I condemn the government that had such a weapon developed -------- Original message --------From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Date: 4/13/17 21:29 (GMT-06:00) To: Peace-discuss List , Peace-discuss AWARE Subject: [Peace-discuss] Largest non nuclear bomb dropped on Afghanistan, last week, by us. HomeAmerica US drops largest non-nuclear bomb on Afghanistan, first time used in combat Published time: 13 Apr, 2017 16:48Edited time: 13 Apr, 2017 20:23 The US military has used its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed “the mother of all bombs,” for the first time in combat. The US Air Force used it in Afghanistan to target Islamic State tunnels and personnel. The 21,000-pound (9,525 kg) bomb was dropped in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan. The Pentagon has confirmed the use of the MOAB, and is currently assessing damage. General John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, signed off on its use, CNN reported. Authority was also sought from General Joseph Votel, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM).  See below: The Air Force developed the MOAB in 2003, but it had never been used in combat until 7pm local time on Thursday. The Pentagon produced 15 MOABs at a cost of $16 million per unit, according to military information website Deagel. The use of the bomb comes as the US involvement in Afghanistan heads into its 16th year in the fall, and days after Staff Sergeant Mark De Alencar, a US Special Forces operator, was killed in the same region. "The soldier was mortally wounded late Saturday during an operation in Nangarhar Province," US Navy Captain Bill Salvin tweeted. READ MORE: US-led coalition airstrike mistakenly killed 18 SDF ally fighters in Syria on April 11 – Pentagon The MOAB was designed to target large below-ground areas. It would have “feel like a nuclear weapon to anyone near the area," Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona (ret.) told CNN. The GPS-guided munition would have already been in country before it was dropped out of an MC-130 aircraft, operated by Air Force Special Operations Command, military sources told CNN’s Barbara Starr. 9h ABC News  ✔ @ABC U.S. military statement on GBU-43 bomb used against ISIS in Afghanistan: "U.S. Forces took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties." pic.twitter.com/sWKRMhStvc  Follow ABC News  ✔@ABC CENTCOM after U.S. drops GBU-43 bomb on ISIS targets in Afghanistan: U.S. "will continue offensive operations until ISIS-K is destroyed." pic.twitter.com/qyrNXhpQbu 9:59 AM - 13 Apr 2017    254254 Retweets   178178 likes “The strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. Forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction of ISIS-K fighters and facilities,” CENTCOM said in a statement, referring to Islamic State Khorasan, the branch of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. Nicholson described the MOAB as “the right munition to reduce” the improvised explosive devices (IEDs), bunkers and tunnels IS is using to “thicken their defense.” The bomb will also “maintain the momentum of our offensive against ISIS-K,” he said. The Air Force “took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties,” CENTCOM said. READ MORE: US Tomahawk strike on Syria as effective as dropping missiles from air balloons – Russia’s MoD President Donald Trump told reporters that he's given the military "total authorization," and "that's why they've been so successful lately." When asked if the use of the MOAB in Afghanistan might send a message to North Korea amid increased tensions with the isolated country, Trump replied: "I don't know if it sends a message, I don't care if it does or not." A peace conference on Afghanistan is scheduled to begin on Friday in Moscow, involving the Afghan government and representatives of twelve other nations. The US was invited to the conference, but reportedly declined to participate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 11:48:27 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:48:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Largest non nuclear bomb dropped on Afghanistan, last week, by us. In-Reply-To: <8j6v2od99vf9hvf8wi3oegdt.1492141734144@email.android.com> References: <8j6v2od99vf9hvf8wi3oegdt.1492141734144@email.android.com> Message-ID: Thank you Karen M., we need more people condemning this action, and all actions, that result in death and destruction, leading us to oblivion. Anyone available for a demonstration Saturday or Sunday, to make our voices heard? On Apr 13, 2017, at 20:53, kmedina67 > wrote: There are fewer and fewer reasons for hope in the human race. I am human and i condemn this action -- I condemn the bombing, I condemn the government that had such a weapon developed -------- Original message -------- From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Date: 4/13/17 21:29 (GMT-06:00) To: Peace-discuss List >, Peace-discuss AWARE > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Largest non nuclear bomb dropped on Afghanistan, last week, by us. HomeAmerica US drops largest non-nuclear bomb on Afghanistan, first time used in combat Published time: 13 Apr, 2017 16:48Edited time: 13 Apr, 2017 20:23 The US military has used its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed “the mother of all bombs,” for the first time in combat. The US Air Force used it in Afghanistan to target Islamic State tunnels and personnel. The 21,000-pound (9,525 kg) bomb was dropped in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan. The Pentagon has confirmed the use of the MOAB, and is currently assessing damage. General John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, signed off on its use, CNN reported. Authority was also sought from General Joseph Votel, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM). See below: The Air Force developed the MOAB in 2003, but it had never been used in combat until 7pm local time on Thursday. The Pentagon produced 15 MOABs at a cost of $16 million per unit, according to military information website Deagel. The use of the bomb comes as the US involvement in Afghanistan heads into its 16th year in the fall, and days after Staff Sergeant Mark De Alencar, a US Special Forces operator, was killed in the same region. "The soldier was mortally wounded late Saturday during an operation in Nangarhar Province," US Navy Captain Bill Salvin tweeted. READ MORE: US-led coalition airstrike mistakenly killed 18 SDF ally fighters in Syria on April 11 – Pentagon The MOAB was designed to target large below-ground areas. It would have “feel like a nuclear weapon to anyone near the area," Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona (ret.) told CNN. The GPS-guided munition would have already been in country before it was dropped out of an MC-130 aircraft, operated by Air Force Special Operations Command, military sources told CNN’s Barbara Starr. 9h [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/658688193651277824/Kv_cNNub_normal.png]ABC News ✔ @ABC U.S. military statement on GBU-43 bomb used against ISIS in Afghanistan: "U.S. Forces took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties." pic.twitter.com/sWKRMhStvc Follow [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/658688193651277824/Kv_cNNub_normal.png]ABC News ✔@ABC CENTCOM after U.S. drops GBU-43 bomb on ISIS targets in Afghanistan: U.S. "will continue offensive operations until ISIS-K is destroyed." pic.twitter.com/qyrNXhpQbu 9:59 AM - 13 Apr 2017 [View image on Twitter] * * 254254 Retweets * 178178 likes “The strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. Forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction of ISIS-K fighters and facilities,” CENTCOM said in a statement, referring to Islamic State Khorasan, the branch of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. Nicholson described the MOAB as “the right munition to reduce” the improvised explosive devices (IEDs), bunkers and tunnels IS is using to “thicken their defense.” The bomb will also “maintain the momentum of our offensive against ISIS-K,” he said. The Air Force “took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties,” CENTCOM said. READ MORE: US Tomahawk strike on Syria as effective as dropping missiles from air balloons – Russia’s MoD President Donald Trump told reporters that he's given the military "total authorization," and "that's why they've been so successful lately." When asked if the use of the MOAB in Afghanistan might send a message to North Korea amid increased tensions with the isolated country, Trump replied: "I don't know if it sends a message, I don't care if it does or not." A peace conference on Afghanistan is scheduled to begin on Friday in Moscow, involving the Afghan government and representatives of twelve other nations. The US was invited to the conference, but reportedly declined to participate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 11:48:27 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:48:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Largest non nuclear bomb dropped on Afghanistan, last week, by us. In-Reply-To: <8j6v2od99vf9hvf8wi3oegdt.1492141734144@email.android.com> References: <8j6v2od99vf9hvf8wi3oegdt.1492141734144@email.android.com> Message-ID: Thank you Karen M., we need more people condemning this action, and all actions, that result in death and destruction, leading us to oblivion. Anyone available for a demonstration Saturday or Sunday, to make our voices heard? On Apr 13, 2017, at 20:53, kmedina67 > wrote: There are fewer and fewer reasons for hope in the human race. I am human and i condemn this action -- I condemn the bombing, I condemn the government that had such a weapon developed -------- Original message -------- From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Date: 4/13/17 21:29 (GMT-06:00) To: Peace-discuss List >, Peace-discuss AWARE > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Largest non nuclear bomb dropped on Afghanistan, last week, by us. HomeAmerica US drops largest non-nuclear bomb on Afghanistan, first time used in combat Published time: 13 Apr, 2017 16:48Edited time: 13 Apr, 2017 20:23 The US military has used its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed “the mother of all bombs,” for the first time in combat. The US Air Force used it in Afghanistan to target Islamic State tunnels and personnel. The 21,000-pound (9,525 kg) bomb was dropped in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan. The Pentagon has confirmed the use of the MOAB, and is currently assessing damage. General John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, signed off on its use, CNN reported. Authority was also sought from General Joseph Votel, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM). See below: The Air Force developed the MOAB in 2003, but it had never been used in combat until 7pm local time on Thursday. The Pentagon produced 15 MOABs at a cost of $16 million per unit, according to military information website Deagel. The use of the bomb comes as the US involvement in Afghanistan heads into its 16th year in the fall, and days after Staff Sergeant Mark De Alencar, a US Special Forces operator, was killed in the same region. "The soldier was mortally wounded late Saturday during an operation in Nangarhar Province," US Navy Captain Bill Salvin tweeted. READ MORE: US-led coalition airstrike mistakenly killed 18 SDF ally fighters in Syria on April 11 – Pentagon The MOAB was designed to target large below-ground areas. It would have “feel like a nuclear weapon to anyone near the area," Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona (ret.) told CNN. The GPS-guided munition would have already been in country before it was dropped out of an MC-130 aircraft, operated by Air Force Special Operations Command, military sources told CNN’s Barbara Starr. 9h [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/658688193651277824/Kv_cNNub_normal.png]ABC News ✔ @ABC U.S. military statement on GBU-43 bomb used against ISIS in Afghanistan: "U.S. Forces took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties." pic.twitter.com/sWKRMhStvc Follow [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/658688193651277824/Kv_cNNub_normal.png]ABC News ✔@ABC CENTCOM after U.S. drops GBU-43 bomb on ISIS targets in Afghanistan: U.S. "will continue offensive operations until ISIS-K is destroyed." pic.twitter.com/qyrNXhpQbu 9:59 AM - 13 Apr 2017 [View image on Twitter] * * 254254 Retweets * 178178 likes “The strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. Forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction of ISIS-K fighters and facilities,” CENTCOM said in a statement, referring to Islamic State Khorasan, the branch of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. Nicholson described the MOAB as “the right munition to reduce” the improvised explosive devices (IEDs), bunkers and tunnels IS is using to “thicken their defense.” The bomb will also “maintain the momentum of our offensive against ISIS-K,” he said. The Air Force “took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties,” CENTCOM said. READ MORE: US Tomahawk strike on Syria as effective as dropping missiles from air balloons – Russia’s MoD President Donald Trump told reporters that he's given the military "total authorization," and "that's why they've been so successful lately." When asked if the use of the MOAB in Afghanistan might send a message to North Korea amid increased tensions with the isolated country, Trump replied: "I don't know if it sends a message, I don't care if it does or not." A peace conference on Afghanistan is scheduled to begin on Friday in Moscow, involving the Afghan government and representatives of twelve other nations. The US was invited to the conference, but reportedly declined to participate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 13:03:06 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:03:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] We should all be screaming in outrage...... Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » US drops largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan: A crime against humanity 14 April 2017 The US military’s dropping of the largest non-nuclear weapon in its arsenal on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border Thursday is a crime against humanity. Even as the US government and the mass media were engaged in a lying propaganda campaign denouncing Syria and Russia for the use of poison gas, the American military was positioning the monstrous weapon—the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB)—for use in Afghanistan. While the Pentagon has released few details about the impact of the bombing, one can be certain that the total number of deaths resulting from the dropping of the MOAB is a massive multiple of the number killed in the alleged Syrian gas attack, assuming—and this is by no means certain—that the gas attack even took place. Seventy-two years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, American imperialism has proven once again that it is the most ruthless and criminal force on the planet. The use of the MOAB has implications that extend beyond Afghanistan. It demonstrates—and this is, in fact, the principal aim of the attack—that there are no restraints on what the US military is prepared to do in pursuit of the interests of American imperialism. In the context of mounting military tensions from the Korean peninsula to Syria to eastern Europe, the detonation of the massive bomb over Afghanistan represents a warning to Russia, Iran, North Korea and any country that dares to challenge Washington’s interests that there is no limit to the level of violence that US imperialism will unleash against them. The weapon, officially known as the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, designated by the Pentagon as MOAB, or “mother of all bombs,” detonates nearly 20,000 pounds of explosives in mid-air, igniting the atmosphere and creating a massive concussion that obliterates everything within a radius of 1,000 yards. Its shock waves are capable of killing people within a radius of up to 1.7 miles. The impact of the explosion is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon for those caught in the target zone. Designed for use in the “shock and awe” campaign unleashed with the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, it was never utilized in combat over the course of 14 years. Even as the Pentagon carried out a war and occupation that claimed some one million Iraqi lives, the weapon was seen as too destructive to serve US strategic purposes. Planning for the use of this horrific weapon in Afghanistan began under the Obama administration. According to the Pentagon command, this genuine “weapon of mass destruction” was dropped for the first time on a remote district of Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar Province in order to obliterate alleged caves and tunnels used by elements of the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). There is no immediate tactical, much less strategic, justification for the dropping of such a massive weapon on a small, poorly armed band of Islamist guerrillas—a Pakistan-based group that merely adopted the ISIS logo. Instead, the attack has all the earmarks of a calculated demonstration of American military might, the most terrifying one that could be staged short of a nuclear attack. The bombing comes just one week after Washington carried out a naked act of military aggression against Syria, firing 59 cruise missiles into a government airbase and killing at least 15 Syrians, the majority of them civilians. That attack was justified in the name of retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government. Damascus denied using any such weapon and, the endless lies of the Western media notwithstanding, all objective evidence points to a provocation staged by the CIA and the Al Qaeda-linked fighters that it supports in Syria. Even as the US government and media churned out war propaganda over the fabricated “chemical weapons” attack in Syria, Washington was preparing to drop its largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan. The Pentagon has claimed that it “took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties with this strike.” Such promises, made repeatedly as the US military has killed millions across the Middle East, are utterly worthless. According to initial reports, there are several villages near the target area and, in all likelihood, civilian deaths and injuries will be massive. At this point, no one knows what the real toll from this attack is, and, if left to the US media, no one will ever be told. The same editorialists for CIA house organs like the New York Times, and television news talking heads who have parroted the government’s denunciations of the Assad regime over the chemical weapons provocation in Syria, are completely indifferent to the loss of life caused by the massive US bomb dropped on Afghanistan. Similarly, the media largely ignores the ongoing carnage inflicted by US bombs and missiles upon the people of Iraq and Syria. On Wednesday, a US airstrike in western Mosul killed 13 civilians while injuring another 17, most of them seriously. On the same day, a UN agency described the devastation wrought by the US siege of the Iraqi city, where hundreds, if not thousands, of men, women and children have died: “Homes are being destroyed. Schools and health centers are damaged and crucial public infrastructure including electricity and water stations are in ruins,” according to the report, with the destruction turning over 300,000 people into homeless refugees. Meanwhile, in northern Syria, US warplanes carried out a “friendly fire” airstrike that killed 18 Kurdish fighters, while the Syrian government reported that a US bomb hit an Al Qaeda weapons depot, spreading chemical agents that may have killed hundreds of civilians. None of these incidents are given any significant coverage; much less do they provoke the moral outrage of those crying crocodile tears over the victims of the alleged chemical attack for which the Syrian government has been framed. Who are these people to lecture anyone on “human rights,” much less to posture as opponents of “terrorism?” Once again, US imperialism has demonstrated to the world that it is bound by absolutely no constraints of international law, much less morality. Its violent and predatory actions on the world stage are a direct expression of the criminal and parasitic character of the American capitalist ruling class, personified in the loathsome figure of Donald Trump. This latest atrocity comes fifteen and a half years after the US invaded Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban government, installing its own puppet regime and carrying out a bloody war and occupation ever since. Conservative estimates put the Afghan death toll since 2001 at some 200,000, with hundreds of thousands more wounded and millions turned into refugees. From the outset, the purpose of this intervention was to subjugate the Afghan people to semi-colonial American domination and to further US imperialism’s drive to assert its hegemony over the energy-rich region of Central Asia. The timing of the bombing was significant. It came on the very eve of talks called for April 14 in Moscow on a peace settlement in Afghanistan. Russia has called the meeting together with China and Pakistan, with the participation of nine other countries, including India and Iran. The Taliban has indicated that it may join the talks. While invited, Washington failed to confirm whether it will attend, and US military commanders have made repeated baseless allegations of Russian support for the Taliban. Whether an armed confrontation takes place between US and Russian warplanes in the skies over Syria, in a military strike against North Korea or in a provocation on Russia’s western borders, the next step from the weapon dropped on Afghanistan is the launching of nuclear missiles. Workers and young people in the US and internationally must respond to these ominous events with utmost seriousness and a determination to stop US and global capitalism from engulfing the planet in a third, nuclear world war. Protests must be organized across the United States and around the world against the latest US atrocities in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq as part of the struggle to build a mass antiwar movement based upon the working class and the program of socialist internationalism. At the very center of this struggle lies the need to build the Socialist Equality Party and the International Committee of the Fourth International—the only consistent political opponents of world imperialism—as the revolutionary leadership of the working class. Bill Van Auken and David North of the WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 13:03:06 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:03:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] We should all be screaming in outrage...... Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » US drops largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan: A crime against humanity 14 April 2017 The US military’s dropping of the largest non-nuclear weapon in its arsenal on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border Thursday is a crime against humanity. Even as the US government and the mass media were engaged in a lying propaganda campaign denouncing Syria and Russia for the use of poison gas, the American military was positioning the monstrous weapon—the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB)—for use in Afghanistan. While the Pentagon has released few details about the impact of the bombing, one can be certain that the total number of deaths resulting from the dropping of the MOAB is a massive multiple of the number killed in the alleged Syrian gas attack, assuming—and this is by no means certain—that the gas attack even took place. Seventy-two years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, American imperialism has proven once again that it is the most ruthless and criminal force on the planet. The use of the MOAB has implications that extend beyond Afghanistan. It demonstrates—and this is, in fact, the principal aim of the attack—that there are no restraints on what the US military is prepared to do in pursuit of the interests of American imperialism. In the context of mounting military tensions from the Korean peninsula to Syria to eastern Europe, the detonation of the massive bomb over Afghanistan represents a warning to Russia, Iran, North Korea and any country that dares to challenge Washington’s interests that there is no limit to the level of violence that US imperialism will unleash against them. The weapon, officially known as the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, designated by the Pentagon as MOAB, or “mother of all bombs,” detonates nearly 20,000 pounds of explosives in mid-air, igniting the atmosphere and creating a massive concussion that obliterates everything within a radius of 1,000 yards. Its shock waves are capable of killing people within a radius of up to 1.7 miles. The impact of the explosion is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon for those caught in the target zone. Designed for use in the “shock and awe” campaign unleashed with the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, it was never utilized in combat over the course of 14 years. Even as the Pentagon carried out a war and occupation that claimed some one million Iraqi lives, the weapon was seen as too destructive to serve US strategic purposes. Planning for the use of this horrific weapon in Afghanistan began under the Obama administration. According to the Pentagon command, this genuine “weapon of mass destruction” was dropped for the first time on a remote district of Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar Province in order to obliterate alleged caves and tunnels used by elements of the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). There is no immediate tactical, much less strategic, justification for the dropping of such a massive weapon on a small, poorly armed band of Islamist guerrillas—a Pakistan-based group that merely adopted the ISIS logo. Instead, the attack has all the earmarks of a calculated demonstration of American military might, the most terrifying one that could be staged short of a nuclear attack. The bombing comes just one week after Washington carried out a naked act of military aggression against Syria, firing 59 cruise missiles into a government airbase and killing at least 15 Syrians, the majority of them civilians. That attack was justified in the name of retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government. Damascus denied using any such weapon and, the endless lies of the Western media notwithstanding, all objective evidence points to a provocation staged by the CIA and the Al Qaeda-linked fighters that it supports in Syria. Even as the US government and media churned out war propaganda over the fabricated “chemical weapons” attack in Syria, Washington was preparing to drop its largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan. The Pentagon has claimed that it “took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties with this strike.” Such promises, made repeatedly as the US military has killed millions across the Middle East, are utterly worthless. According to initial reports, there are several villages near the target area and, in all likelihood, civilian deaths and injuries will be massive. At this point, no one knows what the real toll from this attack is, and, if left to the US media, no one will ever be told. The same editorialists for CIA house organs like the New York Times, and television news talking heads who have parroted the government’s denunciations of the Assad regime over the chemical weapons provocation in Syria, are completely indifferent to the loss of life caused by the massive US bomb dropped on Afghanistan. Similarly, the media largely ignores the ongoing carnage inflicted by US bombs and missiles upon the people of Iraq and Syria. On Wednesday, a US airstrike in western Mosul killed 13 civilians while injuring another 17, most of them seriously. On the same day, a UN agency described the devastation wrought by the US siege of the Iraqi city, where hundreds, if not thousands, of men, women and children have died: “Homes are being destroyed. Schools and health centers are damaged and crucial public infrastructure including electricity and water stations are in ruins,” according to the report, with the destruction turning over 300,000 people into homeless refugees. Meanwhile, in northern Syria, US warplanes carried out a “friendly fire” airstrike that killed 18 Kurdish fighters, while the Syrian government reported that a US bomb hit an Al Qaeda weapons depot, spreading chemical agents that may have killed hundreds of civilians. None of these incidents are given any significant coverage; much less do they provoke the moral outrage of those crying crocodile tears over the victims of the alleged chemical attack for which the Syrian government has been framed. Who are these people to lecture anyone on “human rights,” much less to posture as opponents of “terrorism?” Once again, US imperialism has demonstrated to the world that it is bound by absolutely no constraints of international law, much less morality. Its violent and predatory actions on the world stage are a direct expression of the criminal and parasitic character of the American capitalist ruling class, personified in the loathsome figure of Donald Trump. This latest atrocity comes fifteen and a half years after the US invaded Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban government, installing its own puppet regime and carrying out a bloody war and occupation ever since. Conservative estimates put the Afghan death toll since 2001 at some 200,000, with hundreds of thousands more wounded and millions turned into refugees. From the outset, the purpose of this intervention was to subjugate the Afghan people to semi-colonial American domination and to further US imperialism’s drive to assert its hegemony over the energy-rich region of Central Asia. The timing of the bombing was significant. It came on the very eve of talks called for April 14 in Moscow on a peace settlement in Afghanistan. Russia has called the meeting together with China and Pakistan, with the participation of nine other countries, including India and Iran. The Taliban has indicated that it may join the talks. While invited, Washington failed to confirm whether it will attend, and US military commanders have made repeated baseless allegations of Russian support for the Taliban. Whether an armed confrontation takes place between US and Russian warplanes in the skies over Syria, in a military strike against North Korea or in a provocation on Russia’s western borders, the next step from the weapon dropped on Afghanistan is the launching of nuclear missiles. Workers and young people in the US and internationally must respond to these ominous events with utmost seriousness and a determination to stop US and global capitalism from engulfing the planet in a third, nuclear world war. Protests must be organized across the United States and around the world against the latest US atrocities in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq as part of the struggle to build a mass antiwar movement based upon the working class and the program of socialist internationalism. At the very center of this struggle lies the need to build the Socialist Equality Party and the International Committee of the Fourth International—the only consistent political opponents of world imperialism—as the revolutionary leadership of the working class. Bill Van Auken and David North of the WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 14:01:24 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 14:01:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: We should all be screaming in outrage...... References: Message-ID: I guess we should be calling on the local Democrat Party to organize a protest against Trump, and the bombing. Knowing that the bombing takes a back seat to Party Politics. At least it will get the people out into the streets, making their voices heard, better than nothing. We had 3,000 marchers with “pink pussy hats” in January this year in our town. Now the best those of us who are anti-war, can accumulate is approximately thirteen. * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » US drops largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan: A crime against humanity 14 April 2017 The US military’s dropping of the largest non-nuclear weapon in its arsenal on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border Thursday is a crime against humanity. Even as the US government and the mass media were engaged in a lying propaganda campaign denouncing Syria and Russia for the use of poison gas, the American military was positioning the monstrous weapon—the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB)—for use in Afghanistan. While the Pentagon has released few details about the impact of the bombing, one can be certain that the total number of deaths resulting from the dropping of the MOAB is a massive multiple of the number killed in the alleged Syrian gas attack, assuming—and this is by no means certain—that the gas attack even took place. Seventy-two years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, American imperialism has proven once again that it is the most ruthless and criminal force on the planet. The use of the MOAB has implications that extend beyond Afghanistan. It demonstrates—and this is, in fact, the principal aim of the attack—that there are no restraints on what the US military is prepared to do in pursuit of the interests of American imperialism. In the context of mounting military tensions from the Korean peninsula to Syria to eastern Europe, the detonation of the massive bomb over Afghanistan represents a warning to Russia, Iran, North Korea and any country that dares to challenge Washington’s interests that there is no limit to the level of violence that US imperialism will unleash against them. The weapon, officially known as the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, designated by the Pentagon as MOAB, or “mother of all bombs,” detonates nearly 20,000 pounds of explosives in mid-air, igniting the atmosphere and creating a massive concussion that obliterates everything within a radius of 1,000 yards. Its shock waves are capable of killing people within a radius of up to 1.7 miles. The impact of the explosion is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon for those caught in the target zone. Designed for use in the “shock and awe” campaign unleashed with the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, it was never utilized in combat over the course of 14 years. Even as the Pentagon carried out a war and occupation that claimed some one million Iraqi lives, the weapon was seen as too destructive to serve US strategic purposes. Planning for the use of this horrific weapon in Afghanistan began under the Obama administration. According to the Pentagon command, this genuine “weapon of mass destruction” was dropped for the first time on a remote district of Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar Province in order to obliterate alleged caves and tunnels used by elements of the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). There is no immediate tactical, much less strategic, justification for the dropping of such a massive weapon on a small, poorly armed band of Islamist guerrillas—a Pakistan-based group that merely adopted the ISIS logo. Instead, the attack has all the earmarks of a calculated demonstration of American military might, the most terrifying one that could be staged short of a nuclear attack. The bombing comes just one week after Washington carried out a naked act of military aggression against Syria, firing 59 cruise missiles into a government airbase and killing at least 15 Syrians, the majority of them civilians. That attack was justified in the name of retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government. Damascus denied using any such weapon and, the endless lies of the Western media notwithstanding, all objective evidence points to a provocation staged by the CIA and the Al Qaeda-linked fighters that it supports in Syria. Even as the US government and media churned out war propaganda over the fabricated “chemical weapons” attack in Syria, Washington was preparing to drop its largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan. The Pentagon has claimed that it “took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties with this strike.” Such promises, made repeatedly as the US military has killed millions across the Middle East, are utterly worthless. According to initial reports, there are several villages near the target area and, in all likelihood, civilian deaths and injuries will be massive. At this point, no one knows what the real toll from this attack is, and, if left to the US media, no one will ever be told. The same editorialists for CIA house organs like the New York Times, and television news talking heads who have parroted the government’s denunciations of the Assad regime over the chemical weapons provocation in Syria, are completely indifferent to the loss of life caused by the massive US bomb dropped on Afghanistan. Similarly, the media largely ignores the ongoing carnage inflicted by US bombs and missiles upon the people of Iraq and Syria. On Wednesday, a US airstrike in western Mosul killed 13 civilians while injuring another 17, most of them seriously. On the same day, a UN agency described the devastation wrought by the US siege of the Iraqi city, where hundreds, if not thousands, of men, women and children have died: “Homes are being destroyed. Schools and health centers are damaged and crucial public infrastructure including electricity and water stations are in ruins,” according to the report, with the destruction turning over 300,000 people into homeless refugees. Meanwhile, in northern Syria, US warplanes carried out a “friendly fire” airstrike that killed 18 Kurdish fighters, while the Syrian government reported that a US bomb hit an Al Qaeda weapons depot, spreading chemical agents that may have killed hundreds of civilians. None of these incidents are given any significant coverage; much less do they provoke the moral outrage of those crying crocodile tears over the victims of the alleged chemical attack for which the Syrian government has been framed. Who are these people to lecture anyone on “human rights,” much less to posture as opponents of “terrorism?” Once again, US imperialism has demonstrated to the world that it is bound by absolutely no constraints of international law, much less morality. Its violent and predatory actions on the world stage are a direct expression of the criminal and parasitic character of the American capitalist ruling class, personified in the loathsome figure of Donald Trump. This latest atrocity comes fifteen and a half years after the US invaded Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban government, installing its own puppet regime and carrying out a bloody war and occupation ever since. Conservative estimates put the Afghan death toll since 2001 at some 200,000, with hundreds of thousands more wounded and millions turned into refugees. From the outset, the purpose of this intervention was to subjugate the Afghan people to semi-colonial American domination and to further US imperialism’s drive to assert its hegemony over the energy-rich region of Central Asia. The timing of the bombing was significant. It came on the very eve of talks called for April 14 in Moscow on a peace settlement in Afghanistan. Russia has called the meeting together with China and Pakistan, with the participation of nine other countries, including India and Iran. The Taliban has indicated that it may join the talks. While invited, Washington failed to confirm whether it will attend, and US military commanders have made repeated baseless allegations of Russian support for the Taliban. Whether an armed confrontation takes place between US and Russian warplanes in the skies over Syria, in a military strike against North Korea or in a provocation on Russia’s western borders, the next step from the weapon dropped on Afghanistan is the launching of nuclear missiles. Workers and young people in the US and internationally must respond to these ominous events with utmost seriousness and a determination to stop US and global capitalism from engulfing the planet in a third, nuclear world war. Protests must be organized across the United States and around the world against the latest US atrocities in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq as part of the struggle to build a mass antiwar movement based upon the working class and the program of socialist internationalism. At the very center of this struggle lies the need to build the Socialist Equality Party and the International Committee of the Fourth International—the only consistent political opponents of world imperialism—as the revolutionary leadership of the working class. Bill Van Auken and David North of the WSWS.ORG _______________________________________________ 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 deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 14:57:33 2017 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 09:57:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fwd: We should all be screaming in outrage...... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <85FEA8A9-BCBE-498E-B94F-BA0E75BED618@gmail.com> Karen I d be glad to make a request to the local Democratic Party about a joint protest of these unacceptable acts of military aggression. When/where were you thinking of holding protest(s)? Deb Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 14, 2017, at 9:01 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > > I guess we should be calling on the local Democrat Party to organize a protest against Trump, and the bombing. Knowing that the bombing takes a back seat to Party Politics. At least it will get the people out into the streets, making their voices heard, better than nothing. > We had 3,000 marchers with “pink pussy hats” in January this year in our town. Now the best those of us who are anti-war, can accumulate is approximately thirteen. > >> >> >> >> >> Print >> Leaflet >> Feedback >> Share » >> US drops largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan: A crime against humanity >> 14 April 2017 >> The US military’s dropping of the largest non-nuclear weapon in its arsenal on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border Thursday is a crime against humanity. Even as the US government and the mass media were engaged in a lying propaganda campaign denouncing Syria and Russia for the use of poison gas, the American military was positioning the monstrous weapon—the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB)—for use in Afghanistan. >> While the Pentagon has released few details about the impact of the bombing, one can be certain that the total number of deaths resulting from the dropping of the MOAB is a massive multiple of the number killed in the alleged Syrian gas attack, assuming—and this is by no means certain—that the gas attack even took place. >> Seventy-two years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, American imperialism has proven once again that it is the most ruthless and criminal force on the planet. >> The use of the MOAB has implications that extend beyond Afghanistan. It demonstrates—and this is, in fact, the principal aim of the attack—that there are no restraints on what the US military is prepared to do in pursuit of the interests of American imperialism. >> In the context of mounting military tensions from the Korean peninsula to Syria to eastern Europe, the detonation of the massive bomb over Afghanistan represents a warning to Russia, Iran, North Korea and any country that dares to challenge Washington’s interests that there is no limit to the level of violence that US imperialism will unleash against them. >> The weapon, officially known as the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, designated by the Pentagon as MOAB, or “mother of all bombs,” detonates nearly 20,000 pounds of explosives in mid-air, igniting the atmosphere and creating a massive concussion that obliterates everything within a radius of 1,000 yards. Its shock waves are capable of killing people within a radius of up to 1.7 miles. The impact of the explosion is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon for those caught in the target zone. >> Designed for use in the “shock and awe” campaign unleashed with the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, it was never utilized in combat over the course of 14 years. Even as the Pentagon carried out a war and occupation that claimed some one million Iraqi lives, the weapon was seen as too destructive to serve US strategic purposes. >> Planning for the use of this horrific weapon in Afghanistan began under the Obama administration. >> According to the Pentagon command, this genuine “weapon of mass destruction” was dropped for the first time on a remote district of Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar Province in order to obliterate alleged caves and tunnels used by elements of the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). >> There is no immediate tactical, much less strategic, justification for the dropping of such a massive weapon on a small, poorly armed band of Islamist guerrillas—a Pakistan-based group that merely adopted the ISIS logo. Instead, the attack has all the earmarks of a calculated demonstration of American military might, the most terrifying one that could be staged short of a nuclear attack. >> The bombing comes just one week after Washington carried out a naked act of military aggression against Syria, firing 59 cruise missiles into a government airbase and killing at least 15 Syrians, the majority of them civilians. >> That attack was justified in the name of retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government. Damascus denied using any such weapon and, the endless lies of the Western media notwithstanding, all objective evidence points to a provocation staged by the CIA and the Al Qaeda-linked fighters that it supports in Syria. >> Even as the US government and media churned out war propaganda over the fabricated “chemical weapons” attack in Syria, Washington was preparing to drop its largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan. >> The Pentagon has claimed that it “took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties with this strike.” Such promises, made repeatedly as the US military has killed millions across the Middle East, are utterly worthless. According to initial reports, there are several villages near the target area and, in all likelihood, civilian deaths and injuries will be massive. >> At this point, no one knows what the real toll from this attack is, and, if left to the US media, no one will ever be told. The same editorialists for CIA house organs like the New York Times, and television news talking heads who have parroted the government’s denunciations of the Assad regime over the chemical weapons provocation in Syria, are completely indifferent to the loss of life caused by the massive US bomb dropped on Afghanistan. >> Similarly, the media largely ignores the ongoing carnage inflicted by US bombs and missiles upon the people of Iraq and Syria. On Wednesday, a US airstrike in western Mosul killed 13 civilians while injuring another 17, most of them seriously. On the same day, a UN agency described the devastation wrought by the US siege of the Iraqi city, where hundreds, if not thousands, of men, women and children have died: “Homes are being destroyed. Schools and health centers are damaged and crucial public infrastructure including electricity and water stations are in ruins,” according to the report, with the destruction turning over 300,000 people into homeless refugees. >> Meanwhile, in northern Syria, US warplanes carried out a “friendly fire” airstrike that killed 18 Kurdish fighters, while the Syrian government reported that a US bomb hit an Al Qaeda weapons depot, spreading chemical agents that may have killed hundreds of civilians. None of these incidents are given any significant coverage; much less do they provoke the moral outrage of those crying crocodile tears over the victims of the alleged chemical attack for which the Syrian government has been framed. >> Who are these people to lecture anyone on “human rights,” much less to posture as opponents of “terrorism?” Once again, US imperialism has demonstrated to the world that it is bound by absolutely no constraints of international law, much less morality. Its violent and predatory actions on the world stage are a direct expression of the criminal and parasitic character of the American capitalist ruling class, personified in the loathsome figure of Donald Trump. >> This latest atrocity comes fifteen and a half years after the US invaded Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban government, installing its own puppet regime and carrying out a bloody war and occupation ever since. Conservative estimates put the Afghan death toll since 2001 at some 200,000, with hundreds of thousands more wounded and millions turned into refugees. From the outset, the purpose of this intervention was to subjugate the Afghan people to semi-colonial American domination and to further US imperialism’s drive to assert its hegemony over the energy-rich region of Central Asia. >> The timing of the bombing was significant. It came on the very eve of talks called for April 14 in Moscow on a peace settlement in Afghanistan. Russia has called the meeting together with China and Pakistan, with the participation of nine other countries, including India and Iran. The Taliban has indicated that it may join the talks. While invited, Washington failed to confirm whether it will attend, and US military commanders have made repeated baseless allegations of Russian support for the Taliban. >> Whether an armed confrontation takes place between US and Russian warplanes in the skies over Syria, in a military strike against North Korea or in a provocation on Russia’s western borders, the next step from the weapon dropped on Afghanistan is the launching of nuclear missiles. >> Workers and young people in the US and internationally must respond to these ominous events with utmost seriousness and a determination to stop US and global capitalism from engulfing the planet in a third, nuclear world war. >> Protests must be organized across the United States and around the world against the latest US atrocities in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq as part of the struggle to build a mass antiwar movement based upon the working class and the program of socialist internationalism. At the very center of this struggle lies the need to build the Socialist Equality Party and the International Committee of the Fourth International—the only consistent political opponents of world imperialism—as the revolutionary leadership of the working class. >> Bill Van Auken and David North of the WSWS.ORG >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 medea.benjamin at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 15:10:37 2017 From: medea.benjamin at gmail.com (Medea Benjamin) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:10:37 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Fwd: We should all be screaming in outrage...... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: my piece in the Guardian today re MOAB. Medea *https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/14/the-mother-of-all-bombs-big-deadly-ineffective * On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > I guess we should be calling on the local Democrat Party to organize a > protest against Trump, and the bombing. Knowing that the bombing takes a > back seat to Party Politics. At least it will get the people out into the > streets, making their voices heard, better than nothing. > We had 3,000 marchers with “pink pussy hats” in January this year in our > town. Now the best those of us who are anti-war, can accumulate is > approximately thirteen. > > > > > > > - Print > > - Leaflet > > - Feedback > > - Share » > > US drops largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan: A crime against > humanity 14 April 2017 > > The US military’s dropping of the largest non-nuclear weapon in its > arsenal on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border Thursday is a crime against > humanity. Even as the US government and the mass media were engaged in a > lying propaganda campaign denouncing Syria and Russia for the use of poison > gas, the American military was positioning the monstrous weapon—the Massive > Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB)—for use in Afghanistan. > > While the Pentagon has released few details about the impact of the > bombing, one can be certain that the total number of deaths resulting from > the dropping of the MOAB is a massive multiple of the number killed in the > alleged Syrian gas attack, assuming—and this is by no means certain—that > the gas attack even took place. > > Seventy-two years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, > American imperialism has proven once again that it is the most ruthless and > criminal force on the planet. > > The use of the MOAB has implications that extend beyond Afghanistan. It > demonstrates—and this is, in fact, the principal aim of the attack—that > there are no restraints on what the US military is prepared to do in > pursuit of the interests of American imperialism. > > In the context of mounting military tensions from the Korean peninsula to > Syria to eastern Europe, the detonation of the massive bomb over > Afghanistan represents a warning to Russia, Iran, North Korea and any > country that dares to challenge Washington’s interests that there is no > limit to the level of violence that US imperialism will unleash against > them. > > The weapon, officially known as the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, > designated by the Pentagon as MOAB, or “mother of all bombs,” detonates > nearly 20,000 pounds of explosives in mid-air, igniting the atmosphere and > creating a massive concussion that obliterates everything within a radius > of 1,000 yards. Its shock waves are capable of killing people within a > radius of up to 1.7 miles. The impact of the explosion is the equivalent of > a nuclear weapon for those caught in the target zone. > > Designed for use in the “shock and awe” campaign unleashed with the 2003 > US invasion of Iraq, it was never utilized in combat over the course of 14 > years. Even as the Pentagon carried out a war and occupation that claimed > some one million Iraqi lives, the weapon was seen as too destructive to > serve US strategic purposes. > > Planning for the use of this horrific weapon in Afghanistan began under > the Obama administration. > > According to the Pentagon command, this genuine “weapon of mass > destruction” was dropped for the first time on a remote district of > Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar Province in order to obliterate alleged > caves and tunnels used by elements of the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic > State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). > > There is no immediate tactical, much less strategic, justification for the > dropping of such a massive weapon on a small, poorly armed band of Islamist > guerrillas—a Pakistan-based group that merely adopted the ISIS logo. > Instead, the attack has all the earmarks of a calculated demonstration of > American military might, the most terrifying one that could be staged short > of a nuclear attack. > > The bombing comes just one week after Washington carried out a naked act > of military aggression against Syria, firing 59 cruise missiles into a > government airbase and killing at least 15 Syrians, the majority of them > civilians. > > That attack was justified in the name of retaliation for an alleged > chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government. Damascus denied > using any such weapon and, the endless lies of the Western media > notwithstanding, all objective evidence points to a provocation staged by > the CIA and the Al Qaeda-linked fighters that it supports in Syria. > > Even as the US government and media churned out war propaganda over the > fabricated “chemical weapons” attack in Syria, Washington was preparing to > drop its largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan. > > The Pentagon has claimed that it “took every precaution to avoid civilian > casualties with this strike.” Such promises, made repeatedly as the US > military has killed millions across the Middle East, are utterly worthless. > According to initial reports, there are several villages near the target > area and, in all likelihood, civilian deaths and injuries will be massive. > > At this point, no one knows what the real toll from this attack is, and, > if left to the US media, no one will ever be told. The same editorialists > for CIA house organs like the *New York Times,* and television news > talking heads who have parroted the government’s denunciations of the Assad > regime over the chemical weapons provocation in Syria, are completely > indifferent to the loss of life caused by the massive US bomb dropped on > Afghanistan. > > Similarly, the media largely ignores the ongoing carnage inflicted by US > bombs and missiles upon the people of Iraq and Syria. On Wednesday, a US > airstrike in western Mosul killed 13 civilians while injuring another 17, > most of them seriously. On the same day, a UN agency described the > devastation wrought by the US siege of the Iraqi city, where hundreds, if > not thousands, of men, women and children have died: “Homes are being > destroyed. Schools and health centers are damaged and crucial public > infrastructure including electricity and water stations are in ruins,” > according to the report, with the destruction turning over 300,000 people > into homeless refugees. > > Meanwhile, in northern Syria, US warplanes carried out a “friendly fire” > airstrike that killed 18 Kurdish fighters, while the Syrian government > reported that a US bomb hit an Al Qaeda weapons depot, spreading chemical > agents that may have killed hundreds of civilians. None of these incidents > are given any significant coverage; much less do they provoke the moral > outrage of those crying crocodile tears over the victims of the alleged > chemical attack for which the Syrian government has been framed. > > Who are these people to lecture anyone on “human rights,” much less to > posture as opponents of “terrorism?” Once again, US imperialism has > demonstrated to the world that it is bound by absolutely no constraints of > international law, much less morality. Its violent and predatory actions on > the world stage are a direct expression of the criminal and parasitic > character of the American capitalist ruling class, personified in the > loathsome figure of Donald Trump. > > This latest atrocity comes fifteen and a half years after the US invaded > Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban government, installing its own puppet > regime and carrying out a bloody war and occupation ever since. > Conservative estimates put the Afghan death toll since 2001 at some > 200,000, with hundreds of thousands more wounded and millions turned into > refugees. From the outset, the purpose of this intervention was to > subjugate the Afghan people to semi-colonial American domination and to > further US imperialism’s drive to assert its hegemony over the energy-rich > region of Central Asia. > > The timing of the bombing was significant. It came on the very eve of > talks called for April 14 in Moscow on a peace settlement in Afghanistan. > Russia has called the meeting together with China and Pakistan, with the > participation of nine other countries, including India and Iran. The > Taliban has indicated that it may join the talks. While invited, Washington > failed to confirm whether it will attend, and US military commanders have > made repeated baseless allegations of Russian support for the Taliban. > > Whether an armed confrontation takes place between US and Russian > warplanes in the skies over Syria, in a military strike against North Korea > or in a provocation on Russia’s western borders, the next step from the > weapon dropped on Afghanistan is the launching of nuclear missiles. > > Workers and young people in the US and internationally must respond to > these ominous events with utmost seriousness and a determination to stop US > and global capitalism from engulfing the planet in a third, nuclear world > war. > > Protests must be organized across the United States and around the world > against the latest US atrocities in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq as part of > the struggle to build a mass antiwar movement based upon the working class > and the program of socialist internationalism. At the very center of this > struggle lies the need to build the Socialist Equality Party and the > International Committee of the Fourth International—the only consistent > political opponents of world imperialism—as the revolutionary leadership of > the working class. > > Bill Van Auken and David North of the WSWS.ORG > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/medea.benjamin%40gmail.com > > You are subscribed as: medea.benjamin at gmail.com > > -- *Medea Benjamin * *CODEPINK Co-founder* *(415) 235-6517 * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 15:41:15 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 15:41:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] Fwd: We should all be screaming in outrage...... References: Message-ID: Deb As you represent the Progressive Democrats and Code Pink, in Champaign, Illinois perhaps you may wish to call for a demonstration uniting Democrats with other groups in an anti-war demonstration as Medea suggests. “MOAB Mother Of All Bombs,” should be protests against war as “Mother Of All Babies.” Please see her recent article in the Guardian below. We can attempt to unite all groups opposing war and abuse both here and abroad, with all political groups joining as a joint effort to stop the bombing and killing by the USG. Begin forwarded message: From: Medea Benjamin > Subject: Re: [ufpj-activist] Fwd: [Peace-discuss] We should all be screaming in outrage...... Date: April 14, 2017 at 08:10:37 PDT To: Karen Aram > Cc: ufpj-activist >, Peace-discuss AWARE >, peace > my piece in the Guardian today re MOAB. Medea https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/14/the-mother-of-all-bombs-big-deadly-ineffective On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: I guess we should be calling on the local Democrat Party to organize a protest against Trump, and the bombing. Knowing that the bombing takes a back seat to Party Politics. At least it will get the people out into the streets, making their voices heard, better than nothing. We had 3,000 marchers with “pink pussy hats” in January this year in our town. Now the best those of us who are anti-war, can accumulate is approximately thirteen. * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » US drops largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan: A crime against humanity 14 April 2017 The US military’s dropping of the largest non-nuclear weapon in its arsenal on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border Thursday is a crime against humanity. Even as the US government and the mass media were engaged in a lying propaganda campaign denouncing Syria and Russia for the use of poison gas, the American military was positioning the monstrous weapon—the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB)—for use in Afghanistan. While the Pentagon has released few details about the impact of the bombing, one can be certain that the total number of deaths resulting from the dropping of the MOAB is a massive multiple of the number killed in the alleged Syrian gas attack, assuming—and this is by no means certain—that the gas attack even took place. Seventy-two years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, American imperialism has proven once again that it is the most ruthless and criminal force on the planet. The use of the MOAB has implications that extend beyond Afghanistan. It demonstrates—and this is, in fact, the principal aim of the attack—that there are no restraints on what the US military is prepared to do in pursuit of the interests of American imperialism. In the context of mounting military tensions from the Korean peninsula to Syria to eastern Europe, the detonation of the massive bomb over Afghanistan represents a warning to Russia, Iran, North Korea and any country that dares to challenge Washington’s interests that there is no limit to the level of violence that US imperialism will unleash against them. The weapon, officially known as the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, designated by the Pentagon as MOAB, or “mother of all bombs,” detonates nearly 20,000 pounds of explosives in mid-air, igniting the atmosphere and creating a massive concussion that obliterates everything within a radius of 1,000 yards. Its shock waves are capable of killing people within a radius of up to 1.7 miles. The impact of the explosion is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon for those caught in the target zone. Designed for use in the “shock and awe” campaign unleashed with the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, it was never utilized in combat over the course of 14 years. Even as the Pentagon carried out a war and occupation that claimed some one million Iraqi lives, the weapon was seen as too destructive to serve US strategic purposes. Planning for the use of this horrific weapon in Afghanistan began under the Obama administration. According to the Pentagon command, this genuine “weapon of mass destruction” was dropped for the first time on a remote district of Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar Province in order to obliterate alleged caves and tunnels used by elements of the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). There is no immediate tactical, much less strategic, justification for the dropping of such a massive weapon on a small, poorly armed band of Islamist guerrillas—a Pakistan-based group that merely adopted the ISIS logo. Instead, the attack has all the earmarks of a calculated demonstration of American military might, the most terrifying one that could be staged short of a nuclear attack. The bombing comes just one week after Washington carried out a naked act of military aggression against Syria, firing 59 cruise missiles into a government airbase and killing at least 15 Syrians, the majority of them civilians. That attack was justified in the name of retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government. Damascus denied using any such weapon and, the endless lies of the Western media notwithstanding, all objective evidence points to a provocation staged by the CIA and the Al Qaeda-linked fighters that it supports in Syria. Even as the US government and media churned out war propaganda over the fabricated “chemical weapons” attack in Syria, Washington was preparing to drop its largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan. The Pentagon has claimed that it “took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties with this strike.” Such promises, made repeatedly as the US military has killed millions across the Middle East, are utterly worthless. According to initial reports, there are several villages near the target area and, in all likelihood, civilian deaths and injuries will be massive. At this point, no one knows what the real toll from this attack is, and, if left to the US media, no one will ever be told. The same editorialists for CIA house organs like the New York Times, and television news talking heads who have parroted the government’s denunciations of the Assad regime over the chemical weapons provocation in Syria, are completely indifferent to the loss of life caused by the massive US bomb dropped on Afghanistan. Similarly, the media largely ignores the ongoing carnage inflicted by US bombs and missiles upon the people of Iraq and Syria. On Wednesday, a US airstrike in western Mosul killed 13 civilians while injuring another 17, most of them seriously. On the same day, a UN agency described the devastation wrought by the US siege of the Iraqi city, where hundreds, if not thousands, of men, women and children have died: “Homes are being destroyed. Schools and health centers are damaged and crucial public infrastructure including electricity and water stations are in ruins,” according to the report, with the destruction turning over 300,000 people into homeless refugees. Meanwhile, in northern Syria, US warplanes carried out a “friendly fire” airstrike that killed 18 Kurdish fighters, while the Syrian government reported that a US bomb hit an Al Qaeda weapons depot, spreading chemical agents that may have killed hundreds of civilians. None of these incidents are given any significant coverage; much less do they provoke the moral outrage of those crying crocodile tears over the victims of the alleged chemical attack for which the Syrian government has been framed. Who are these people to lecture anyone on “human rights,” much less to posture as opponents of “terrorism?” Once again, US imperialism has demonstrated to the world that it is bound by absolutely no constraints of international law, much less morality. Its violent and predatory actions on the world stage are a direct expression of the criminal and parasitic character of the American capitalist ruling class, personified in the loathsome figure of Donald Trump. This latest atrocity comes fifteen and a half years after the US invaded Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban government, installing its own puppet regime and carrying out a bloody war and occupation ever since. Conservative estimates put the Afghan death toll since 2001 at some 200,000, with hundreds of thousands more wounded and millions turned into refugees. From the outset, the purpose of this intervention was to subjugate the Afghan people to semi-colonial American domination and to further US imperialism’s drive to assert its hegemony over the energy-rich region of Central Asia. The timing of the bombing was significant. It came on the very eve of talks called for April 14 in Moscow on a peace settlement in Afghanistan. Russia has called the meeting together with China and Pakistan, with the participation of nine other countries, including India and Iran. The Taliban has indicated that it may join the talks. While invited, Washington failed to confirm whether it will attend, and US military commanders have made repeated baseless allegations of Russian support for the Taliban. Whether an armed confrontation takes place between US and Russian warplanes in the skies over Syria, in a military strike against North Korea or in a provocation on Russia’s western borders, the next step from the weapon dropped on Afghanistan is the launching of nuclear missiles. Workers and young people in the US and internationally must respond to these ominous events with utmost seriousness and a determination to stop US and global capitalism from engulfing the planet in a third, nuclear world war. Protests must be organized across the United States and around the world against the latest US atrocities in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq as part of the struggle to build a mass antiwar movement based upon the working class and the program of socialist internationalism. At the very center of this struggle lies the need to build the Socialist Equality Party and the International Committee of the Fourth International—the only consistent political opponents of world imperialism—as the revolutionary leadership of the working class. Bill Van Auken and David North of the WSWS.ORG _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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/medea.benjamin%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: medea.benjamin at gmail.com -- Medea Benjamin CODEPINK Co-founder (415) 235-6517 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 15:41:15 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 15:41:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] Fwd: We should all be screaming in outrage...... References: Message-ID: Deb As you represent the Progressive Democrats and Code Pink, in Champaign, Illinois perhaps you may wish to call for a demonstration uniting Democrats with other groups in an anti-war demonstration as Medea suggests. “MOAB Mother Of All Bombs,” should be protests against war as “Mother Of All Babies.” Please see her recent article in the Guardian below. We can attempt to unite all groups opposing war and abuse both here and abroad, with all political groups joining as a joint effort to stop the bombing and killing by the USG. Begin forwarded message: From: Medea Benjamin > Subject: Re: [ufpj-activist] Fwd: [Peace-discuss] We should all be screaming in outrage...... Date: April 14, 2017 at 08:10:37 PDT To: Karen Aram > Cc: ufpj-activist >, Peace-discuss AWARE >, peace > my piece in the Guardian today re MOAB. Medea https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/14/the-mother-of-all-bombs-big-deadly-ineffective On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: I guess we should be calling on the local Democrat Party to organize a protest against Trump, and the bombing. Knowing that the bombing takes a back seat to Party Politics. At least it will get the people out into the streets, making their voices heard, better than nothing. We had 3,000 marchers with “pink pussy hats” in January this year in our town. Now the best those of us who are anti-war, can accumulate is approximately thirteen. * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » US drops largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan: A crime against humanity 14 April 2017 The US military’s dropping of the largest non-nuclear weapon in its arsenal on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border Thursday is a crime against humanity. Even as the US government and the mass media were engaged in a lying propaganda campaign denouncing Syria and Russia for the use of poison gas, the American military was positioning the monstrous weapon—the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB)—for use in Afghanistan. While the Pentagon has released few details about the impact of the bombing, one can be certain that the total number of deaths resulting from the dropping of the MOAB is a massive multiple of the number killed in the alleged Syrian gas attack, assuming—and this is by no means certain—that the gas attack even took place. Seventy-two years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, American imperialism has proven once again that it is the most ruthless and criminal force on the planet. The use of the MOAB has implications that extend beyond Afghanistan. It demonstrates—and this is, in fact, the principal aim of the attack—that there are no restraints on what the US military is prepared to do in pursuit of the interests of American imperialism. In the context of mounting military tensions from the Korean peninsula to Syria to eastern Europe, the detonation of the massive bomb over Afghanistan represents a warning to Russia, Iran, North Korea and any country that dares to challenge Washington’s interests that there is no limit to the level of violence that US imperialism will unleash against them. The weapon, officially known as the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, designated by the Pentagon as MOAB, or “mother of all bombs,” detonates nearly 20,000 pounds of explosives in mid-air, igniting the atmosphere and creating a massive concussion that obliterates everything within a radius of 1,000 yards. Its shock waves are capable of killing people within a radius of up to 1.7 miles. The impact of the explosion is the equivalent of a nuclear weapon for those caught in the target zone. Designed for use in the “shock and awe” campaign unleashed with the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, it was never utilized in combat over the course of 14 years. Even as the Pentagon carried out a war and occupation that claimed some one million Iraqi lives, the weapon was seen as too destructive to serve US strategic purposes. Planning for the use of this horrific weapon in Afghanistan began under the Obama administration. According to the Pentagon command, this genuine “weapon of mass destruction” was dropped for the first time on a remote district of Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar Province in order to obliterate alleged caves and tunnels used by elements of the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). There is no immediate tactical, much less strategic, justification for the dropping of such a massive weapon on a small, poorly armed band of Islamist guerrillas—a Pakistan-based group that merely adopted the ISIS logo. Instead, the attack has all the earmarks of a calculated demonstration of American military might, the most terrifying one that could be staged short of a nuclear attack. The bombing comes just one week after Washington carried out a naked act of military aggression against Syria, firing 59 cruise missiles into a government airbase and killing at least 15 Syrians, the majority of them civilians. That attack was justified in the name of retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government. Damascus denied using any such weapon and, the endless lies of the Western media notwithstanding, all objective evidence points to a provocation staged by the CIA and the Al Qaeda-linked fighters that it supports in Syria. Even as the US government and media churned out war propaganda over the fabricated “chemical weapons” attack in Syria, Washington was preparing to drop its largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan. The Pentagon has claimed that it “took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties with this strike.” Such promises, made repeatedly as the US military has killed millions across the Middle East, are utterly worthless. According to initial reports, there are several villages near the target area and, in all likelihood, civilian deaths and injuries will be massive. At this point, no one knows what the real toll from this attack is, and, if left to the US media, no one will ever be told. The same editorialists for CIA house organs like the New York Times, and television news talking heads who have parroted the government’s denunciations of the Assad regime over the chemical weapons provocation in Syria, are completely indifferent to the loss of life caused by the massive US bomb dropped on Afghanistan. Similarly, the media largely ignores the ongoing carnage inflicted by US bombs and missiles upon the people of Iraq and Syria. On Wednesday, a US airstrike in western Mosul killed 13 civilians while injuring another 17, most of them seriously. On the same day, a UN agency described the devastation wrought by the US siege of the Iraqi city, where hundreds, if not thousands, of men, women and children have died: “Homes are being destroyed. Schools and health centers are damaged and crucial public infrastructure including electricity and water stations are in ruins,” according to the report, with the destruction turning over 300,000 people into homeless refugees. Meanwhile, in northern Syria, US warplanes carried out a “friendly fire” airstrike that killed 18 Kurdish fighters, while the Syrian government reported that a US bomb hit an Al Qaeda weapons depot, spreading chemical agents that may have killed hundreds of civilians. None of these incidents are given any significant coverage; much less do they provoke the moral outrage of those crying crocodile tears over the victims of the alleged chemical attack for which the Syrian government has been framed. Who are these people to lecture anyone on “human rights,” much less to posture as opponents of “terrorism?” Once again, US imperialism has demonstrated to the world that it is bound by absolutely no constraints of international law, much less morality. Its violent and predatory actions on the world stage are a direct expression of the criminal and parasitic character of the American capitalist ruling class, personified in the loathsome figure of Donald Trump. This latest atrocity comes fifteen and a half years after the US invaded Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban government, installing its own puppet regime and carrying out a bloody war and occupation ever since. Conservative estimates put the Afghan death toll since 2001 at some 200,000, with hundreds of thousands more wounded and millions turned into refugees. From the outset, the purpose of this intervention was to subjugate the Afghan people to semi-colonial American domination and to further US imperialism’s drive to assert its hegemony over the energy-rich region of Central Asia. The timing of the bombing was significant. It came on the very eve of talks called for April 14 in Moscow on a peace settlement in Afghanistan. Russia has called the meeting together with China and Pakistan, with the participation of nine other countries, including India and Iran. The Taliban has indicated that it may join the talks. While invited, Washington failed to confirm whether it will attend, and US military commanders have made repeated baseless allegations of Russian support for the Taliban. Whether an armed confrontation takes place between US and Russian warplanes in the skies over Syria, in a military strike against North Korea or in a provocation on Russia’s western borders, the next step from the weapon dropped on Afghanistan is the launching of nuclear missiles. Workers and young people in the US and internationally must respond to these ominous events with utmost seriousness and a determination to stop US and global capitalism from engulfing the planet in a third, nuclear world war. Protests must be organized across the United States and around the world against the latest US atrocities in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq as part of the struggle to build a mass antiwar movement based upon the working class and the program of socialist internationalism. At the very center of this struggle lies the need to build the Socialist Equality Party and the International Committee of the Fourth International—the only consistent political opponents of world imperialism—as the revolutionary leadership of the working class. Bill Van Auken and David North of the WSWS.ORG _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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/medea.benjamin%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: medea.benjamin at gmail.com -- Medea Benjamin CODEPINK Co-founder (415) 235-6517 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From niloofar.peace at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 16:24:06 2017 From: niloofar.peace at gmail.com (Niloofar Shambayati) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 11:24:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fwd: We should all be screaming in outrage...... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wouldn't be easy to appeal to their humanity when it comes to foreign policy and waging attacks. Have you heard of Maddow's sickening comments and her skyrocketing ratings? On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Karen Aram via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > I guess we should be calling on the local Democrat Party to organize a > protest against Trump, and the bombing. Knowing that the bombing takes a > back seat to Party Politics. At least it will get the people out into the > streets, making their voices heard, better than nothing. > We had 3,000 marchers with “pink pussy hats” in January this year in our > town. Now the best those of us who are anti-war, can accumulate is > approximately thirteen. > > > > > > > - Print > > - Leaflet > > - Feedback > > - Share » > > US drops largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan: A crime against > humanity 14 April 2017 > > The US military’s dropping of the largest non-nuclear weapon in its > arsenal on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border Thursday is a crime against > humanity. Even as the US government and the mass media were engaged in a > lying propaganda campaign denouncing Syria and Russia for the use of poison > gas, the American military was positioning the monstrous weapon—the Massive > Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB)—for use in Afghanistan. > > While the Pentagon has released few details about the impact of the > bombing, one can be certain that the total number of deaths resulting from > the dropping of the MOAB is a massive multiple of the number killed in the > alleged Syrian gas attack, assuming—and this is by no means certain—that > the gas attack even took place. > > Seventy-two years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, > American imperialism has proven once again that it is the most ruthless and > criminal force on the planet. > > The use of the MOAB has implications that extend beyond Afghanistan. It > demonstrates—and this is, in fact, the principal aim of the attack—that > there are no restraints on what the US military is prepared to do in > pursuit of the interests of American imperialism. > > In the context of mounting military tensions from the Korean peninsula to > Syria to eastern Europe, the detonation of the massive bomb over > Afghanistan represents a warning to Russia, Iran, North Korea and any > country that dares to challenge Washington’s interests that there is no > limit to the level of violence that US imperialism will unleash against > them. > > The weapon, officially known as the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, > designated by the Pentagon as MOAB, or “mother of all bombs,” detonates > nearly 20,000 pounds of explosives in mid-air, igniting the atmosphere and > creating a massive concussion that obliterates everything within a radius > of 1,000 yards. Its shock waves are capable of killing people within a > radius of up to 1.7 miles. The impact of the explosion is the equivalent of > a nuclear weapon for those caught in the target zone. > > Designed for use in the “shock and awe” campaign unleashed with the 2003 > US invasion of Iraq, it was never utilized in combat over the course of 14 > years. Even as the Pentagon carried out a war and occupation that claimed > some one million Iraqi lives, the weapon was seen as too destructive to > serve US strategic purposes. > > Planning for the use of this horrific weapon in Afghanistan began under > the Obama administration. > > According to the Pentagon command, this genuine “weapon of mass > destruction” was dropped for the first time on a remote district of > Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar Province in order to obliterate alleged > caves and tunnels used by elements of the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic > State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). > > There is no immediate tactical, much less strategic, justification for the > dropping of such a massive weapon on a small, poorly armed band of Islamist > guerrillas—a Pakistan-based group that merely adopted the ISIS logo. > Instead, the attack has all the earmarks of a calculated demonstration of > American military might, the most terrifying one that could be staged short > of a nuclear attack. > > The bombing comes just one week after Washington carried out a naked act > of military aggression against Syria, firing 59 cruise missiles into a > government airbase and killing at least 15 Syrians, the majority of them > civilians. > > That attack was justified in the name of retaliation for an alleged > chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government. Damascus denied > using any such weapon and, the endless lies of the Western media > notwithstanding, all objective evidence points to a provocation staged by > the CIA and the Al Qaeda-linked fighters that it supports in Syria. > > Even as the US government and media churned out war propaganda over the > fabricated “chemical weapons” attack in Syria, Washington was preparing to > drop its largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan. > > The Pentagon has claimed that it “took every precaution to avoid civilian > casualties with this strike.” Such promises, made repeatedly as the US > military has killed millions across the Middle East, are utterly worthless. > According to initial reports, there are several villages near the target > area and, in all likelihood, civilian deaths and injuries will be massive. > > At this point, no one knows what the real toll from this attack is, and, > if left to the US media, no one will ever be told. The same editorialists > for CIA house organs like the *New York Times,* and television news > talking heads who have parroted the government’s denunciations of the Assad > regime over the chemical weapons provocation in Syria, are completely > indifferent to the loss of life caused by the massive US bomb dropped on > Afghanistan. > > Similarly, the media largely ignores the ongoing carnage inflicted by US > bombs and missiles upon the people of Iraq and Syria. On Wednesday, a US > airstrike in western Mosul killed 13 civilians while injuring another 17, > most of them seriously. On the same day, a UN agency described the > devastation wrought by the US siege of the Iraqi city, where hundreds, if > not thousands, of men, women and children have died: “Homes are being > destroyed. Schools and health centers are damaged and crucial public > infrastructure including electricity and water stations are in ruins,” > according to the report, with the destruction turning over 300,000 people > into homeless refugees. > > Meanwhile, in northern Syria, US warplanes carried out a “friendly fire” > airstrike that killed 18 Kurdish fighters, while the Syrian government > reported that a US bomb hit an Al Qaeda weapons depot, spreading chemical > agents that may have killed hundreds of civilians. None of these incidents > are given any significant coverage; much less do they provoke the moral > outrage of those crying crocodile tears over the victims of the alleged > chemical attack for which the Syrian government has been framed. > > Who are these people to lecture anyone on “human rights,” much less to > posture as opponents of “terrorism?” Once again, US imperialism has > demonstrated to the world that it is bound by absolutely no constraints of > international law, much less morality. Its violent and predatory actions on > the world stage are a direct expression of the criminal and parasitic > character of the American capitalist ruling class, personified in the > loathsome figure of Donald Trump. > > This latest atrocity comes fifteen and a half years after the US invaded > Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban government, installing its own puppet > regime and carrying out a bloody war and occupation ever since. > Conservative estimates put the Afghan death toll since 2001 at some > 200,000, with hundreds of thousands more wounded and millions turned into > refugees. From the outset, the purpose of this intervention was to > subjugate the Afghan people to semi-colonial American domination and to > further US imperialism’s drive to assert its hegemony over the energy-rich > region of Central Asia. > > The timing of the bombing was significant. It came on the very eve of > talks called for April 14 in Moscow on a peace settlement in Afghanistan. > Russia has called the meeting together with China and Pakistan, with the > participation of nine other countries, including India and Iran. The > Taliban has indicated that it may join the talks. While invited, Washington > failed to confirm whether it will attend, and US military commanders have > made repeated baseless allegations of Russian support for the Taliban. > > Whether an armed confrontation takes place between US and Russian > warplanes in the skies over Syria, in a military strike against North Korea > or in a provocation on Russia’s western borders, the next step from the > weapon dropped on Afghanistan is the launching of nuclear missiles. > > Workers and young people in the US and internationally must respond to > these ominous events with utmost seriousness and a determination to stop US > and global capitalism from engulfing the planet in a third, nuclear world > war. > > Protests must be organized across the United States and around the world > against the latest US atrocities in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq as part of > the struggle to build a mass antiwar movement based upon the working class > and the program of socialist internationalism. At the very center of this > struggle lies the need to build the Socialist Equality Party and the > International Committee of the Fourth International—the only consistent > political opponents of world imperialism—as the revolutionary leadership of > the working class. > > Bill Van Auken and David North of the WSWS.ORG > _______________________________________________ > 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 kbzeese at gmail.com Fri Apr 14 17:41:21 2017 From: kbzeese at gmail.com (Kevin Zeese) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:41:21 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [ufpj-activist] Fwd: We should all be screaming in outrage...... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We should include no war in Korea in our messaging as that threat is heating up. KZ On Friday, April 14, 2017, Karen Aram wrote: > Deb > > As you represent the Progressive Democrats and Code Pink, in Champaign, > Illinois perhaps you may wish to call for a demonstration uniting Democrats > with other groups in an anti-war demonstration as Medea suggests. “MOAB > Mother Of All Bombs,” should be protests against war as “Mother Of All > Babies.” Please see her recent article in the Guardian below. > > We can attempt to unite all groups opposing war and abuse both here and > abroad, with all political groups joining as a joint effort to stop the > bombing and killing by the USG. > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Medea Benjamin > > *Subject: **Re: [ufpj-activist] Fwd: [Peace-discuss] We should all be > screaming in outrage......* > *Date: *April 14, 2017 at 08:10:37 PDT > *To: *Karen Aram > > *Cc: *ufpj-activist >, > Peace-discuss AWARE >, peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net > > > > my piece in the Guardian today re MOAB. Medea > > *https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/14/the-mother-of-all-bombs-big-deadly-ineffective > * > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >> >> I guess we should be calling on the local Democrat Party to organize a >> protest against Trump, and the bombing. Knowing that the bombing takes a >> back seat to Party Politics. At least it will get the people out into the >> streets, making their voices heard, better than nothing. >> We had 3,000 marchers with “pink pussy hats” in January this year in our >> town. Now the best those of us who are anti-war, can accumulate is >> approximately thirteen. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Print >> >> - Leaflet >> >> - Feedback >> >> - Share » >> >> US drops largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan: A crime against >> humanity 14 April 2017 >> >> The US military’s dropping of the largest non-nuclear weapon in its >> arsenal on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border Thursday is a crime against >> humanity. Even as the US government and the mass media were engaged in a >> lying propaganda campaign denouncing Syria and Russia for the use of poison >> gas, the American military was positioning the monstrous weapon—the Massive >> Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB)—for use in Afghanistan. >> >> While the Pentagon has released few details about the impact of the >> bombing, one can be certain that the total number of deaths resulting from >> the dropping of the MOAB is a massive multiple of the number killed in the >> alleged Syrian gas attack, assuming—and this is by no means certain—that >> the gas attack even took place. >> >> Seventy-two years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, >> American imperialism has proven once again that it is the most ruthless and >> criminal force on the planet. >> >> The use of the MOAB has implications that extend beyond Afghanistan. It >> demonstrates—and this is, in fact, the principal aim of the attack—that >> there are no restraints on what the US military is prepared to do in >> pursuit of the interests of American imperialism. >> >> In the context of mounting military tensions from the Korean peninsula to >> Syria to eastern Europe, the detonation of the massive bomb over >> Afghanistan represents a warning to Russia, Iran, North Korea and any >> country that dares to challenge Washington’s interests that there is no >> limit to the level of violence that US imperialism will unleash against >> them. >> >> The weapon, officially known as the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, >> designated by the Pentagon as MOAB, or “mother of all bombs,” detonates >> nearly 20,000 pounds of explosives in mid-air, igniting the atmosphere and >> creating a massive concussion that obliterates everything within a radius >> of 1,000 yards. Its shock waves are capable of killing people within a >> radius of up to 1.7 miles. The impact of the explosion is the equivalent of >> a nuclear weapon for those caught in the target zone. >> >> Designed for use in the “shock and awe” campaign unleashed with the 2003 >> US invasion of Iraq, it was never utilized in combat over the course of 14 >> years. Even as the Pentagon carried out a war and occupation that claimed >> some one million Iraqi lives, the weapon was seen as too destructive to >> serve US strategic purposes. >> >> Planning for the use of this horrific weapon in Afghanistan began under >> the Obama administration. >> >> According to the Pentagon command, this genuine “weapon of mass >> destruction” was dropped for the first time on a remote district of >> Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar Province in order to obliterate alleged >> caves and tunnels used by elements of the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic >> State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). >> >> There is no immediate tactical, much less strategic, justification for >> the dropping of such a massive weapon on a small, poorly armed band of >> Islamist guerrillas—a Pakistan-based group that merely adopted the ISIS >> logo. Instead, the attack has all the earmarks of a calculated >> demonstration of American military might, the most terrifying one that >> could be staged short of a nuclear attack. >> >> The bombing comes just one week after Washington carried out a naked act >> of military aggression against Syria, firing 59 cruise missiles into a >> government airbase and killing at least 15 Syrians, the majority of them >> civilians. >> >> That attack was justified in the name of retaliation for an alleged >> chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government. Damascus denied >> using any such weapon and, the endless lies of the Western media >> notwithstanding, all objective evidence points to a provocation staged by >> the CIA and the Al Qaeda-linked fighters that it supports in Syria. >> >> Even as the US government and media churned out war propaganda over the >> fabricated “chemical weapons” attack in Syria, Washington was preparing to >> drop its largest non-nuclear weapon on Afghanistan. >> >> The Pentagon has claimed that it “took every precaution to avoid civilian >> casualties with this strike.” Such promises, made repeatedly as the US >> military has killed millions across the Middle East, are utterly worthless. >> According to initial reports, there are several villages near the target >> area and, in all likelihood, civilian deaths and injuries will be massive. >> >> At this point, no one knows what the real toll from this attack is, and, >> if left to the US media, no one will ever be told. The same editorialists >> for CIA house organs like the *New York Times,* and television news >> talking heads who have parroted the government’s denunciations of the Assad >> regime over the chemical weapons provocation in Syria, are completely >> indifferent to the loss of life caused by the massive US bomb dropped on >> Afghanistan. >> >> Similarly, the media largely ignores the ongoing carnage inflicted by US >> bombs and missiles upon the people of Iraq and Syria. On Wednesday, a US >> airstrike in western Mosul killed 13 civilians while injuring another 17, >> most of them seriously. On the same day, a UN agency described the >> devastation wrought by the US siege of the Iraqi city, where hundreds, if >> not thousands, of men, women and children have died: “Homes are being >> destroyed. Schools and health centers are damaged and crucial public >> infrastructure including electricity and water stations are in ruins,” >> according to the report, with the destruction turning over 300,000 people >> into homeless refugees. >> >> Meanwhile, in northern Syria, US warplanes carried out a “friendly fire” >> airstrike that killed 18 Kurdish fighters, while the Syrian government >> reported that a US bomb hit an Al Qaeda weapons depot, spreading chemical >> agents that may have killed hundreds of civilians. None of these incidents >> are given any significant coverage; much less do they provoke the moral >> outrage of those crying crocodile tears over the victims of the alleged >> chemical attack for which the Syrian government has been framed. >> >> Who are these people to lecture anyone on “human rights,” much less to >> posture as opponents of “terrorism?” Once again, US imperialism has >> demonstrated to the world that it is bound by absolutely no constraints of >> international law, much less morality. Its violent and predatory actions on >> the world stage are a direct expression of the criminal and parasitic >> character of the American capitalist ruling class, personified in the >> loathsome figure of Donald Trump. >> >> This latest atrocity comes fifteen and a half years after the US invaded >> Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban government, installing its own puppet >> regime and carrying out a bloody war and occupation ever since. >> Conservative estimates put the Afghan death toll since 2001 at some >> 200,000, with hundreds of thousands more wounded and millions turned into >> refugees. From the outset, the purpose of this intervention was to >> subjugate the Afghan people to semi-colonial American domination and to >> further US imperialism’s drive to assert its hegemony over the energy-rich >> region of Central Asia. >> >> The timing of the bombing was significant. It came on the very eve of >> talks called for April 14 in Moscow on a peace settlement in Afghanistan. >> Russia has called the meeting together with China and Pakistan, with the >> participation of nine other countries, including India and Iran. The >> Taliban has indicated that it may join the talks. While invited, Washington >> failed to confirm whether it will attend, and US military commanders have >> made repeated baseless allegations of Russian support for the Taliban. >> >> Whether an armed confrontation takes place between US and Russian >> warplanes in the skies over Syria, in a military strike against North Korea >> or in a provocation on Russia’s western borders, the next step from the >> weapon dropped on Afghanistan is the launching of nuclear missiles. >> >> Workers and young people in the US and internationally must respond to >> these ominous events with utmost seriousness and a determination to stop US >> and global capitalism from engulfing the planet in a third, nuclear world >> war. >> >> Protests must be organized across the United States and around the world >> against the latest US atrocities in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq as part of >> the struggle to build a mass antiwar movement based upon the working class >> and the program of socialist internationalism. At the very center of this >> struggle lies the need to build the Socialist Equality Party and the >> International Committee of the Fourth International—the only consistent >> political opponents of world imperialism—as the revolutionary leadership of >> the working class. >> >> Bill Van Auken and David North of the WSWS.ORG >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/mai >> lman/options/ufpj-activist/medea.benjamin%40gmail.com >> >> You are subscribed as: medea.benjamin at gmail.com >> >> >> > > > -- > > > *Medea Benjamin * > > *CODEPINK Co-founder * > *(415) 235-6517 * > > > -- *@KBZeese* *Build power and resistance* *Popular Resistance* *www.PopularResistance.org )* *Shift Wealth:** Economic Democracy* *Its Our Economy * *www.ItsOurEconomy.US )* *Democratize the MediaClearing the FOG (Forces of Greed) Radio http://www.ClearingTheFOGRadio.org )* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Apr 14 19:12:19 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 19:12:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Tillerson Failed to Defuse Dangerous US-Russia Tensions in Moscow Visit Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 2:10 PM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Tillerson Failed to Defuse Dangerous US-Russia Tensions in Moscow Visit Shared from sputniknews.com Tillerson Failed to Defuse Dangerous US-Russia Tensions in Moscow Visit https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704141052628702-tillerson-failed-defuse-tensions/ US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson failed to ameliorate dangerous tensions between Russia and the United States during his visit to Moscow, US analysts told Sputnik. WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Relations between the United States and Russia remain at historically bad and dangerous levels and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson failed on his trip to Moscow this week to improve them. "The warmongering against Russia continues over here by elements of the Trump administration and the mainstream media: I have not seen it this bad in my political lifetime," University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle said on Thursday. [US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, shakes hands prior to their talks in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, April 12, 2017] (c) AP Photo/ Alexander Zemlianichenko 'Brilliant Negotiator': How Rex Tillerson Compares to John Kerry Tillerson had failed to defuse Russian concerns over US President Donald Trump's unilateral cruise missile bombardment of a Syrian military airfield a week ago, Boyle observed. "The entire situation is volatile right now... The situation is still extremely dangerous. Anything could go wrong. So far it does not appear that Tillerson's trip did enough to ameliorate the situation," he warned. Trump's attack on April 6 was clearly a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter as well as the War Powers Clause of the United States Constitution, Boyle pointed out. It remained "very hard to assess what went on over in Moscow: Like reading tea leaves. The jihadi terrorists could easily stage another bogus chemical weapons attack [in Syria]," he warned. [US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, shakes hands prior to their talks in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, April 12, 2017] (c) AP Photo/ Alexander Zemlianichenko The Outcome of Tillerson's Highly-Anticipated Visit to Moscow Anti-Russian prejudice remained strong in the US government and media, Boyle cautioned. US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley's "invective against Russia at the Security Council is deplorable. The list can go on," he said. Boyle recommended that President Donald Trump needed to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin as soon as possible to reset the entire tone of US-Russian relations. "What is called for is a summit meeting between Putin and Trump to try to calm the situation down," he concluded. [US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, shakes hands prior to their talks in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, April 12, 2017] (c) AP Photo/ Alexander Zemlianichenko Tillerson's Visit to Moscow Attempt to Boost Mutual Trust, Russian Lawmaker Says University of Rhode Island Professor of Peace Studies and Non-Violence Nicolai Petro agreed with Boyle's assessment, but warned that in the current political climate such a summit was extremely unlikely. "I would not hold my breath," he said. Petro said the outcome of Tillerson's talks in Moscow with Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was better than many had expected, but only because expectations for them had been set so low. "You could say so, although since the tensions themselves have been manufactured, this sets the bar very low indeed," he said. Russia and the United States remained far apart on the future they saw for Syria, Petro observed. "The US approach seems to be the same as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya - prop up 'good guys' for a while then declare victory and go home. The Russian approach is that such efforts to manipulate local politics always backfire and encourage... terrorism. A meeting of the minds is unlikely," he stated. Petro also expressed the hope that the new diplomatic procedures set up during Tillerson's visit could help create a more positive dynamic between the two governments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 59173 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 20:33:00 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:33:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Tillerson Failed to Defuse Dangerous US-Russia Tensions in Moscow Visit References: Message-ID: Shared from sputniknews.com Tillerson Failed to Defuse Dangerous US-Russia Tensions in Moscow Visit https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704141052628702-tillerson-failed-defuse-tensions/ US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson failed to ameliorate dangerous tensions between Russia and the United States during his visit to Moscow, US analysts told Sputnik. WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Relations between the United States and Russia remain at historically bad and dangerous levels and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson failed on his trip to Moscow this week to improve them. "The warmongering against Russia continues over here by elements of the Trump administration and the mainstream media: I have not seen it this bad in my political lifetime," University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle said on Thursday. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D2B528.BD849DF0] © AP PHOTO/ ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO 'Brilliant Negotiator': How Rex Tillerson Compares to John Kerry Tillerson had failed to defuse Russian concerns over US President Donald Trump’s unilateral cruise missile bombardment of a Syrian military airfield a week ago, Boyle observed. "The entire situation is volatile right now… The situation is still extremely dangerous. Anything could go wrong. So far it does not appear that Tillerson’s trip did enough to ameliorate the situation," he warned. Trump’s attack on April 6 was clearly a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter as well as the War Powers Clause of the United States Constitution, Boyle pointed out. It remained "very hard to assess what went on over in Moscow: Like reading tea leaves. The jihadi terrorists could easily stage another bogus chemical weapons attack [in Syria]," he warned. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D2B528.BD849DF0] © AP PHOTO/ ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO The Outcome of Tillerson's Highly-Anticipated Visit to Moscow Anti-Russian prejudice remained strong in the US government and media, Boyle cautioned. US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley’s "invective against Russia at the Security Council is deplorable. The list can go on," he said. Boyle recommended that President Donald Trump needed to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin as soon as possible to reset the entire tone of US-Russian relations. "What is called for is a summit meeting between Putin and Trump to try to calm the situation down," he concluded. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D2B528.BD849DF0] © AP PHOTO/ ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO Tillerson’s Visit to Moscow Attempt to Boost Mutual Trust, Russian Lawmaker Says University of Rhode Island Professor of Peace Studies and Non-Violence Nicolai Petro agreed with Boyle's assessment, but warned that in the current political climate such a summit was extremely unlikely. "I would not hold my breath," he said. Petro said the outcome of Tillerson’s talks in Moscow with Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was better than many had expected, but only because expectations for them had been set so low. "You could say so, although since the tensions themselves have been manufactured, this sets the bar very low indeed," he said. Russia and the United States remained far apart on the future they saw for Syria, Petro observed. "The US approach seems to be the same as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya — prop up ‘good guys’ for a while then declare victory and go home. The Russian approach is that such efforts to manipulate local politics always backfire and encourage… terrorism. A meeting of the minds is unlikely," he stated. Petro also expressed the hope that the new diplomatic procedures set up during Tillerson’s visit could help create a more positive dynamic between the two governments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 59173 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 14 20:33:00 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:33:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Tillerson Failed to Defuse Dangerous US-Russia Tensions in Moscow Visit References: Message-ID: Shared from sputniknews.com Tillerson Failed to Defuse Dangerous US-Russia Tensions in Moscow Visit https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704141052628702-tillerson-failed-defuse-tensions/ US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson failed to ameliorate dangerous tensions between Russia and the United States during his visit to Moscow, US analysts told Sputnik. WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Relations between the United States and Russia remain at historically bad and dangerous levels and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson failed on his trip to Moscow this week to improve them. "The warmongering against Russia continues over here by elements of the Trump administration and the mainstream media: I have not seen it this bad in my political lifetime," University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle said on Thursday. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D2B528.BD849DF0] © AP PHOTO/ ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO 'Brilliant Negotiator': How Rex Tillerson Compares to John Kerry Tillerson had failed to defuse Russian concerns over US President Donald Trump’s unilateral cruise missile bombardment of a Syrian military airfield a week ago, Boyle observed. "The entire situation is volatile right now… The situation is still extremely dangerous. Anything could go wrong. So far it does not appear that Tillerson’s trip did enough to ameliorate the situation," he warned. Trump’s attack on April 6 was clearly a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter as well as the War Powers Clause of the United States Constitution, Boyle pointed out. It remained "very hard to assess what went on over in Moscow: Like reading tea leaves. The jihadi terrorists could easily stage another bogus chemical weapons attack [in Syria]," he warned. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D2B528.BD849DF0] © AP PHOTO/ ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO The Outcome of Tillerson's Highly-Anticipated Visit to Moscow Anti-Russian prejudice remained strong in the US government and media, Boyle cautioned. US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley’s "invective against Russia at the Security Council is deplorable. The list can go on," he said. Boyle recommended that President Donald Trump needed to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin as soon as possible to reset the entire tone of US-Russian relations. "What is called for is a summit meeting between Putin and Trump to try to calm the situation down," he concluded. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D2B528.BD849DF0] © AP PHOTO/ ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO Tillerson’s Visit to Moscow Attempt to Boost Mutual Trust, Russian Lawmaker Says University of Rhode Island Professor of Peace Studies and Non-Violence Nicolai Petro agreed with Boyle's assessment, but warned that in the current political climate such a summit was extremely unlikely. "I would not hold my breath," he said. Petro said the outcome of Tillerson’s talks in Moscow with Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was better than many had expected, but only because expectations for them had been set so low. "You could say so, although since the tensions themselves have been manufactured, this sets the bar very low indeed," he said. Russia and the United States remained far apart on the future they saw for Syria, Petro observed. "The US approach seems to be the same as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya — prop up ‘good guys’ for a while then declare victory and go home. The Russian approach is that such efforts to manipulate local politics always backfire and encourage… terrorism. A meeting of the minds is unlikely," he stated. Petro also expressed the hope that the new diplomatic procedures set up during Tillerson’s visit could help create a more positive dynamic between the two governments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 59173 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Fri Apr 14 21:04:26 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:04:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reaching Out for Left Behinds Message-ID: <62D1AB33-DCB6-4D00-9D38-75166069F9D8@illinois.edu> Subject: NYTimes.com: Reaching Out to the Voters the Left Left Behind Date: April 13, 2017 at 4:04:33 PM CDT Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: [http://i1.nyt.com/images/misc/nytlogo194x27.gif] [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/13/opinion/13edsallWeb/13edsallWeb-thumbStandard.jpg] CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER Reaching Out to the Voters the Left Left Behind BY THOMAS B. EDSALL The economic and political gap between cities and rural counties is even wider than we realized. Can the Democrats do anything about it? Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2oqzOR2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 14 21:38:18 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:38:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reaching Out for Left Behinds In-Reply-To: <62D1AB33-DCB6-4D00-9D38-75166069F9D8@illinois.edu> References: <62D1AB33-DCB6-4D00-9D38-75166069F9D8@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <1544610350.715676.1492205898998@mail.yahoo.com> While providing a lot of interesting data, this article, unsurprisingly in light of Edsall's neoliberal proclivities, relies too heavily on the misconception that inequality is being driven by technological change, and the failure of the flyover rabble to "adapt." DG On Friday, April 14, 2017 4:04 PM, "Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss" wrote: Subject: NYTimes.com: Reaching Out to the Voters the Left Left Behind Date: April 13, 2017 at 4:04:33 PM CDT | | | |   | | Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: | | | | | CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER Reaching Out to the Voters the Left Left Behind BY THOMAS B. EDSALL The economic and political gap between cities and rural counties is even wider than we realized. Can the Democrats do anything about it? | | | Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2oqzOR2  | | | _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Fri Apr 14 21:47:52 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:47:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reaching Out for Left Behinds In-Reply-To: <1544610350.715676.1492205898998@mail.yahoo.com> References: <62D1AB33-DCB6-4D00-9D38-75166069F9D8@illinois.edu> <1544610350.715676.1492205898998@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Oh, I get it: all those saying things you don’t like are BIASED & brainwashed, while you are not. Sure. ~~ Ron On Apr 14, 2017, at 4:38 PM, David Green > wrote: While providing a lot of interesting data, this article, unsurprisingly in light of Edsall's neoliberal proclivities, relies too heavily on the misconception that inequality is being driven by technological change, and the failure of the flyover rabble to "adapt." DG On Friday, April 14, 2017 4:04 PM, "Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss" > wrote: Subject: NYTimes.com: Reaching Out to the Voters the Left Left Behind Date: April 13, 2017 at 4:04:33 PM CDT Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: [http://i1.nyt.com/images/misc/nytlogo194x27.gif] [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/13/opinion/13edsallWeb/13edsallWeb-thumbStandard.jpg] CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER Reaching Out to the Voters the Left Left Behind BY THOMAS B. EDSALL The economic and political gap between cities and rural counties is even wider than we realized. Can the Democrats do anything about it? Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2oqzOR2 _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 14 21:57:34 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:57:34 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reaching Out for Left Behinds In-Reply-To: References: <62D1AB33-DCB6-4D00-9D38-75166069F9D8@illinois.edu> <1544610350.715676.1492205898998@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <135755241.771307.1492207054382@mail.yahoo.com> Actually, I don't think Edsall is biased or brainwashed. I think he is highly educated. On Friday, April 14, 2017 4:48 PM, "Szoke, Ron" wrote: Oh, I get it:  all those saying things you don’t like are BIASED & brainwashed, while you are not.  Sure.~~ Ron On Apr 14, 2017, at 4:38 PM, David Green wrote: While providing a lot of interesting data, this article, unsurprisingly in light of Edsall's neoliberal proclivities, relies too heavily on the misconception that inequality is being driven by technological change, and the failure of the flyover rabble to "adapt." DG On Friday, April 14, 2017 4:04 PM, "Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss" wrote: Subject: NYTimes.com: Reaching Out to the Voters the Left Left Behind Date: April 13, 2017 at 4:04:33 PM CDT | | | |   | | Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: | | | | | CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER Reaching Out to the Voters the Left Left Behind BY THOMAS B. EDSALL The economic and political gap between cities and rural counties is even wider than we realized. Can the Democrats do anything about it? | | | Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2oqzOR2  | | | _______________________________________________ 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 Apr 15 12:51:36 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:51:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Counterpunch article on Syria Message-ID: APRIL 14, 2017 Syria: Cui Bono? by URI AVNERY * * * * Email * * [http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/07/print-sp.png] Cui bono – “who benefits” – is the first question an experienced detective asks when investigating a crime. Since I was a detective myself for a short time in my youth, I know the meaning. Often, the first and obvious suspicion is false. You ask yourself “cui bono”, and another suspect, who you did not think about, appears. For two weeks now, this question has been troubling my mind. It does not leave me. In Syria, a terrible war crime has been committed. The civilian population in a rebel-held town called Idlib was hit with poison gas. Dozens of civilians, including children, died a miserable death. Who could do such a thing? The answer was obvious: that terrible dictator, Bashar al-Assad. Who else? And so, within a few minutes (literally) the New York Times and a host of excellent newspapers throughout the West proclaimed without hesitation: Assad did it! No need for proof. No investigation. It was just self-evident. Of course Assad. Within minutes, everybody knew it. A storm of indignation swept the Western world. He must be punished! Poor Donald Trump, who does not have a clue, submitted to pressure and ordered a senseless missile strike on a Syrian airfield, after preaching for years that the US must under no circumstances get involved in Syria. Suddenly he reversed himself. Just to teach that bastard a lesson. And to show the world what a he-he-he-man he, Trump, really is. The operation was an immense success. Overnight, the despised Trump became a national hero. Even liberals kissed his feet. But throughout, that question continued to nag my mind. Why did Assad do it? What did he have to gain? The simple answer is: Nothing. Absolutely nothing. (“Assad” means “lion” in Arabic. Contrary to what Western experts and statesmen seem to believe, the emphasis is on the first syllable.) With the help of Russia, Iran and Hizbullah, Assad is slowly winning the civil war that has been ravishing Syria for years, He already holds almost all the major cities that constitute the core of Syria. He has enough weapons to kill as many enemy civilians as his heart desires. So why, for Allah’s sake, should he use gas to kill a few dozen more? Why arouse the anger of the entire world, inviting American intervention? There is no way to deny the conclusion: Assad had the least to gain from the dastardly deed. On the list of “cui bono”, he is the very last. Assad is a cynical dictator, perhaps cruel, but he is far from being a fool. He was raised by his father, Hafez al-Assad, who was a long-time dictator before him. Even if he were a fool, his advisors include some of the cleverest people on earth: Vladimir Putin of Russia, Hassan Rouhani of Iran, Hassan Nasrallah of Hizbullah. So who had something to gain? Well, half a dozen Syrian sects and militias who are fighting against Assad and against each other in the crazy civil war. Also their Sunni Arab allies, the Saudi and other Gulf Sheikhs. And Israel, of course. They all have an interest in arousing the civilized world against the Syrian dictator. Simple logic. A military act must have a political aim. As Carl von Clausewitz famously said 200 years ago: war is the continuation of politics by other means. The two main opponents in the Syrian civil war are the Assad regime and Daesh. So what is the aim of the US? It sounds like a joke: The US wants to destroy both sides. Another joke: First it wants to destroy Daesh, therefore it bombs Assad. The destruction of Daesh is highly desirable. There are few more detestable groups in the world. But Daesh is an idea, rather than just an organization. The destruction of the Daesh state would disperse thousands of dedicated assassins all over the world. (Interestingly enough, the original Assassins, some 900 years ago, were Muslim fanatics very similar to Daesh now.) America’s own clients in Syria are a sorry lot, almost beaten. They have no chance of winning. Hurting Assad now just means prolonging a civil war which is now even more senseless than before. For me, a professional journalist most of my life, the most depressing aspect of this whole chapter is the influence of the American and Western media in general. I read the New York Times and admire it. Yet it shredded all its professional standards by publishing an unproven assumption as gospel truth, with no need for verification. Perhaps Assad is to blame, after all. But where is the proof? Who investigated, and what were the results? Worse, the “news” immediately became a world-wide truth. Many millions repeat it unthinkingly as self-evident, like sunrise in the east and sunset in the west. No questions raised. No proof demanded or provided. Very depressing. Back to the dictator. Why does Syria need a dictator? Why isn’t it a beautiful US-style democracy? Why doesn’t it gratefully accept US-devised “regime-change”? The Syrian dictatorship is no accidental phenomenon. It has very concrete roots. Syria was created by France after World War I. A part of it later split off and became Lebanon. Both are artificial creations. I doubt whether there are even today real “Syrians” and real “Lebanese”. Lebanon is a mountainous country, ideally suited for small sects which need to defend themselves. Over the centuries, many small sects found refuge there. As a result, Lebanon is full of such sects, which distrust each other – Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Maronite Christians, many other Christian sects, Druze, Kurds. Syria is much the same, with most of the same sects, and the addition of the Alawites. These, like the Shiites, are the followers of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, cousin and son-in-law of the prophet (hence the name). They occupy a patch of land in the North of Syria. Both countries needed to invent a system that allowed such diverse and mutually-suspicious entities to live together. They found two different systems. In Lebanon, with a past of many brutal civil wars, they invented a way of sharing. The President is always a Maronite, the Prime Minister a Sunni, the commander of the army a Druze, and the Speaker of Parliament a Shiite. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the Shiites in the south were the lowest on the ladder. They welcomed our soldiers with rice. But soon they realized that the Israelis had not come just to defeat their overbearing neighbors, but intended to stay. So the lowly Shiites started a very successful guerrilla campaign, in the course of which they became the most powerful community in Lebanon. They are led by Hizballah, the Party of Allah. But the system still holds. The Syrians found another solution. They willingly submitted to a dictatorship, to hold the country together and assure internal peace. The Bible tells us that when the Children of Israel decided that they needed a king, they chose a man called Saul who belonged to the smallest tribe, Binyamin. The modern Syrians did much the same: they submitted to a dictator from one of their smallest tribes: the Alawites. The Assads are secular, anti-religious rulers – the very opposite of the fanatical, murderous Daesh. Many Muslims believe that the Alawites are not Muslims at all. Since Syria lost the Yom Kippur war against Israel, 44 years ago, the Assads have kept the peace on our border, though Israel has annexed the Syrian Golan Heights. The civil war in Syria is still going on. Everybody is fighting against everybody. The diverse groups of “rebels”, created, financed and armed by the US, are now in a bad shape. There are several competing groups of Jihadists, who all hate the Jihadist Daesh. There is a Kurdish enclave, which wants to secede. The Kurds are not Arabs, but are mainly Muslims. There are Kurdish enclaves in neighboring Turkey, Iraq and Iran, whose mutual hostility prevents them making common cause. And there is poor, innocent Donald Trump, who has sworn not to get involved in all this mess, and who is doing just that. A day before, Trump was despised by half the American people, including most of the media. Just by launching a few missiles, he has won general admiration as a forceful and wise leader. What does that say about the American people, and about humanity in general? Join the debate on Facebook URI AVNERY is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch’s book The Politics of Anti-Semitism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Apr 15 12:51:36 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:51:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Counterpunch article on Syria Message-ID: APRIL 14, 2017 Syria: Cui Bono? by URI AVNERY * * * * Email * * [http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/07/print-sp.png] Cui bono – “who benefits” – is the first question an experienced detective asks when investigating a crime. Since I was a detective myself for a short time in my youth, I know the meaning. Often, the first and obvious suspicion is false. You ask yourself “cui bono”, and another suspect, who you did not think about, appears. For two weeks now, this question has been troubling my mind. It does not leave me. In Syria, a terrible war crime has been committed. The civilian population in a rebel-held town called Idlib was hit with poison gas. Dozens of civilians, including children, died a miserable death. Who could do such a thing? The answer was obvious: that terrible dictator, Bashar al-Assad. Who else? And so, within a few minutes (literally) the New York Times and a host of excellent newspapers throughout the West proclaimed without hesitation: Assad did it! No need for proof. No investigation. It was just self-evident. Of course Assad. Within minutes, everybody knew it. A storm of indignation swept the Western world. He must be punished! Poor Donald Trump, who does not have a clue, submitted to pressure and ordered a senseless missile strike on a Syrian airfield, after preaching for years that the US must under no circumstances get involved in Syria. Suddenly he reversed himself. Just to teach that bastard a lesson. And to show the world what a he-he-he-man he, Trump, really is. The operation was an immense success. Overnight, the despised Trump became a national hero. Even liberals kissed his feet. But throughout, that question continued to nag my mind. Why did Assad do it? What did he have to gain? The simple answer is: Nothing. Absolutely nothing. (“Assad” means “lion” in Arabic. Contrary to what Western experts and statesmen seem to believe, the emphasis is on the first syllable.) With the help of Russia, Iran and Hizbullah, Assad is slowly winning the civil war that has been ravishing Syria for years, He already holds almost all the major cities that constitute the core of Syria. He has enough weapons to kill as many enemy civilians as his heart desires. So why, for Allah’s sake, should he use gas to kill a few dozen more? Why arouse the anger of the entire world, inviting American intervention? There is no way to deny the conclusion: Assad had the least to gain from the dastardly deed. On the list of “cui bono”, he is the very last. Assad is a cynical dictator, perhaps cruel, but he is far from being a fool. He was raised by his father, Hafez al-Assad, who was a long-time dictator before him. Even if he were a fool, his advisors include some of the cleverest people on earth: Vladimir Putin of Russia, Hassan Rouhani of Iran, Hassan Nasrallah of Hizbullah. So who had something to gain? Well, half a dozen Syrian sects and militias who are fighting against Assad and against each other in the crazy civil war. Also their Sunni Arab allies, the Saudi and other Gulf Sheikhs. And Israel, of course. They all have an interest in arousing the civilized world against the Syrian dictator. Simple logic. A military act must have a political aim. As Carl von Clausewitz famously said 200 years ago: war is the continuation of politics by other means. The two main opponents in the Syrian civil war are the Assad regime and Daesh. So what is the aim of the US? It sounds like a joke: The US wants to destroy both sides. Another joke: First it wants to destroy Daesh, therefore it bombs Assad. The destruction of Daesh is highly desirable. There are few more detestable groups in the world. But Daesh is an idea, rather than just an organization. The destruction of the Daesh state would disperse thousands of dedicated assassins all over the world. (Interestingly enough, the original Assassins, some 900 years ago, were Muslim fanatics very similar to Daesh now.) America’s own clients in Syria are a sorry lot, almost beaten. They have no chance of winning. Hurting Assad now just means prolonging a civil war which is now even more senseless than before. For me, a professional journalist most of my life, the most depressing aspect of this whole chapter is the influence of the American and Western media in general. I read the New York Times and admire it. Yet it shredded all its professional standards by publishing an unproven assumption as gospel truth, with no need for verification. Perhaps Assad is to blame, after all. But where is the proof? Who investigated, and what were the results? Worse, the “news” immediately became a world-wide truth. Many millions repeat it unthinkingly as self-evident, like sunrise in the east and sunset in the west. No questions raised. No proof demanded or provided. Very depressing. Back to the dictator. Why does Syria need a dictator? Why isn’t it a beautiful US-style democracy? Why doesn’t it gratefully accept US-devised “regime-change”? The Syrian dictatorship is no accidental phenomenon. It has very concrete roots. Syria was created by France after World War I. A part of it later split off and became Lebanon. Both are artificial creations. I doubt whether there are even today real “Syrians” and real “Lebanese”. Lebanon is a mountainous country, ideally suited for small sects which need to defend themselves. Over the centuries, many small sects found refuge there. As a result, Lebanon is full of such sects, which distrust each other – Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Maronite Christians, many other Christian sects, Druze, Kurds. Syria is much the same, with most of the same sects, and the addition of the Alawites. These, like the Shiites, are the followers of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, cousin and son-in-law of the prophet (hence the name). They occupy a patch of land in the North of Syria. Both countries needed to invent a system that allowed such diverse and mutually-suspicious entities to live together. They found two different systems. In Lebanon, with a past of many brutal civil wars, they invented a way of sharing. The President is always a Maronite, the Prime Minister a Sunni, the commander of the army a Druze, and the Speaker of Parliament a Shiite. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the Shiites in the south were the lowest on the ladder. They welcomed our soldiers with rice. But soon they realized that the Israelis had not come just to defeat their overbearing neighbors, but intended to stay. So the lowly Shiites started a very successful guerrilla campaign, in the course of which they became the most powerful community in Lebanon. They are led by Hizballah, the Party of Allah. But the system still holds. The Syrians found another solution. They willingly submitted to a dictatorship, to hold the country together and assure internal peace. The Bible tells us that when the Children of Israel decided that they needed a king, they chose a man called Saul who belonged to the smallest tribe, Binyamin. The modern Syrians did much the same: they submitted to a dictator from one of their smallest tribes: the Alawites. The Assads are secular, anti-religious rulers – the very opposite of the fanatical, murderous Daesh. Many Muslims believe that the Alawites are not Muslims at all. Since Syria lost the Yom Kippur war against Israel, 44 years ago, the Assads have kept the peace on our border, though Israel has annexed the Syrian Golan Heights. The civil war in Syria is still going on. Everybody is fighting against everybody. The diverse groups of “rebels”, created, financed and armed by the US, are now in a bad shape. There are several competing groups of Jihadists, who all hate the Jihadist Daesh. There is a Kurdish enclave, which wants to secede. The Kurds are not Arabs, but are mainly Muslims. There are Kurdish enclaves in neighboring Turkey, Iraq and Iran, whose mutual hostility prevents them making common cause. And there is poor, innocent Donald Trump, who has sworn not to get involved in all this mess, and who is doing just that. A day before, Trump was despised by half the American people, including most of the media. Just by launching a few missiles, he has won general admiration as a forceful and wise leader. What does that say about the American people, and about humanity in general? Join the debate on Facebook URI AVNERY is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch’s book The Politics of Anti-Semitism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sat Apr 15 17:09:26 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 17:09:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] "The Assad Regime is a Moral Disgrace": Noam Chomsky on Ongoing Syrian War References: Message-ID: Is this—Chomsky’s words on Assad— a defensive posture, showing that both sides are equivalently terrible? Begin forwarded message: From: Sukla Sen > Subject: [ufpj-activist] "The Assad Regime is a Moral Disgrace": Noam Chomsky on Ongoing Syrian War Date: April 12, 2017 at 1:31:43 PM CDT To: foil-l > [NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them.] https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/5/the_assad_regime_is_a_moral "The Assad Regime is a Moral Disgrace": Noam Chomsky on Ongoing Syrian War STORY APRIL 05, 2017 Watch icon WATCH FULL SHOW [Video] TOPICS Syria GUESTS Noam Chomsky world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author. He is institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught for more than 50 years. His new book comes out today, titled Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power. As worldwide outrage mounts over an alleged chemical weapons attack in Idlib province, which was reportedly carried out by the Assad government, we speak with world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author Noam Chomsky about the ongoing conflict in Syria. TRANSCRIPT This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Noam Chomsky, one of the world’s best-known dissidents. He’s institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than 50 years. Juan González and I spoke to him live on Democracy Now! on Tuesday’s program. After the broadcast, we continued the conversation. I asked him to talk about the situation in Syria, as well as the broader Middle East. ***NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them.*** [Emphasis added.] AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but that’s what’s happening. Meanwhile, there have been—it’s kind of like the North Korean case we were discussing. There have been possible opportunities to terminate the horrors. In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not pursued, so we don’t know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to—for a negotiated settlement, in which Assad would be phased out, not immediately. You know, you can’t tell them, "We’re going to murder you. Please negotiate." That’s not going to work. But some system in which, in the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some kind of settlement would be made. The West would not accept it, not just the United States. France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider it. At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn’t want to do this, so the war went on. Could it have worked? You never know for sure. But it could have been pursued. Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different from ISIS. So you have a horror story on all sides. The Syrian people are being decimated. AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria. But if the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything? NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a negotiated diplomatic settlement would be implemented, which would by no means be lovely, but it would at least cut down the level of violence, which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed. It’s descending to suicide. -- Peace Is Doable _______________________________________________ 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 kmedina67 at gmail.com Sat Apr 15 18:07:28 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:07:28 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Letting loose the military Message-ID: <5qkb7j8pe5tf41ce5k8ed44o.1492278659595@email.android.com> Dear peace-discuss, Trump: "I am giving the military total authorization" The way i see it,...* The People gave Congress the power to start a war. (Article I, section 8).* The People and Congress gave power to the President to bomb and attack (Article II, section 2; War Powers Act; AUMF Authorization to Use Military Force).* The President has now authorized the military to do what it does best.We, the people, did not elect the military. - Karen Medina  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 15 19:58:15 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:58:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] "The Assad Regime is a Moral Disgrace": Noam Chomsky on Ongoing Syrian War In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1937437636.1222027.1492286295741@mail.yahoo.com> Chomsky has also been very hard on Venezuela, perhaps understandably and in context, but it still sounds discordant for him to be emphasizing the crimes/corruption of governments which we have done so much to undermine. On Saturday, April 15, 2017 12:09 PM, "Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss" wrote: Is this—Chomsky’s words on Assad— a defensive posture, showing that both sides are equivalently terrible?  Begin forwarded message: From:Sukla Sen Subject:[ufpj-activist] "The Assad Regime is a Moral Disgrace": Noam Chomsky on Ongoing Syrian War Date:April 12, 2017 at 1:31:43 PM CDT To:foil-l [NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them.] https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/5/the_assad_regime_is_a_moral "The Assad Regime is a Moral Disgrace": Noam Chomsky on Ongoing Syrian War STORY APRIL 05, 2017 Watch icon WATCH FULL SHOW [Video] TOPICS Syria GUESTS Noam Chomsky world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author. He is institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught for more than 50 years. His new book comes out today, titled Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power. As worldwide outrage mounts over an alleged chemical weapons attack in Idlib province, which was reportedly carried out by the Assad government, we speak with world-renowned political dissident, linguist and author Noam Chomsky about the ongoing conflict in Syria. TRANSCRIPT This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Noam Chomsky, one of the world’s best-known dissidents. He’s institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than 50 years. Juan González and I spoke to him live on Democracy Now! on Tuesday’s program. After the broadcast, we continued the conversation. I asked him to talk about the situation in Syria, as well as the broader Middle East. ***NOAM CHOMSKY: Syria is a horrible catastrophe. The Assad regime is a moral disgrace. They’re carrying out horrendous acts, the Russians with them.*** [Emphasis added.] AMY GOODMAN: Why the Russians with them? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, pretty simple reason: Syria is their one ally in the whole region. Not a close ally, but they do have—their one Mediterranean base is in Syria. It’s the one country that’s more or less cooperated with them. And they don’t want to lose their one ally. It’s very ugly, but that’s what’s happening. Meanwhile, there have been—it’s kind of like the North Korean case we were discussing. There have been possible opportunities to terminate the horrors. In 2012, there was an initiative from the Russians, which was not pursued, so we don’t know how serious it was, but it was a proposal to—for a negotiated settlement, in which Assad would be phased out, not immediately. You know, you can’t tell them, "We’re going to murder you. Please negotiate." That’s not going to work. But some system in which, in the course of negotiations, he would be removed, and some kind of settlement would be made. The West would not accept it, not just the United States. France, England, the United States simply refused to even consider it. At the time, they believed they could overthrow Assad, so they didn’t want to do this, so the war went on. Could it have worked? You never know for sure. But it could have been pursued. Meanwhile, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are supporting jihadi groups, which are not all that different from ISIS. So you have a horror story on all sides. The Syrian people are being decimated. AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. now sending 400 more troops to Syria. But if the U.S. has a better relationship with Russia, could that change everything? NOAM CHOMSKY: It could lead to some kind of accommodation in which a negotiated diplomatic settlement would be implemented, which would by no means be lovely, but it would at least cut down the level of violence, which is critical, because the country is simply being destroyed. It’s descending to suicide. -- Peace Is Doable _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Apr 15 20:29:26 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:29:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FB posting of the Day Message-ID: [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c88.44.545.545/s80x80/157068_173109209379847_6495444_n.jpg?oh=efcb30e8668308ac4cddd2d45795f128&oe=598067DB] Paula Densnow Yesterday at 7:29am · My friend, Simon Wood, posted something important. A reminder (for some) and an eye-opener (for most). There is NO American Exception to international law, no matter what our rulers tell us, when they target another country. ''The US - in just one week - has sent an 'armada' to the Korean peninsula, has threatened to invade Syria, and has bombed that same poor, suffering nation after carrying out the most pathetically obvious false flag since your dog shat in the porch and tried to blame it on the cat. It has threatened military action against Venezuela for the dual, capital crimes of practicing socialism AND having a shitload of oil. It just dropped a massive bomb on a bunch of peasants. The US say it was 'ISIS'. The US created, trained, funded and equipped ISIS, remember. Hillary Clinton even stated, in a leaked email, that 'AQ is on our side'. And she isn't talking about Anthony Quayle. In just one week. So I was wondering how many senior officers of the US military forces are aware of what constitutes a crime under international law, and of their obligations to refuse illegal orders. How many take seriously their oath to defend their nation from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC? Because they need to start seriously looking at the enemies in their own government who are on a warmongering spree. This is not about protecting the homeland, folks; it's about ensuring the US has no rivals in its hegemonic goals. What is a crime of aggression under international law? "1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations. 2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression: (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof; (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State; (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State; (d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State; (e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement; (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State; (g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein." Some of that may sound vaguely familiar. Nuremberg Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." So, senior US officers, if you do go ahead and follow these orders, someday you may well be hanged by your balls for war crimes. If the US is defeated, I wouldn't count on the fact that the US does not recognise the International Criminal Court. And yes...the US can be not only defeated, but... ...People of the United States, you need to understand that Russia has the ability to reduce the entire United States to a radioactive wilderland. You need to understand that Russia military doctrine explicitly states that it reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in certain scenarios as follows: "The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy. The decision to use nuclear weapons shall be taken by the President of the Russian Federation." So put down your damned pussy hats and build a real anti-war movement. Do what you can depending on your means. And start by working toward removing by whatever means necessary the criminals that have taken your nation hostage. Or they may get you all killed.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Apr 15 20:29:26 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 20:29:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FB posting of the Day Message-ID: [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c88.44.545.545/s80x80/157068_173109209379847_6495444_n.jpg?oh=efcb30e8668308ac4cddd2d45795f128&oe=598067DB] Paula Densnow Yesterday at 7:29am · My friend, Simon Wood, posted something important. A reminder (for some) and an eye-opener (for most). There is NO American Exception to international law, no matter what our rulers tell us, when they target another country. ''The US - in just one week - has sent an 'armada' to the Korean peninsula, has threatened to invade Syria, and has bombed that same poor, suffering nation after carrying out the most pathetically obvious false flag since your dog shat in the porch and tried to blame it on the cat. It has threatened military action against Venezuela for the dual, capital crimes of practicing socialism AND having a shitload of oil. It just dropped a massive bomb on a bunch of peasants. The US say it was 'ISIS'. The US created, trained, funded and equipped ISIS, remember. Hillary Clinton even stated, in a leaked email, that 'AQ is on our side'. And she isn't talking about Anthony Quayle. In just one week. So I was wondering how many senior officers of the US military forces are aware of what constitutes a crime under international law, and of their obligations to refuse illegal orders. How many take seriously their oath to defend their nation from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC? Because they need to start seriously looking at the enemies in their own government who are on a warmongering spree. This is not about protecting the homeland, folks; it's about ensuring the US has no rivals in its hegemonic goals. What is a crime of aggression under international law? "1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations. 2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression: (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof; (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State; (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State; (d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State; (e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement; (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State; (g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein." Some of that may sound vaguely familiar. Nuremberg Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." So, senior US officers, if you do go ahead and follow these orders, someday you may well be hanged by your balls for war crimes. If the US is defeated, I wouldn't count on the fact that the US does not recognise the International Criminal Court. And yes...the US can be not only defeated, but... ...People of the United States, you need to understand that Russia has the ability to reduce the entire United States to a radioactive wilderland. You need to understand that Russia military doctrine explicitly states that it reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in certain scenarios as follows: "The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy. The decision to use nuclear weapons shall be taken by the President of the Russian Federation." So put down your damned pussy hats and build a real anti-war movement. Do what you can depending on your means. And start by working toward removing by whatever means necessary the criminals that have taken your nation hostage. Or they may get you all killed.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Apr 15 21:52:28 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 21:52:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems are pathetic! Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 4:49 PM To: Action Greens Subject: Dems are pathetic! So here we are on the Verge of a Catastrophic War with North Korea. The Dems have organized nationwide protests to get Trump to release his tax returns today. And instead of converting those protests into immediate anti-war demonstrations, the Dems continue with their tax protests. What a Gang of Phonies and Fakes and Hypocrites these Dems really are. Truly pathetic! Let us consign the Dems to the Ashcan of History. Fab. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From futureup2us at gmail.com Sat Apr 15 23:03:16 2017 From: futureup2us at gmail.com (Jay) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:03:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dems are pathetic! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Dems would never do that because most of them (if not all) don’t oppose an attack on North Korea, at least I’ve seen no evidence that they do. They cheered his missile strikes on Syria and have remained silent about the huge increase in attacks on Yemen. We were at the Tax march in Chicago today and I can tell you, most of the people who came out are very much alert to the dangers of sharply escalating war, especially attacks on N Korea, and very much opposed to them. They are being MISled by the Democrats, who as you say, spoke only about Trump hiding his g.d. taxes. I frankly didn’t pay much attention to the politicians’ speeches. The people who were there had a lot more interesting and important things to say. Jay > On Apr 15, 2017, at 16:52, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 4:49 PM > To: Action Greens > > Subject: Dems are pathetic! > > So here we are on the Verge of a Catastrophic War with North Korea. The Dems have organized nationwide protests to get Trump to release his tax returns today. And instead of converting those protests into immediate anti-war demonstrations, the Dems continue with their tax protests. What a Gang of Phonies and Fakes and Hypocrites these Dems really are. Truly pathetic! Let us consign the Dems to the Ashcan of History. > Fab. > > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Apr 15 23:09:20 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 23:09:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dems are pathetic! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For sure Jay. 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: Jay [mailto:futureup2us at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 6:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: Dems are pathetic! The Dems would never do that because most of them (if not all) don’t oppose an attack on North Korea, at least I’ve seen no evidence that they do. They cheered his missile strikes on Syria and have remained silent about the huge increase in attacks on Yemen. We were at the Tax march in Chicago today and I can tell you, most of the people who came out are very much alert to the dangers of sharply escalating war, especially attacks on N Korea, and very much opposed to them. They are being MISled by the Democrats, who as you say, spoke only about Trump hiding his g.d. taxes. I frankly didn’t pay much attention to the politicians’ speeches. The people who were there had a lot more interesting and important things to say. Jay On Apr 15, 2017, at 16:52, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 4:49 PM To: Action Greens > Subject: Dems are pathetic! So here we are on the Verge of a Catastrophic War with North Korea. The Dems have organized nationwide protests to get Trump to release his tax returns today. And instead of converting those protests into immediate anti-war demonstrations, the Dems continue with their tax protests. What a Gang of Phonies and Fakes and Hypocrites these Dems really are. Truly pathetic! Let us consign the Dems to the Ashcan of History. Fab. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Apr 16 00:30:53 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 00:30:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dems are pathetic! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: AWARE did a protest, ad hoc last Sunday, 4 of us, with many people taking our flyers. However, most people had no interest or concern. Many people I speak with are very afraid of being bombed, unaware that “we” are the perpetrators and provocateurs. I attempt to explain that unless we are stopped, there likely will be retaliation. Most people just think it’s all about Trump, “if only we didn’t have Trump all would be well,” which is what the Democrats promote. I had hoped the Democrats would be against the bombings given they are being done by Trump, whom they hate, and might then support the anti-war movement, because unless that happens we are fighting the same uphill battle we did with Obama, that of disbelief on the part of Americans that our government is controlled by forces now known as the “Deep State,” and our continued path to perpetual war and control will continue with either of the two Party system actors. Suggestions of hope, are highly welcomed. On Apr 15, 2017, at 16:09, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: For sure Jay. 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: Jay [mailto:futureup2us at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 6:03 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; David Swanson >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: Dems are pathetic! The Dems would never do that because most of them (if not all) don’t oppose an attack on North Korea, at least I’ve seen no evidence that they do. They cheered his missile strikes on Syria and have remained silent about the huge increase in attacks on Yemen. We were at the Tax march in Chicago today and I can tell you, most of the people who came out are very much alert to the dangers of sharply escalating war, especially attacks on N Korea, and very much opposed to them. They are being MISled by the Democrats, who as you say, spoke only about Trump hiding his g.d. taxes. I frankly didn’t pay much attention to the politicians’ speeches. The people who were there had a lot more interesting and important things to say. Jay On Apr 15, 2017, at 16:52, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 4:49 PM To: Action Greens > Subject: Dems are pathetic! So here we are on the Verge of a Catastrophic War with North Korea. The Dems have organized nationwide protests to get Trump to release his tax returns today. And instead of converting those protests into immediate anti-war demonstrations, the Dems continue with their tax protests. What a Gang of Phonies and Fakes and Hypocrites these Dems really are. Truly pathetic! Let us consign the Dems to the Ashcan of History. Fab. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sun Apr 16 21:30:44 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 16:30:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE tonight? Message-ID: <76ac9600-e34e-2040-ee52-0e34d74583e8@gmail.com> Is anyone planning to come to AWARE's meeting this evening? The buses aren't running, so it's not very convenient for me. And maybe a bunch of us will be doing other things on Easter day. Anyone thinking to go today? I'm not even sure whether Pizza M is open or not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Apr 16 22:21:38 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE tonight? In-Reply-To: <76ac9600-e34e-2040-ee52-0e34d74583e8@gmail.com> References: <76ac9600-e34e-2040-ee52-0e34d74583e8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <45A65134-30B5-45A3-9823-EBC5976E0009@illinois.edu> Stuart— Just saw your note. Loath as I am to break our record of continuous meetings, I assumed there would be none tonight. We do have a program on Tuesday. And there’s plenty to talk about. —CGE > On Apr 16, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Is anyone planning to come to AWARE's meeting this evening? > > The buses aren't running, so it's not very convenient for me. And maybe a bunch of us will be doing other things on Easter day. > > Anyone thinking to go today? I'm not even sure whether Pizza M is open or not. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Apr 16 22:26:18 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 22:26:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE tonight? In-Reply-To: <45A65134-30B5-45A3-9823-EBC5976E0009@illinois.edu> References: <76ac9600-e34e-2040-ee52-0e34d74583e8@gmail.com> <45A65134-30B5-45A3-9823-EBC5976E0009@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I’m staying home, will try to make it Tuesday. > On Apr 16, 2017, at 15:21, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Stuart— Just saw your note. Loath as I am to break our record of continuous meetings, I assumed there would be none tonight. > > We do have a program on Tuesday. And there’s plenty to talk about. > > —CGE > > >> On Apr 16, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Is anyone planning to come to AWARE's meeting this evening? >> >> The buses aren't running, so it's not very convenient for me. And maybe a bunch of us will be doing other things on Easter day. >> >> Anyone thinking to go today? I'm not even sure whether Pizza M is open or not. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Apr 16 23:43:03 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:43:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'A few dozen' US troops deployed to Somalia: Pentagon References: <5A4AD8B3-15DF-4FA1-AF9F-8BAF63851395@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <9D0BC009-50F1-41D3-A6CE-F6D829A71555@illinois.edu> Here we go again . . . From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: 'A few dozen' US troops deployed to Somalia: Pentagon Date: April 16, 2017 'A few dozen' US troops deployed to Somalia: Pentagon https://www.yahoo.com/news/few-dozen-us-troops-deployed-somalia-pentagon-163342224.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=ma — AFP 4/15/2017 as the eagle screams again in Somalia . . . [cid:21800639-4BBA-4B6A-9442-CD9646457B8D] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: the eagle screams.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 40499 bytes Desc: the eagle screams.jpg URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Apr 16 23:47:13 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:47:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'A few dozen' US troops deployed to Somalia: Pentagon In-Reply-To: <9D0BC009-50F1-41D3-A6CE-F6D829A71555@illinois.edu> References: <5A4AD8B3-15DF-4FA1-AF9F-8BAF63851395@illinois.edu> <9D0BC009-50F1-41D3-A6CE-F6D829A71555@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <0C205401-C4E4-477A-AF55-71278C1A3544@illinois.edu> He must love that image… On Apr 16, 2017, at 6:43 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: Here we go again . . . From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: 'A few dozen' US troops deployed to Somalia: Pentagon Date: April 16, 2017 'A few dozen' US troops deployed to Somalia: Pentagon https://www.yahoo.com/news/few-dozen-us-troops-deployed-somalia-pentagon-163342224.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=ma — AFP 4/15/2017 as the eagle screams again in Somalia . . . _______________________________________________ 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 Apr 17 02:00:38 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:00:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] teach-in on Yemen famine, lecture on cybersecurity In-Reply-To: <1381468929.1888174.1492393402231@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1381468929.1888174.1492393402231.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1381468929.1888174.1492393402231@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <492914BE-167E-4D14-BD22-6B85FE5A7FB7@illinois.edu> AWARE should have at least a representative at this event - especially someone willing to report on it on AWARE ON THE AIR. (Thanks to D. Visek for letting us know about it.) > On Apr 16, 2017, at 8:43 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace wrote: > > http://acdis.illinois.edu/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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: PastedGraphic-1.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 352584 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Apr 17 12:44:40 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:44:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A lot of truth, and one last sentence of inspiration Message-ID: Bruce Fein 1 min · Washington · Few things are more apodictically wrong than that public opinion is generally right. Indeed, what the vast majority of what the species believes is false and delusional. Take one of infinite examples. Thomas Paine, the voice of the American Revolution, teaches that a patriot saves his country from its government; and, that here the rule of law is King, the King is not law. But today to assail the President for flouting the Declare War and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution--whose meanings are clearer than the word is--by fighting endless presidential wars that kill and maim the innocent on an industrial scale and turn children into orphans and wives into widows faster than politician's tear dries, and assassinating American citizens without accusation or trial based on untested secret evidence, is to make you in the eyes of the government and the masses unpatriotic and disloyal. This fierce public adherence to wrongs and falsehoods is not new. The masses cheered the auto-de-fes that earmarked the Spanish Inquisition, and cheered louder when the Pope condemned proponents of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The cornerstone principle of democratic theory that the common woman or man cherishes liberty and the freedom of inquiry is false, which is why it cannot be discussed-- like sex among nuns or choir boys. This understanding should not lead to despair. Wisdom discovered by the unwearied search for truth without ulterior motives is the only way to escape from the gutters and sewers of hormonal existence even if the numbers who will greet you at your enlightened perch you can count on one hand with fingers left over. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Apr 17 12:44:40 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:44:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A lot of truth, and one last sentence of inspiration Message-ID: Bruce Fein 1 min · Washington · Few things are more apodictically wrong than that public opinion is generally right. Indeed, what the vast majority of what the species believes is false and delusional. Take one of infinite examples. Thomas Paine, the voice of the American Revolution, teaches that a patriot saves his country from its government; and, that here the rule of law is King, the King is not law. But today to assail the President for flouting the Declare War and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution--whose meanings are clearer than the word is--by fighting endless presidential wars that kill and maim the innocent on an industrial scale and turn children into orphans and wives into widows faster than politician's tear dries, and assassinating American citizens without accusation or trial based on untested secret evidence, is to make you in the eyes of the government and the masses unpatriotic and disloyal. This fierce public adherence to wrongs and falsehoods is not new. The masses cheered the auto-de-fes that earmarked the Spanish Inquisition, and cheered louder when the Pope condemned proponents of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The cornerstone principle of democratic theory that the common woman or man cherishes liberty and the freedom of inquiry is false, which is why it cannot be discussed-- like sex among nuns or choir boys. This understanding should not lead to despair. Wisdom discovered by the unwearied search for truth without ulterior motives is the only way to escape from the gutters and sewers of hormonal existence even if the numbers who will greet you at your enlightened perch you can count on one hand with fingers left over. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 17 15:25:09 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:25:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] How Trump and Obama are Exactly Alike References: <1000424200.2290791.1492442709141.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1000424200.2290791.1492442709141@mail.yahoo.com> How Trump and Obama are Exactly Alike Posted By Sam HusseiniPhoto by Pete Souza | CC BY 3.0 US  Not until faithfulness turns to betrayal And betrayal into trust Can any human being become part of the truth.— Rumi Trump won the 2016 nomination and election largely because he was able to pose as a populist and anti-interventionist “America Firster”.Similarly, Obama won the 2008 election in good part because he promised “hope and change” and because he had given a speech years earlier against the then-impending invasion of Iraq.Short of disclosure of diaries or other documents from these politicians, we can’t know for certain if they planned on reversing much of what they promised or if the political establishment compelled them to change, but they both eventually perpetrated a massive fraud.What is perhaps most striking is actually how quickly each of them backtracked on their alleged purpose. Particular since they were both proclaimed as representing “movements”.Even before he took office, Obama stacked his administration with pro-war people: He incredibly kept Bush’s head of the Pentagon, Robert Gates; nominated Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, who he beat largely because she voted for giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq. Other prominent Iraq War backers atop the administration included VP Joe Biden, Susan Rice and Richard Holbrooke. Before he was sworn in, Obama backed the 2008 Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. See from 2008: “Anti-War Candidate, Pro-War Cabinet?”Predictably, the Obama years saw a dramatic escalation of the U.S. global assassination program using drones. Obama intentionally bombed more countries than any other president since World War II: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. Obama talked about a nuclear weapons free world, but geared up to spent $1 trillion in upgrading the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. At the end of his administration, attempts at the UN to work toward banning nuclear weapons were sabotaged, efforts that the Trump administration continues. At his first news conference as president, Helen Thomas asked Obama if he know of any country in the Mideast that had nuclear weapons. Obama passed on the opportunity to start unraveling the mountain of deceits that constitutes U.S. foreign policy by simply saying “Israel” and instead said that he didn’t want to “speculate” about the matter.As many have noted recently, Trump seemingly reversed himself on Syria and launched a barrage of cruise missiles targeting the Assad regime. It’s part of a whole host of what’s called “flip-flops” — Ex-Im Bank, NATO, China, Russia, Federal Reserve — but which are in fact the unraveling of campaign deceits.Fundamentally, Obama and Trump ran against the establishment and then helped rebrand it — further entrenching it.And of course it’s not just foreign policy. Obama brought in pro-Wall Street apparatchiks Tim Geithner and others around Robert Rubin, like Larry Summers. Some were connected to Goldman Sachs, including Rahm Emanuel, Gary Gensler and Elena Kagan and Obama would back the Wall Street bailout. Trump campaigned as a populist and brought in a litany of Goldman Sachs tools, most prominently Steven Mnuchin at Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn as chief economic advisor.The nature of their deception is different. Obama is lawyerly and, like jello, hard to pin to the wall. Many of his broken promises are actually violations of the spirit of what he said, not the letter. He can promise to withdraw “all combat troops” from Iraq — but doesn’t inform voters that “combat troops” in his parlance is not the same as “troops”. And most certainly many of his backers were utterly infatuated with him and seemed incapable of parsing out his deceitful misimpressions. Obama did however outright violate some promises, most obviously to close the the gulag at Guantanamo Bay in his first 100 days.Trump triangulates by being an electron. He can say X and not-X in the span of a minute. Like an electron, he can be in two places at the same time. Trump is just an extreme example of what should be evident: It’s largely meaningless if a politician declares a position, especially during a campaign. The question is: What have they done? How have they demonstrated their commitment to, say, ending perpetual wars or taking on Wall Street?These people are largely salesmen.Nor are these patterns totally new. George W. Bush campaigned against “nation building” (sic: nation destroying); Bill Clinton campaigned as the “man from Hope” for the little guy; George H. W. Bush claimed he was a compassionate conservative. All backed corporate power and finance. All waged aggressive war.In both the cases of Obama and Trump, the “opposition” party put forward a ridiculous critique that pushed them to be more militaristic. Obama as a “secret Muslim” — which gave him more licence to bomb more Muslim countries while still having a ridiculous image of being some sort of pacifist. Much of the “liberal” and “progressive” critique of Trump has been focusing on Russia, in effect pushing Trump to be more militaristic against the other major nuclear state on the planet.One thing that’s needed is citizens aided by media that adroitly and accessibly pierce through the substantial deceptions in real time.Another thing that’s needed is that people from what we call the “left” and “right” need to join together and pursue polices that undermine the grip of Wall Street and the war makers. They should not be draw into loving or hating personalities or take satisfaction from principleless partisan barbs.Only when there’s adherence to real values and when solidarity is acted upon will the cycles of betrayal be broken. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Apr 17 16:08:45 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 16:08:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] How Trump and Obama are Exactly Alike In-Reply-To: <1000424200.2290791.1492442709141@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1000424200.2290791.1492442709141.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1000424200.2290791.1492442709141@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David Good article, as usual from Sam Husseini. Only when the American people understand that it’s not about personality, or individuals, will they begin to grasp the essence of who really controls the USG. That is, the “Corporate Elites, Industrial Military complex, Deep State, whichever name we care to use, will they recognize that we are facing the continuation of war and poverty, and all that entails. On Apr 17, 2017, at 08:25, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: How Trump and Obama are Exactly Alike Posted By Sam Husseini [Photo by Pete Souza | CC BY 3.0 US] Photo by Pete Souza | CC BY 3.0 US Not until faithfulness turns to betrayal And betrayal into trust Can any human being become part of the truth. — Rumi Trump won the 2016 nomination and election largely because he was able to pose as a populist and anti-interventionist “America Firster”. Similarly, Obama won the 2008 election in good part because he promised “hope and change” and because he had given a speech years earlier against the then-impending invasion of Iraq. Short of disclosure of diaries or other documents from these politicians, we can’t know for certain if they planned on reversing much of what they promised or if the political establishment compelled them to change, but they both eventually perpetrated a massive fraud. What is perhaps most striking is actually how quickly each of them backtracked on their alleged purpose. Particular since they were both proclaimed as representing “movements”. Even before he took office, Obama stacked his administration with pro-war people: He incredibly kept Bush’s head of the Pentagon, Robert Gates; nominated Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, who he beat largely because she voted for giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq. Other prominent Iraq War backers atop the administration included VP Joe Biden, Susan Rice and Richard Holbrooke. Before he was sworn in, Obama backed the 2008 Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. See from 2008: “Anti-War Candidate, Pro-War Cabinet?” Predictably, the Obama years saw a dramatic escalation of the U.S. global assassination program using drones. Obama intentionally bombed more countries than any other president since World War II: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. Obama talked about a nuclear weapons free world, but geared up to spent $1 trillion in upgrading the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. At the end of his administration, attempts at the UN to work toward banning nuclear weapons were sabotaged, efforts that the Trump administration continues. At his first news conference as president, Helen Thomas asked Obama if he know of any country in the Mideast that had nuclear weapons. Obama passed on the opportunity to start unraveling the mountain of deceits that constitutes U.S. foreign policy by simply saying “Israel” and instead said that he didn’t want to “speculate” about the matter. As many have noted recently, Trump seemingly reversed himself on Syria and launched a barrage of cruise missiles targeting the Assad regime. It’s part of a whole host of what’s called “flip-flops” — Ex-Im Bank, NATO, China, Russia, Federal Reserve — but which are in fact the unraveling of campaign deceits. Fundamentally, Obama and Trump ran against the establishment and then helped rebrand it — further entrenching it. And of course it’s not just foreign policy. Obama brought in pro-Wall Street apparatchiks Tim Geithner and others around Robert Rubin, like Larry Summers. Some were connected to Goldman Sachs, including Rahm Emanuel, Gary Gensler and Elena Kagan and Obama would back the Wall Street bailout. Trump campaigned as a populist and brought in a litany of Goldman Sachs tools, most prominently Steven Mnuchin at Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn as chief economic advisor. The nature of their deception is different. Obama is lawyerly and, like jello, hard to pin to the wall. Many of his broken promises are actually violations of the spirit of what he said, not the letter. He can promise to withdraw “all combat troops” from Iraq — but doesn’t inform voters that “combat troops” in his parlance is not the same as “troops”. And most certainly many of his backers were utterly infatuated with him and seemed incapable of parsing out his deceitful misimpressions. Obama did however outright violate some promises, most obviously to close the the gulag at Guantanamo Bay in his first 100 days. Trump triangulates by being an electron. He can say X and not-X in the span of a minute. Like an electron, he can be in two places at the same time. Trump is just an extreme example of what should be evident: It’s largely meaningless if a politician declares a position, especially during a campaign. The question is: What have they done? How have they demonstrated their commitment to, say, ending perpetual wars or taking on Wall Street? These people are largely salesmen. Nor are these patterns totally new. George W. Bush campaigned against “nation building” (sic: nation destroying); Bill Clinton campaigned as the “man from Hope” for the little guy; George H. W. Bush claimed he was a compassionate conservative. All backed corporate power and finance. All waged aggressive war. In both the cases of Obama and Trump, the “opposition” party put forward a ridiculous critique that pushed them to be more militaristic. Obama as a “secret Muslim” — which gave him more licence to bomb more Muslim countries while still having a ridiculous image of being some sort of pacifist. Much of the “liberal” and “progressive” critique of Trump has been focusing on Russia, in effect pushing Trump to be more militaristic against the other major nuclear state on the planet. One thing that’s needed is citizens aided by media that adroitly and accessibly pierce through the substantial deceptions in real time. Another thing that’s needed is that people from what we call the “left” and “right” need to join together and pursue polices that undermine the grip of Wall Street and the war makers. They should not be draw into loving or hating personalities or take satisfaction from principleless partisan barbs. Only when there’s adherence to real values and when solidarity is acted upon will the cycles of betrayal be broken. _______________________________________________ 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 Apr 17 21:14:19 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 21:14:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The best analysis of the Syrian war, with Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton interview with Chris Hedges. Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/384914-uncivil-war-blumenthal-norton/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Apr 17 21:14:19 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 21:14:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The best analysis of the Syrian war, with Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton interview with Chris Hedges. Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/384914-uncivil-war-blumenthal-norton/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Apr 17 21:46:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 21:46:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The best discussion in relation to N. Korea with Prof. B. Cummings and Prof. C. Hong Message-ID: https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/17/advocates_urge_trump_to_de_escalate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Apr 17 21:46:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 21:46:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The best discussion in relation to N. Korea with Prof. B. Cummings and Prof. C. Hong Message-ID: https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/17/advocates_urge_trump_to_de_escalate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Apr 17 22:38:15 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 22:38:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Prof. Stephen Cohen and Jonathan Steele in relation to US/Russia relations Message-ID: https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/13/stephen_cohen_this_is_most_dangerous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Apr 17 22:38:15 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 22:38:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Prof. Stephen Cohen and Jonathan Steele in relation to US/Russia relations Message-ID: https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/13/stephen_cohen_this_is_most_dangerous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 18 12:18:30 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:18:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] This sums up my thoughts, so well put by great thinkers. Message-ID: [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p80x80/15420933_10208540622932903_4873907131868161648_n.jpg?oh=580b4ae74173466d356d666d34a9d04b&oe=599213CD] Carl G. Estabrook 8 hrs · "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." --H. L. Mencken "War is essentially an evil thing ... To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." --The Nuremberg Tribunal, after World War II "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed ... without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government." --Martin Luther King "War is so unjust and ugly that all who wage it must try to stifle the voice of conscience within themselves." --Leo Tolstoy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 18 12:18:30 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:18:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] This sums up my thoughts, so well put by great thinkers. Message-ID: [https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p80x80/15420933_10208540622932903_4873907131868161648_n.jpg?oh=580b4ae74173466d356d666d34a9d04b&oe=599213CD] Carl G. Estabrook 8 hrs · "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." --H. L. Mencken "War is essentially an evil thing ... To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." --The Nuremberg Tribunal, after World War II "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed ... without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government." --Martin Luther King "War is so unjust and ugly that all who wage it must try to stifle the voice of conscience within themselves." --Leo Tolstoy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 18 14:34:35 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:34:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] An issue for feminists and those concerned with Syria. Message-ID: Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton are saying the exact same thing that Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett have been saying in respect to USG support for “terrorists, with weapons and training”. They refer to the White Helmets as terrorists linked up with Jihadi’s, etc.,etc. Both Vanessa and Eva, were attacked and vilified by the media and others as a result of their truth telling. Both women are professional journalists. Let’s see now if the media attacks Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton for using the same narrative? Most of the US and UK former Intelligence and/or military Officers saying the exact same thing, too numerous to name, are simply ignored, most are men, with the exception of a couple of women. From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 18 14:34:35 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:34:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] An issue for feminists and those concerned with Syria. Message-ID: Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton are saying the exact same thing that Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett have been saying in respect to USG support for “terrorists, with weapons and training”. They refer to the White Helmets as terrorists linked up with Jihadi’s, etc.,etc. Both Vanessa and Eva, were attacked and vilified by the media and others as a result of their truth telling. Both women are professional journalists. Let’s see now if the media attacks Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton for using the same narrative? Most of the US and UK former Intelligence and/or military Officers saying the exact same thing, too numerous to name, are simply ignored, most are men, with the exception of a couple of women. From cge at shout.net Tue Apr 18 15:41:35 2017 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:41:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE ON THE AIR, April 18 In-Reply-To: References: <5880c407a1db5_222964d980682c3@asgworker-qmb2-1.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: Introduction to AWARE ON THE AIR on Urbana Public Television for the 16th week of 2017 [April 18]: Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, presented by members and friends of AWARE, a local peace group. The name AWARE stands for “anti-war anti-racism effort.” We are recording this at noon on Tuesday, April 18th, in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, Illinois. Our subject is the wars the US government is waging around the world. At this moment the USG is making war and killing people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these WARS, although most Americans are not aware of it. In addition, the 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. Furthermore our government is provoking new wars - against countries with nuclear weapons - in eastern Europe, Ukraine, the Middle East, Korea, and the South China Sea. Why is our government terrorizing the world to the point that international polls show the US is by far the most feared country in the world - not Russia, China, N. Korea, or Iran? The answer is simple and horrible. The US is killing people to protect the profits of the 1%, the American economic elite. When World War II ended in 1945, the US was the only undamaged major country, and controlled the world economy, for the benefit of that 1%. In all the years since, US administrations have been willing to kill people and make war to “maintain the disparity,” as American planner GEORGE KENNAN said. The result was nothing less three-generations of American war, up to today, against peoples struggling to control their own countries. Since the Second World War, the US has: ~ Attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of them democratically-elected. ~ Attempted to suppress a populist or national movement in 20 countries. ~ Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries. ~ Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries. ~ Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders. In total, the United States has carried out one or more of these actions in 69 countries ... The "enemy" changes in name – from communism to Islamism -- but the US makes war against governments not under US control or influence, or that prevent the US from occupying a strategic position in our campaign to control the world economy. In the years since WWII, US presidents have killed more than 20 million people in 37 nations. The US continues to be, in the words of Martin Luther King, “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” The sheer scale of suffering, let alone criminality, is little known in our country. ~ the most numerous victims of our terrorism are Muslims; ~ half a million Iraqi infants died in the 1990s as a result of the embargo imposed by the Clinton administration; and ~ extreme jihadism (“radical islamic terrorism”), which led to 9/11, was invented by the Carter administration 40 years ago, when the CIA rounded up some Muslim fanatics, armed them, and sent them into Afghanistan “to give the Russians a Vietnam of their own” - as President Carter’s National Security Adviser said. Our anti-War group AWARE was established 15 years ago, after the attacks of 9/11/2001, by citizens of Champaign-Urbana who realized that the US government would use those crimes to justify its already long-standing attempts to exercise military control over the Middle East and its energy resources. In those years the US has attempted in particular to exercise military control over the Mideast and its energy resources. The U.S. doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the U.S. a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries - a chokehold which benefits only the American economic elite, the one percent. In 2003 the US illegally invaded Iraq - and killed perhaps a million people for that purpose - and now has thousands of troops and mercenaries throughout the Mideast. The U.S. government says that we’re fighting terrorism, but we are in fact creating terrorists - in response particularly to our drone assassinations, “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. Those of us in AWARE, like other anti-war groups in the United States and around the world, call upon President Trump to ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, human rights, and respect for the sovereignty of other nations; ~ (2) end the wars (in the Mideast and elsewhere) and stop the drone attacks; ~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (neither Russia nor China has more than twelve); bring US troops (and weapons) home; and withdraw US ‘special forces’ who’ve been sent into 3/4 of the world’s countries; ~ (4) stop US support of human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. There’s a lot of news about US government war-making this week, but you don’t get a very clear account in the American media - which are dominated by pro-war people and the political establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike. We’ll try to give a better account tonight... ### From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 18 17:14:47 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:14:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Mike Whitney's article recently on Counterpunch Message-ID: I agree with the title and the description of the horrors the US has inflicted upon N.Korea. However, when asked why the US does what it does to nations like N.Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. We have a much longer list, but I'm attempting to be brief. We aren't doing these things just to show strength, though that is a form of lethal saber rattling which some leaders do indulge. Going back to the 1994 accords as suggested sounds nice, but any assumption that the US would keep it's word once N. Korea gives up it's nuclear weapons is sheer nonsense. The suggestion that the USG does what it does due to boredom is also nonsense, our leaders aren't crazy and they aren't stupid. They are evil, they are following a plan, that of chaos and destruction in order to weaken and control, those they see as "enemies" which is anyone who maybe competition to the elite's profits. These are plans supported by the neocons, dating back to WW2 and before. Almost everything related to US N.Korea relations is about China, and China is well aware of that fact. Please see below: Washington has never made any effort to conceal its contempt for North Korea. In the 64 years since the war ended, the US has done everything in its power to punish, humiliate and inflict pain on the Communist country. Washington has subjected the DPRK to starvation, prevented its government from accessing foreign capital and markets, strangled its economy with crippling economic sanctions, and installed lethal missile systems and military bases on their doorstep. Negotiations aren’t possible because Washington refuses to sit down with a country which it sees as its inferior. Instead, the US has strong-armed China to do its bidding by using their diplomats as interlocutors who are expected to convey Washington’s ultimatums as threateningly as possible. The hope, of course, is that Pyongyang will cave in to Uncle Sam’s bullying and do what they are told. But the North has never succumbed to US intimidation and there’s no sign that it will. Instead, they have developed a small arsenal of nuclear weapons to defend themselves in the event that the US tries to assert its dominance by launching another war. There’s no country in the world that needs nuclear weapons more than North Korea. Brainwashed Americans, who get their news from FOX or CNN, may differ on this point, but if a hostile nation deployed carrier strike-groups off the coast of California while conducting massive war games on the Mexican border (with the express intention of scaring the shit of people) then they might see things differently. They might see the value of having a few nuclear weapons to deter that hostile nation from doing something really stupid. And let’s be honest, the only reason Kim Jong Un hasn’t joined Saddam and Gadhafi in the great hereafter, is because (a)– The North does not sit on an ocean of oil, and (b)– The North has the capacity to reduce Seoul, Okinawa and Tokyo into smoldering debris-fields. Absent Kim’s WMDs, Pyongyang would have faced a preemptive attack long ago and Kim would have faced a fate similar to Gadhafi’s. Nuclear weapons are the only known antidote to US adventurism. The American people –whose grasp of history does not extend beyond the events of 9-11 — have no idea of the way the US fights its wars or the horrific carnage and destruction it unleashed on the North. Here’s a short refresher that helps clarify why the North is still wary of the US more than 60 years after the armistice was signed. The excerpt is from an article titled “Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea”, at Vox World: “In the early 1950s, during the Korean War, the US dropped more bombs on North Korea than it had dropped in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. This carpet bombing, which included 32,000 tons of napalm, often deliberately targeted civilian as well as military targets, devastating the country far beyond what was necessary to fight the war. Whole cities were destroyed, with many thousands of innocent civilians killed and many more left homeless and hungry…. According to US journalist Blaine Harden: “Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population,” Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, told the Office of Air Force History in 1984. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed “everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.” After running low on urban targets, U.S. bombers destroyed hydroelectric and irrigation dams in the later stages of the war, flooding farmland and destroying crops…… “On January 3 at 10:30 AM an armada of 82 flying fortresses loosed their death-dealing load on the city of Pyongyang …Hundreds of tons of bombs and incendiary compound were simultaneously dropped throughout the city, causing annihilating fires, the transatlantic barbarians bombed the city with delayed-action high-explosive bombs which exploded at intervals for a whole day making it impossible for the people to come out onto the streets. The entire city has now been burning, enveloped in flames, for two days. By the second day, 7,812 civilians houses had been burnt down. The Americans were well aware that there were no military targets left in Pyongyang… The number of inhabitants of Pyongyang killed by bomb splinters, burnt alive and suffocated by smoke is incalculable…Some 50,000 inhabitants remain in the city which before the war had a population of 500,000.” (“Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea“, Vox World) The United States killed over 2 million people in a country that posed no threat to US national security. Like Vietnam, the Korean War was just another muscle-flexing exercise the US periodically engages in whenever it gets bored or needs some far-flung location to try out its new weapons systems. The US had nothing to gain in its aggression on the Korean peninsula, it was mix of imperial overreach and pure unalloyed viciousness the likes of which we’ve seen many times in the past. According to the Asia-Pacific Journal: “By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans.10 Only emergency assistance from China, the USSR, and other socialist countries prevented widespread famine.” (“The Destruction and Reconstruction of North Korea, 1950 – 1960”, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Japan Focus) Repeat: “Reservoirs, irrigation dams, rice crops, hydroelectric dams, population centers” all napalmed, all carpet bombed, all razed to the ground. Nothing was spared. If it moved it was shot, if it didn’t move, it was bombed. The US couldn’t win, so they turned the country into an uninhabitable wastelands. “Let them starve. Let them freeze.. Let them eat weeds and roots and rodents to survive. Let them sleep in the ditches and find shelter in the rubble. What do we care? We’re the greatest country on earth. God bless America.” This is how Washington does business, and it hasn’t changed since the Seventh Cavalry wiped out 150 men, women and children at Wounded Knee more than century ago. The Lakota Sioux at Pine Ridge got the same basic treatment as the North Koreans, or the Vietnamese, or the Nicaraguans, or the Iraqis and on and on and on and on. Anyone else who gets in Uncle Sam’s way, winds up in a world of hurt. End of story. The savagery of America’s war against the North left an indelible mark on the psyche of the people. Whatever the cost, the North cannot allow a similar scenario to take place in the future. Whatever the cost, they must be prepared to defend themselves. If that means nukes, then so be it. Self preservation is the top priority. Is there a way to end this pointless standoff between Pyongyang and Washington, a way to mend fences and build trust? Of course there is. The US just needs to start treating the DPRK with respect and follow through on their promises. What promises? The promise to built the North two light-water reactors to provide heat and light to their people in exchange for an end to its nuclear weapons program. You won’t read about this deal in the media because the media is just the propaganda wing of the Pentagon. They have no interest in promoting peaceful solutions. Their stock-in-trade is war, war and more war. The North wants the US to honor its obligations under the 1994 Agreed Framework. That’s it. Just keep up your end of the goddamn deal. How hard can that be? Here’s how Jimmy Carter summed it up in a Washington Post op-ed (November 24, 2010): “…in September 2005, an agreement … reaffirmed the basic premises of the 1994 accord. (The Agreed Framework) Its text included denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, a pledge of non-aggression by the United States and steps to evolve a permanent peace agreement to replace the U.S.-North Korean-Chinese cease-fire that has been in effect since July 1953. Unfortunately, no substantive progress has been made since 2005… “This past July I was invited to return to Pyongyang to secure the release of an American, Aijalon Gomes, with the proviso that my visit would last long enough for substantive talks with top North Korean officials. They spelled out in detail their desire to develop a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and a permanent cease-fire, based on the 1994 agreements and the terms adopted by the six powers in September 2005…. “North Korean officials have given the same message to other recent American visitors and have permitted access by nuclear experts to an advanced facility for purifying uranium. The same officials had made it clear to me that this array of centrifuges would be ‘on the table’ for discussions with the United States, although uranium purification – a very slow process – was not covered in the 1994 agreements. “Pyongyang has sent a consistent message that during direct talks with the United States, it is ready to conclude an agreement to end its nuclear programs, put them all under IAEA inspection and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the ‘temporary’ cease-fire of 1953. We should consider responding to this offer. The unfortunate alternative is for North Koreans to take whatever actions they consider necessary to defend themselves from what they claim to fear most: a military attack supported by the United States, along with efforts to change the political regime.” (“North Korea’s consistent message to the U.S.”, President Jimmy Carter, Washington Post) Most people think the problem lies with North Korea, but it doesn’t. The problem lies with the United States; it’s unwillingness to negotiate an end to the war, its unwillingness to provide basic security guarantees to the North, its unwillingness to even sit down with the people who –through Washington’s own stubborn ignorance– are now developing long-range ballistic missiles that will be capable of hitting American cities. How dumb is that? The Trump team is sticking with a policy that has failed for 63 years and which clearly undermines US national security by putting American citizens directly at risk. AND FOR WHAT? To preserve the image of “tough guy”, to convince people that the US doesn’t negotiate with weaker countries, to prove to the world that “whatever the US says, goes”? Is that it? Is image more important than a potential nuclear disaster? Relations with the North can be normalized, economic ties can be strengthened, trust can be restored, and the nuclear threat can be defused. The situation with the North does not have to be a crisis, it can be fixed. It just takes a change in policy, a bit of give-and-take, and leaders that genuinely want peace more than war. Join the debate on Facebook MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney at msn.com. More articles by:MIKE WHITNEY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 18 17:14:47 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:14:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Mike Whitney's article recently on Counterpunch Message-ID: I agree with the title and the description of the horrors the US has inflicted upon N.Korea. However, when asked why the US does what it does to nations like N.Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. We have a much longer list, but I'm attempting to be brief. We aren't doing these things just to show strength, though that is a form of lethal saber rattling which some leaders do indulge. Going back to the 1994 accords as suggested sounds nice, but any assumption that the US would keep it's word once N. Korea gives up it's nuclear weapons is sheer nonsense. The suggestion that the USG does what it does due to boredom is also nonsense, our leaders aren't crazy and they aren't stupid. They are evil, they are following a plan, that of chaos and destruction in order to weaken and control, those they see as "enemies" which is anyone who maybe competition to the elite's profits. These are plans supported by the neocons, dating back to WW2 and before. Almost everything related to US N.Korea relations is about China, and China is well aware of that fact. Please see below: Washington has never made any effort to conceal its contempt for North Korea. In the 64 years since the war ended, the US has done everything in its power to punish, humiliate and inflict pain on the Communist country. Washington has subjected the DPRK to starvation, prevented its government from accessing foreign capital and markets, strangled its economy with crippling economic sanctions, and installed lethal missile systems and military bases on their doorstep. Negotiations aren’t possible because Washington refuses to sit down with a country which it sees as its inferior. Instead, the US has strong-armed China to do its bidding by using their diplomats as interlocutors who are expected to convey Washington’s ultimatums as threateningly as possible. The hope, of course, is that Pyongyang will cave in to Uncle Sam’s bullying and do what they are told. But the North has never succumbed to US intimidation and there’s no sign that it will. Instead, they have developed a small arsenal of nuclear weapons to defend themselves in the event that the US tries to assert its dominance by launching another war. There’s no country in the world that needs nuclear weapons more than North Korea. Brainwashed Americans, who get their news from FOX or CNN, may differ on this point, but if a hostile nation deployed carrier strike-groups off the coast of California while conducting massive war games on the Mexican border (with the express intention of scaring the shit of people) then they might see things differently. They might see the value of having a few nuclear weapons to deter that hostile nation from doing something really stupid. And let’s be honest, the only reason Kim Jong Un hasn’t joined Saddam and Gadhafi in the great hereafter, is because (a)– The North does not sit on an ocean of oil, and (b)– The North has the capacity to reduce Seoul, Okinawa and Tokyo into smoldering debris-fields. Absent Kim’s WMDs, Pyongyang would have faced a preemptive attack long ago and Kim would have faced a fate similar to Gadhafi’s. Nuclear weapons are the only known antidote to US adventurism. The American people –whose grasp of history does not extend beyond the events of 9-11 — have no idea of the way the US fights its wars or the horrific carnage and destruction it unleashed on the North. Here’s a short refresher that helps clarify why the North is still wary of the US more than 60 years after the armistice was signed. The excerpt is from an article titled “Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea”, at Vox World: “In the early 1950s, during the Korean War, the US dropped more bombs on North Korea than it had dropped in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. This carpet bombing, which included 32,000 tons of napalm, often deliberately targeted civilian as well as military targets, devastating the country far beyond what was necessary to fight the war. Whole cities were destroyed, with many thousands of innocent civilians killed and many more left homeless and hungry…. According to US journalist Blaine Harden: “Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population,” Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, told the Office of Air Force History in 1984. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed “everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.” After running low on urban targets, U.S. bombers destroyed hydroelectric and irrigation dams in the later stages of the war, flooding farmland and destroying crops…… “On January 3 at 10:30 AM an armada of 82 flying fortresses loosed their death-dealing load on the city of Pyongyang …Hundreds of tons of bombs and incendiary compound were simultaneously dropped throughout the city, causing annihilating fires, the transatlantic barbarians bombed the city with delayed-action high-explosive bombs which exploded at intervals for a whole day making it impossible for the people to come out onto the streets. The entire city has now been burning, enveloped in flames, for two days. By the second day, 7,812 civilians houses had been burnt down. The Americans were well aware that there were no military targets left in Pyongyang… The number of inhabitants of Pyongyang killed by bomb splinters, burnt alive and suffocated by smoke is incalculable…Some 50,000 inhabitants remain in the city which before the war had a population of 500,000.” (“Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea“, Vox World) The United States killed over 2 million people in a country that posed no threat to US national security. Like Vietnam, the Korean War was just another muscle-flexing exercise the US periodically engages in whenever it gets bored or needs some far-flung location to try out its new weapons systems. The US had nothing to gain in its aggression on the Korean peninsula, it was mix of imperial overreach and pure unalloyed viciousness the likes of which we’ve seen many times in the past. According to the Asia-Pacific Journal: “By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans.10 Only emergency assistance from China, the USSR, and other socialist countries prevented widespread famine.” (“The Destruction and Reconstruction of North Korea, 1950 – 1960”, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Japan Focus) Repeat: “Reservoirs, irrigation dams, rice crops, hydroelectric dams, population centers” all napalmed, all carpet bombed, all razed to the ground. Nothing was spared. If it moved it was shot, if it didn’t move, it was bombed. The US couldn’t win, so they turned the country into an uninhabitable wastelands. “Let them starve. Let them freeze.. Let them eat weeds and roots and rodents to survive. Let them sleep in the ditches and find shelter in the rubble. What do we care? We’re the greatest country on earth. God bless America.” This is how Washington does business, and it hasn’t changed since the Seventh Cavalry wiped out 150 men, women and children at Wounded Knee more than century ago. The Lakota Sioux at Pine Ridge got the same basic treatment as the North Koreans, or the Vietnamese, or the Nicaraguans, or the Iraqis and on and on and on and on. Anyone else who gets in Uncle Sam’s way, winds up in a world of hurt. End of story. The savagery of America’s war against the North left an indelible mark on the psyche of the people. Whatever the cost, the North cannot allow a similar scenario to take place in the future. Whatever the cost, they must be prepared to defend themselves. If that means nukes, then so be it. Self preservation is the top priority. Is there a way to end this pointless standoff between Pyongyang and Washington, a way to mend fences and build trust? Of course there is. The US just needs to start treating the DPRK with respect and follow through on their promises. What promises? The promise to built the North two light-water reactors to provide heat and light to their people in exchange for an end to its nuclear weapons program. You won’t read about this deal in the media because the media is just the propaganda wing of the Pentagon. They have no interest in promoting peaceful solutions. Their stock-in-trade is war, war and more war. The North wants the US to honor its obligations under the 1994 Agreed Framework. That’s it. Just keep up your end of the goddamn deal. How hard can that be? Here’s how Jimmy Carter summed it up in a Washington Post op-ed (November 24, 2010): “…in September 2005, an agreement … reaffirmed the basic premises of the 1994 accord. (The Agreed Framework) Its text included denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, a pledge of non-aggression by the United States and steps to evolve a permanent peace agreement to replace the U.S.-North Korean-Chinese cease-fire that has been in effect since July 1953. Unfortunately, no substantive progress has been made since 2005… “This past July I was invited to return to Pyongyang to secure the release of an American, Aijalon Gomes, with the proviso that my visit would last long enough for substantive talks with top North Korean officials. They spelled out in detail their desire to develop a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and a permanent cease-fire, based on the 1994 agreements and the terms adopted by the six powers in September 2005…. “North Korean officials have given the same message to other recent American visitors and have permitted access by nuclear experts to an advanced facility for purifying uranium. The same officials had made it clear to me that this array of centrifuges would be ‘on the table’ for discussions with the United States, although uranium purification – a very slow process – was not covered in the 1994 agreements. “Pyongyang has sent a consistent message that during direct talks with the United States, it is ready to conclude an agreement to end its nuclear programs, put them all under IAEA inspection and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the ‘temporary’ cease-fire of 1953. We should consider responding to this offer. The unfortunate alternative is for North Koreans to take whatever actions they consider necessary to defend themselves from what they claim to fear most: a military attack supported by the United States, along with efforts to change the political regime.” (“North Korea’s consistent message to the U.S.”, President Jimmy Carter, Washington Post) Most people think the problem lies with North Korea, but it doesn’t. The problem lies with the United States; it’s unwillingness to negotiate an end to the war, its unwillingness to provide basic security guarantees to the North, its unwillingness to even sit down with the people who –through Washington’s own stubborn ignorance– are now developing long-range ballistic missiles that will be capable of hitting American cities. How dumb is that? The Trump team is sticking with a policy that has failed for 63 years and which clearly undermines US national security by putting American citizens directly at risk. AND FOR WHAT? To preserve the image of “tough guy”, to convince people that the US doesn’t negotiate with weaker countries, to prove to the world that “whatever the US says, goes”? Is that it? Is image more important than a potential nuclear disaster? Relations with the North can be normalized, economic ties can be strengthened, trust can be restored, and the nuclear threat can be defused. The situation with the North does not have to be a crisis, it can be fixed. It just takes a change in policy, a bit of give-and-take, and leaders that genuinely want peace more than war. Join the debate on Facebook MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney at msn.com. More articles by:MIKE WHITNEY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Apr 19 00:48:03 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:48:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Glover, Chomsky, Ensler, Ruffalo: We Need France to Resist Trump In-Reply-To: <3920522261.-629048308@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> References: <3920522261.-629048308@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: <7B3A7311-7AAE-4C9E-A59E-ED901AEEEB3F@illinois.edu> Melenchon and Le Pen are perhaps closer to one another in their opposition to neoliberal and neoconservative policies. They both express the disaffection of the populace with establishment politicians - as Sanders and Trump did. One hopes that they will not betray their promises, as Sanders and Trump have. —CGE > On Apr 18, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Just Foreign Policy wrote: > > > Dear C. G., > > Urge France to resist Trump. > > Take Action > > From Yemen to Syria to North Korea, Trump is threatening military escalation. We've been urging Americans to press their Members of Congress to push back. But with Republicans controlling the House and Senate, getting Congress to push back is a tough challenge. We could use some help on the global stage in resisting Trump. > > Maybe, in France - like the US, a permanent member of the UN Security Council - help is on the way. > > Danny Glover, Noam Chomsky, Eve Ensler, and Mark Ruffalo are urging progressive French voters to unite in the first round of the French presidential election behind a candidate who will stand up to Trump on the global stage. > > You can add your voice here. > > Thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, > > Robert Naiman, Avram Reisman, and Sarah Burns > Just Foreign Policy > > If you think our work is important, support us with a $17 donation. > http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate > > © 2016 Just Foreign Policy > > > > > From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Apr 20 00:16:16 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:16:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Daesh Chemical War Capabilities Well-Documented Though Limited 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) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 7:14 PM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Daesh Chemical War Capabilities Well-Documented Though Limited https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201704201052796892-daesh-chemical-capabilities-documented/ The capabilities of Daesh terror group to launch poison gas and other chemical weapons attacks are well documented though they are dependent on substances supplied or seized from other sources, US analysts told Sputnik. Smoke rises above the old city as Iraqi forces fight Islamic State militants in Mosul, Iraq, April 19, 2017 (c) REUTERS/ Muhammad Hamed US-Led Coalition Testing Chemicals Used by Daesh to Attack Forces in Mosul WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - An Iraqi outpost with US and Australian military advisers in western Mosul was hit with an ineffective "low grade" mustard agent by Islamic State forces on Sunday, CBS News reported. "There have been many reports of Islamic State and al-Qaeda chemical capability - either from seizure from government stores or supplied by/through Turkey," University of Pittsburgh Professor of International Relations Michael Brenner said on Wednesday. "Their own capability seems limited and will not grow other than by outside help. Brenner said the sarin nerve gas detonation in the Syrian village of Khan Shaykhun on April 4 was almost certainly the work of extreme Islamists and had not been perpetrated by the Syrian government. "It is almost certain that this was not an [Syrian President Bashar] Assad government attack," he stated. The US government would not be able to eliminate the use of chemical weapons by Islamist forces only by using airstrikes and Tomahawk missiles, Brenner maintained. "Only answer: end the war by ceasing to back the al-Qaeda led rebels and then mediate some kind of political settlement that excludes the Takfiris," he explained. International cooperation was vital to destroying the Islamic State, especially between the United States and Russia, Brenner insisted. "Washington is the key - all allies will fall into place except Saudi Arabia and [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan. Russia especially and Iran are ready for this," he pointed out. Islamist groups had previously used chemical weapons and then tried to falsely accuse the Syrian government of doing so, University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle said. "I declared this after the chemical attack in 2013: Later [US investigative reporter] Seymour Hersh published a report in the London Review of Books because he could not get it published anywhere in the United States that the attack was carried out by Islamic State with chemical agents that it got from Turkish intelligence," he said. Iraqi special forces soldiers move toward the front line during fighting against Daesh in western Mosul, Iraq, March 17, 2017. (c) AP Photo/ Felipe Dana Iraq Accuses Daesh of Chemical Weapons Attack on Mosul Troops Daesh and al-Nusra Front - recently renamed into Jabhat Fateh al-Sham - have had chemical weapons for several years, Boyle noted. "These groups, especially the Nusra Front had access to chemical weapons for quite some time including chlorine bombs," he said. Consequently, President Donald Trump's decision to fire 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria on April 4 was unjustified, Boyle pointed out. "There is no basis in fact or international law for Trump's attack on Syria. This is an outright act of aggression. It has poisoned relations between the United States and Russia. It is a very dangerous situation right now," he said. Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned he anticipates another chemical attack that could serve as another provocation, Boyle concluded. From kmedina67 at gmail.com Thu Apr 20 01:10:31 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:10:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Daesh Chemical War Capabilities Well-Documented Though Limited Message-ID: Thank you for sharing this.And for being interviewed for the article.  Mainstream won't even ask questions about the chemical weapons. They just let people believe the dictator id's responsible Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message --------From: "Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss" Date: 4/19/17 19:16 (GMT-06:00) To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net, "C. G. ESTABROOK" , Jay Becker , a-fields at uiuc.edu, "Hoffman, Valerie J" , Joe Lauria , "Miller, Joseph Thomas" , "Szoke, Ron" , Dave Trippel , Arlene Hickory , David Swanson , peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net, sherwoodross10 at gmail.com, abass10 at gmail.com, mickalideh at gmail.com, Lina Thorne , chicago at worldcantwait.net, Karen Aram , "Estabrook, Carl G" Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Daesh Chemical War Capabilities Well-Documented Though Limited Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 7:14 PM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Daesh Chemical War Capabilities Well-Documented Though Limited https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201704201052796892-daesh-chemical-capabilities-documented/ The capabilities of Daesh terror group to launch poison gas and other chemical weapons attacks are well documented though they are dependent on substances supplied or seized from other sources, US analysts told Sputnik. Smoke rises above the old city as Iraqi forces fight Islamic State militants in Mosul, Iraq, April 19, 2017 (c) REUTERS/ Muhammad Hamed US-Led Coalition Testing Chemicals Used by Daesh to Attack Forces in Mosul WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - An Iraqi outpost with US and Australian military advisers in western Mosul was hit with an ineffective "low grade" mustard agent by Islamic State forces on Sunday, CBS News reported. "There have been many reports of Islamic State and al-Qaeda chemical capability - either from seizure from government stores or supplied by/through Turkey," University of Pittsburgh Professor of International Relations Michael Brenner said on Wednesday. "Their own capability seems limited and will not grow other than by outside help. Brenner said the sarin nerve gas detonation in the Syrian village of Khan Shaykhun on April 4 was almost certainly the work of extreme Islamists and had not been perpetrated by the Syrian government. "It is almost certain that this was not an [Syrian President Bashar] Assad government attack," he stated. The US government would not be able to eliminate the use of chemical weapons by Islamist forces only by using airstrikes and Tomahawk missiles, Brenner maintained. "Only answer: end the war by ceasing to back the al-Qaeda led rebels and then mediate some kind of political settlement that excludes the Takfiris," he explained. International cooperation was vital to destroying the Islamic State, especially between the United States and Russia, Brenner insisted. "Washington is the key - all allies will fall into place except Saudi Arabia and [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan. Russia especially and Iran are ready for this," he pointed out. Islamist groups had previously used chemical weapons and then tried to falsely accuse the Syrian government of doing so, University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle said. "I declared this after the chemical attack in 2013: Later [US investigative reporter] Seymour Hersh published a report in the London Review of Books because he could not get it published anywhere in the United States that the attack was carried out by Islamic State with chemical agents that it got from Turkish intelligence," he said. Iraqi special forces soldiers move toward the front line during fighting against Daesh in western Mosul, Iraq, March 17, 2017. (c) AP Photo/ Felipe Dana Iraq Accuses Daesh of Chemical Weapons Attack on Mosul Troops Daesh and al-Nusra Front - recently renamed into Jabhat Fateh al-Sham - have had chemical weapons for several years, Boyle noted. "These groups, especially the Nusra Front had access to chemical weapons for quite some time including chlorine bombs," he said. Consequently, President Donald Trump's decision to fire 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria on April 4 was unjustified, Boyle pointed out. "There is no basis in fact or international law for Trump's attack on Syria. This is an outright act of aggression. It has poisoned relations between the United States and Russia. It is a very dangerous situation right now," he said. Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned he anticipates another chemical attack that could serve as another provocation, Boyle concluded. _______________________________________________ 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 Apr 20 13:44:06 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:44:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! 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) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:39 AM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! Does anyone know if Fox's Susan Estrich is representing Bill along with Their Big Buddy Roger Ailes? Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:support at lists.aals.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 9:26 AM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:12 PM To: Killeacle Subject: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of US military deaths in the Afghan theater officially passed 2,000 by June 21 and are now at least 2,106, but you didn't know this if you rely on the MSM. They ignore the official Pentagon numbers in favor of the AP--which excludes troops who died (or received wounds or injuries from which they died after evacuation) in the official "Enduring Freedom" operation but outside Afghanistan. The Pentagon web site lists those countries. US military occupation forces in Afghanistan under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 139 casualties in the week ending Sept. 6, as the official casualty total for the Iraq and AfPak wars* rose to 115,289. The total includes 79,468 casualties since the US invaded Iraq in March, 2003 (Operations "Iraqi Freedom" and "New Dawn"), and 35,821 since the US invaded Afghanistan in November, 2001 (Operation "Enduring Freedom") AFGHANISTAN THEATER: US forces suffered 139 combat casualties in the week ending September 6, raising the total to 35,821 This includes 19,184 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 16,637(-6) dead or medically evacuated (as of May 7!) from what it calls "non-hostile" causes. LENGTH: 3653 words HEADLINE: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle BYLINE: Francis A Boyle BODY:     by Francis Boyle On the morning of 13 September 2001, that is 48 hours after the terrible tragedies in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, I received telephone call from a producer at Fox Television Network News in New York City. He asked me to go onto The O'Reilly Factor TV program live that evening in order to debate Bill O'Reilly on the question of war versus peace. O'Reilly would argue for the United States going to war in reaction to the terrorist attacks on 11 September, and I would argue for a peaceful resolution of this matter.    Up until then I had deliberately declined numerous requests for interviews about the terrible events of September 11 and what should be done about them because it was not clear to me precisely what was going on. But unfortunately The O'Reilly Factor had the Number One ranking in TV viewership for any news media talk program in America. I felt very strongly as a matter of principle that at least one person from the American Peace Movement had to go onto that program and argue the case directly to the American people that the United States of America must not go to war despite the terrible tragedy that had been inflicted upon us all. I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. When I returned to my office the next day, so many complaints had been filed and accumulated with numerous university officials that the then Dean of my law school issued a public statement repudiating me and then placing it on the law school's web-site. Obviously the then Dean of my law school believed that a Law Professor should advocate the Law of the Jungle instead of the Rule of Law. He is now "deaning" elsewhere, just like a previous Dean who had tried to get rid of me because of my fervid belief in the Rule of Law and public activities in support thereof. On the positive side, however, my besting of O'Reilly in the debate led to my being inundated by requests for interviews from mainstream and progressive news media sources all over the world. This plethora of interviews have continued apace until today during the course of all the terrible events that have transpired in the world since September 11: the war against Afghanistan; the global war on terrorism; massive assaults on international law, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and the United States Constitution; the war against Iraq; Guantanamo; kangaroo courts; the Bush Jr. torture scandal, etc. I have done the best I can to oppose this Bush Jr. juggernaut of nihilism--now continued and expanded by Obama. Ultimately it will be up to the American people to decide the future direction of the United States of America and thus indirectly, because of America's preponderant power, unfairly for the rest of the world. The present danger still remains Machiavellian power politics. The only known antidote is international law, international organizations, human rights, and the United States Constitution. In our thermonuclear age, humankind's existential choice is that stark, ominous, and compelling. As Americans, we must not hesitate to apply this imperative regimen immediately before it becomes too late for the continuation of our human species itself. The Rush to War SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR (20:29) September 13, 2001 Thursday Transcript # 091303cb.256 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 3973 words HEADLINE: America Unites: How Should the U.S. Bring Terrorists to Justice? GUESTS: Sam Huessini, Francis Boyle BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly O'REILLY: While most Americans are united in their support of President Bush and the desire to bring Osama bin Laden and other terrorists to justice, there are some differing voices. Joining us now from Washington is Sam Husseini, the former spokesman for the Arab Anti -- American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and from Urbana, Illinois, is Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[...] O'REILLY: Cut his mike. All right, now, Mr. Boyle, Professor Boyle, let's have a little bit more of a rational discussion here. That was absurd. The United States now has to take action against certain segments in this world who we know have been harbouring people like Osama bin Laden. That's going to happen. How will you react to that? FRANCIS BOYLE, LAW PROFESSOR: Well, first I think you have to look at the law involved. Clearly what we have here, under United States domestic law and statutes, is an act of international terrorism that should be treated as such. It is not yet elevated to an act of war. For an act of war, we need proof that a foreign state actually ordered or launched an attack upon the United States of America. So far, we do not yet have that evidence. We could... O'REILLY: All right, now why are you, why are you, why are you taking this position when you know forces have attacked the United States. Now, maybe they don't have a country, but they are forces. They have attacked the United States, all right? Without warning, without provocation. Civilian targets. They've done everything that an act of war does. So, I'm saying that because we live in a different world now, where borders don't really matter, where terrorism is the weapon of choice, that you would declare war -- if I were President Bush, I would declare war on any hostile forces, notice those words, professor, hostile forces to the United States. I would have a blanket declaration of war so I could go in and kill those people. Would I be wrong? BOYLE: Well, Bill, so far you'll note Congress has been unwilling to declare war. And indeed, this matter is being debated right now. Right now, it appears that what they are seeking is not a full declaration of war, but only what we law professors call an imperfect declaration, which means a limited use of military force under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Precisely for the problem that we don't know if any state was involved and we still do not know who was responsible for this undoubted terrorist attack upon the United States of America. O'REILLY: All right, but we have the secretary of state saying that Osama bin Laden now has been linked into and, you know, we don't have all the intelligence information, as President Bush said today. He's not going to give us, and he shouldn't, the people of America all the information that they have. But when the secretary of state gets up and says, look, we know this guy was involved to some extent, I believe him. And he's a wanted man, professor. He's been wanted for eight years. The Clinton administration didn't have the heart to get him and in the first few months the Bush administration didn't either. We now know, and you just heard the FBI agent say that Afghanistan has been involved for years harbouring and training these kinds of people. Certainly, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, those five countries, certainly have been hostile to the United States and given safe harbour to these terrorists. That's a fact. BOYLE: Well, let me point out, the secretary of state was very careful in the words he used. He said Osama bin Laden was a suspect. He did not accuse him. And, again, under these circumstances... O'REILLY: No, he didn't use the word suspect. He used another word. BOYLE: The account I read in, just off the wire service, said suspect. But let me continue my point. Under these circumstances, where we have 5,000 Americans dead and we could have many more Americans killed in a conflict, we have to be very careful, Congress and the American people and the president, in not to over-escalate the rhetoric, here. We have to look at this very rationally. This is a democracy. We have a right to see what the evidence is and proceed in a very slow and deliberate manner. O'REILLY: No, we don't. We do not, as a republic, we don't have the right to see what the evidence is if the evidence is of a national security situation, as you know. Now, I'm trusting my government to do the right thing, here. I am trusting. But I think it's beyond a doubt right now, beyond a reasonable doubt, which is, as you know, a court of law standard, that there are at least five, North Korea you could put in to, six states in the world that have harboured continually these terrorists. Now, we know that this was a well-coordinated effort. Our initial intelligence shows that some of the people that have been arrested have ties to Osama bin Laden. We know, as you just heard the FBI agent say, that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was tied in to a guy who knew bin Laden. So, bin Laden -- I agree with you, that you don't want to be a hothead. You don't want to overreact. You don't want to lob a missile at the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, which was terrible, and that was the one good point, or fair point, that Mr. Husseini made, you don't want to do that. But, on the other hand, professor, I think Americans are rightful, are right, to demand action against states that we know in the past have harboured these individuals and there's a warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest. So, if he is in Afghanistan, I would give that government a couple of days to hand him over, and if they did not, I'd go in. BOYLE: Well, again. The American people are right. We need to see the evidence. I remember people saying a generation ago, during the Vietnam war, I trusted my government. And I think people of my generation found out that that was wrong. We needed more evidence. O'REILLY: All right. Professor, let me stop you there, though. This is another point that Mr. Husseini tried to make. Just because the United States of America has made mistakes in the past, does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves now. This is a unique situation in history. We have now been attacked by forces without borders, OK? We've been attacked. And it hasn't been a military attack, it's been an attack on civilians. The reason, the sole reason a federal government exists is to protect the people of the United States. And as I said in my "Talking Points" memo, they haven't really done the job, for political reasons. But now's the time to correct those things. So, there's going to be a reckoning, Professor. You know it's going to happen. I know it's going to happen. And it's going to come down on Osama bin Laden first and maybe some of these rouge states later. Will you support that action? BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. My recommendation to Congress is to slow down, let's see what develops and let's see what this evidence is before we knowingly go out and not only kill large numbers of people, perhaps in Afghanistan and other countries, but undoubtedly in our own armed forces. 58,000 men of my generation will killed in Vietnam because of irresponsible behavior by the Johnson administration rushing that Tonkin Gulf resolution through Congress, exactly what we're seeing now. And we need to pull back and stop and think and ask the hard questions and demand to see the evidence first, before we march off to war. O'REILLY: All right, so it's not enough that people arrested in the bombings of the embassies in Africa testified in court that Osama bin Laden was behind and financed and coordinated those bombings. That evidence is not enough for you? BOYLE: Well, Africa is a very is a very different story than what happened in the World Trade Center. O'REILLY: No, it's not. He's wanted, he's wanted in the United States for the bombings of those two embassies. Is that evidence enough for you, professor, for the United States to go in and get this man? Is it enough? BOYLE: That, that matter was treated and handled as an act of international terrorism in accordance with the normal laws and procedures of the United States of America as a question of domestic and international law enforcement. And I am suggesting that is the way we need to proceed here... O'REILLY: Well, wait. You're dodging the question professor. BOYLE: ... unless we have evidence that... O'REILLY: Wait, professor. Professor. This is a no spin zone. Hold it. Hold it. Even out in Urbana Champagne, the no spin zone rules. You're dodging the question. There is an absolutely rock solid arrest warrant out for this man. Evidence in court, testimony by people who did the bombings that this man was behind it. Is that enough evidence for you to have the United States go in and get him now? Is it enough? BOYLE: The United States has been attempting to secure his extradition from Afghanistan. I support... O'REILLY: Yeah, that's long enough. BOYLE: I support that approach as international... O'REILLY: Come on already, I mean, eight years, we've been attempting to extradite this guy. Now's the time to tell the Afghans you've got 48 hours or 72 hours to turn him over. You don't turn him over, we're coming in and getting him. You try to stop us, and you're toast. Enough is enough, professor. BOYLE: That's vigilantism. It is not what the United States of America is supposed to stand for. We are supposed to stand... O'REILLY: No, what that is is protecting the country from terrorists who kill civilians. BOYLE: ... for rule of law. O'REILLY: It's not vigilantism. BOYLE: We are supposed to stand for rule of law, and that is clearly vigilantism. There is a Security Council, there is Congress, there are procedures and there are laws, and they are there to protect all of us here in the United States as well as... O'REILLY: So, you're telling me... BOYLE: ... as well as our servicemen and women. Look, Bill, if we allegedly, as you put it, go in, you are not going in, I am not going in. It's going to be young men and women serving in our armed forces... O'REILLY: And that's their job. To protect us. But, professor, let me, you know, what you're saying is, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. B0YLE: ... with the constitution and the laws of the United States. O'REILLY: We're not violating any laws here, professor. No one is going to violate the law. There is going to be a state of war induced against states, states, terroristic states, who have attacked us. And what you're saying is, though, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that even though there is a legitimate warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest, and even though most civilized nations would honor that warrant and turn him over to us, extradite him to us, the vast majority of nations on earth would do that, you still are opposed for the United States to demand that the Taliban government arrest this man and turn him over? You are opposed to that? BOYLE: During the Gulf War, President Bush father, who has far more experience that the current president Bush, got a Security Council resolution authorizing the United States of America to use force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Second, President Bush father got a War Powers Authorization Resolution from Congress that gave him the constitutional authority to use military force to enforce that Security Council resolution. What I'm calling for here is the same adherence to international law and the United States constitution that the first President Bush adhered to in dealing with Iraq. O'REILLY: Well, you'll get that, professor. That's just a formality. There -- nobody on Capitol Hill right now, they're not going to -- there's no profile of courages up there anyway, usually. They're going to give President Bush what he wants. If he wants a War Powers Act, they're going to give it to him. He wants a declaration, they're going to give it to him. BOYLE: Actually, they're arguing about it right now... O'REILLY: They're going to give it to him. But I'm not interested in that, because it's going to happen. It's going to happen. BOYLE: The reports -- no, the reports I read was that this President Bush initially asked for a blank check, and Congress balked because they had been suckered once before... O'REILLY: All right, I'm not -- speculation is not what I'm in -- all right, professor. I don't want to speculate. I'm just going to say in my opinion he's going to have the authority to go in and get Osama bin Laden and his pals, wherever they are. He will get that authority, whether it takes a day or a week, he'll get it. And once he gets it, now, that's what I want to talk about here. Once he gets it, are you and others like you going to say, oh, no, we shouldn't do this, even though we have proof of the man's -- masterminded the bombings in Africa and the Cole,testimony in Yemen, are you going to still say, even after the authority is granted by Congress, which it will be, no, don't do it, let Afghanistan handle him? Are you going to still do that, professor? BOYLE: Second, like his father, his father also got authorization from the United States, the United Nations Security Council under chapter seven of the United Nations charter... O'REILLY: Oh, you want to go to U.N. now? You want the U.N. involved now. BOYLE: Is exactly what his father did... O'REILLY: So what? BOYLE: And that's exactly right. O'REILLY: His father made a huge mistake by not taking out Sadam Hussein when he could of. BOYLE: His father adhered to the required procedures under the United States constitution and the United Nations charter that is a treaty and the supreme law of our land. I expect the current President Bush to do exactly what his father did before he starts engaging in a massive military campaign in Iraq or against other countries... O'REILLY: All right, I don't know whether he's going to go -- I know he's not going to let the U.N. dictate. He might go for a consensus. He's already got it with Putin and all of our NATO allies, he's already go that. Whether he goes -- I think it would be a mistake to let -- empowering the U.N. in this situation. BOYLE: Then why did his father do this? O'REILLY: I'm going -- we're going to wrap this up with this. I'm going to give my last summation and then you can give yours, I'll give you the last word on it. This is a fugitive we're dealing with here. He has now been tied in by U.S. intelligence agencies, according to Attorney General Ashcroft and the secretary of state, tied into this horrendous bombing here in New York. The United States must make a response to this, and I am agreeing with you in a sense, it can't be a knee-jerk. It's got to be done in a methodical way. Congress will go along, they may debate it or whatever, but they will go along in either a War Powers, special War Powers Act or a declaration of war against forces hostile to the United States. Then they will go in and they will take him. This man you're looking at on the TV screen is a dead man. He should be a dead man. You don't do what he did and be allowed to walk around this earth. Now, I'm distressed, professor, by your reliance, reliance on the strict letter of propriety, when we've got 10,000 people laying in the street about 22 miles from me right now. I want deliberation. I want methodical discipline, but I also want action. We know who this guy is. We know the governments that are protecting him. We know the other rouge states that have terrorist camps there. They all have to be dealt with, in my opinion. I'll give you the last word. BOYLE: Sure, I agree with you, Bill. He is a fugitive from justice and this should be handled as a matter as other fugitives from justice of international law enforcement. If indeed there is evidence that a foreign state orchestrated and ordered an attack against the United States then clearly that is an act of war that should be dealt with as such... O'REILLY: What about harbouring? BOYLE: Right now... O'REILLY: Is harbouring an act of war? BOYLE: In my opinion, no. And under the current circumstances, I don't see it. O'REILLY: All right, professor. BOYLE: I think there is a distinction here. O'REILLY: OK, all right, wrap it up, if you would. BOYLE: I agree -- I agree that the -- if we go to war in a hasty manner here, we could see thousands of U.S. military personnel being killed without proper authorization by Congress or by the United Nations Security Council. O'REILLY: OK. BOYLE: Our founding fathers decided that the most awesome decision we would ever make would be to go to war, and we have to be very careful in making that decision. O'REILLY: All right, professor, I appreciate it very much. Thank you for your point of view. BOYLE: Thank you, Bill. ________________________________ View post online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/st/?post=40110&anc=p40110#p40110 View mailing list online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/si/?topic=355 Start new thread via email: mailto:SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list: https://connect.aals.org/o/fo/?topic=355 Manage your subscription: https://connect.aals.org/p/us/to/ This email has been sent to: fboyle at illinois.edu This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 ________________________________ From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Apr 20 13:48:22 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:48:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This man has been abusive, a lier, and a government propagandist for many years. It took one woman to bring him down. Nothing like a good sex scandal to clean the swamp. > On Apr 20, 2017, at 06:44, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:39 AM > To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org > Subject: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! > > Does anyone know if Fox's Susan Estrich is representing Bill along with Their Big Buddy Roger Ailes? Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:support at lists.aals.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 9:26 AM > To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org > Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! > > I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. > > > > After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:12 PM > To: Killeacle > Subject: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle > > BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The number of US military deaths in the Afghan theater officially passed 2,000 by June 21 and are now at least 2,106, but you didn't know this if you rely on the MSM. They ignore the official Pentagon numbers in favor of the AP--which excludes troops who died (or received wounds or injuries from which they died after evacuation) in the official "Enduring Freedom" operation but outside Afghanistan. The Pentagon web site lists those countries. > > US military occupation forces in Afghanistan under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 139 casualties in the week ending Sept. 6, as the official casualty total for the Iraq and AfPak wars* rose to 115,289. > > The total includes 79,468 casualties since the US invaded Iraq in March, 2003 (Operations "Iraqi Freedom" and "New Dawn"), and 35,821 since the US invaded Afghanistan in November, 2001 (Operation "Enduring Freedom") > > AFGHANISTAN THEATER: US forces suffered 139 combat casualties in the week ending September 6, raising the total to 35,821 This includes 19,184 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 16,637(-6) dead or medically evacuated (as of May 7!) from what it calls "non-hostile" causes. > > > LENGTH: 3653 words > > HEADLINE: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle > > BYLINE: Francis A Boyle > > BODY: > > > by Francis Boyle > > On the morning of 13 September 2001, that is 48 hours after the terrible tragedies in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, I received telephone call from a producer at Fox Television Network News in New York City. > He asked me to go onto The O'Reilly Factor TV program live that evening in order to debate Bill O'Reilly on the question of war versus peace. O'Reilly would argue for the United States going to war in reaction to the terrorist attacks on > 11 September, and I would argue for a peaceful resolution of this matter. > > > Up until then I had deliberately declined numerous requests for interviews about the terrible events of September 11 and what should be done about them because it was not clear to me precisely what was going on. But unfortunately The O'Reilly Factor had the Number One ranking in TV viewership for any news media talk program in America. I felt very strongly as a matter of principle that at least one person from the American Peace Movement had to go onto that program and argue the case directly to the American people that the United States of America must not go to war despite the terrible tragedy that had been inflicted upon us all. > > > > I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. > > > > After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. > > > > When I returned to my office the next day, so many complaints had been filed and accumulated with numerous university officials that the then Dean of my law school issued a public statement repudiating me and then placing it on the law school's web-site. Obviously the then Dean of my law school believed that a Law Professor should advocate the Law of the Jungle instead of the Rule of Law. He is now "deaning" elsewhere, just like a previous Dean who had tried to get rid of me because of my fervid belief in the Rule of Law and public activities in support thereof. > > > > On the positive side, however, my besting of O'Reilly in the debate led to my being inundated by requests for interviews from mainstream and progressive news media sources all over the world. This plethora of interviews have continued apace until today during the course of all the terrible events that have transpired in the world since September 11: the war against Afghanistan; the global war on terrorism; massive assaults on international law, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and the United States Constitution; the war against Iraq; Guantanamo; kangaroo courts; the Bush Jr. torture scandal, etc. > > > > I have done the best I can to oppose this Bush Jr. juggernaut of nihilism--now continued and expanded by Obama. > Ultimately it will be up to the American people to decide the future direction of the United States of America and thus indirectly, because of America's preponderant power, unfairly for the rest of the world. > > > > The present danger still remains Machiavellian power politics. The only known antidote is international law, international organizations, human rights, and the United States Constitution. In our thermonuclear age, humankind's existential choice is that stark, ominous, and compelling. As Americans, we must not hesitate to apply this imperative regimen immediately before it becomes too late for the continuation of our human species itself. > > > > The Rush to War > > > > SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR (20:29) September 13, 2001 Thursday Transcript # > 091303cb.256 > > SECTION: News; Domestic > > LENGTH: 3973 words > > HEADLINE: America Unites: How Should the U.S. Bring Terrorists to Justice? > > > > GUESTS: Sam Huessini, Francis Boyle > > > > BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly > > > > > > O'REILLY: While most Americans are united in their support of President Bush and the desire to bring Osama bin Laden and other terrorists to justice, there are some differing voices. > > > > Joining us now from Washington is Sam Husseini, the former spokesman for the Arab Anti -- American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and from Urbana, Illinois, is Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[...] > > > > O'REILLY: Cut his mike. All right, now, Mr. Boyle, Professor Boyle, let's have a little bit more of a rational discussion here. That was absurd. > > > > The United States now has to take action against certain segments in this world who we know have been harbouring people like Osama bin Laden. That's going to happen. How will you react to that? > > > > FRANCIS BOYLE, LAW PROFESSOR: Well, first I think you have to look at the law involved. Clearly what we have here, under United States domestic law and statutes, is an act of international terrorism that should be treated as such. > It is not yet elevated to an act of war. For an act of war, we need proof that a foreign state actually ordered or launched an attack upon the United States of America. So far, we do not yet have that evidence. We could... > > > > O'REILLY: All right, now why are you, why are you, why are you taking this position when you know forces have attacked the United States. Now, maybe they don't have a country, but they are forces. They have attacked the United States, all right? Without warning, without provocation. Civilian targets. They've done everything that an act of war does. > > > > So, I'm saying that because we live in a different world now, where borders don't really matter, where terrorism is the weapon of choice, that you would declare war -- if I were President Bush, I would declare war on any hostile forces, notice those words, professor, hostile forces to the United States. I would have a blanket declaration of war so I could go in and kill those people. > Would I be wrong? > > > > BOYLE: Well, Bill, so far you'll note Congress has been unwilling to declare war. And indeed, this matter is being debated right now. Right now, it appears that what they are seeking is not a full declaration of war, but only what we law professors call an imperfect declaration, which means a limited use of military force under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. > > > > Precisely for the problem that we don't know if any state was involved and we still do not know who was responsible for this undoubted terrorist attack upon the United States of America. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, but we have the secretary of state saying that Osama bin Laden now has been linked into and, you know, we don't have all the intelligence information, as President Bush said today. He's not going to give us, and he shouldn't, the people of America all the information that they have. But when the secretary of state gets up and says, look, we know this guy was involved to some extent, I believe him. > > > > And he's a wanted man, professor. He's been wanted for eight years. The Clinton administration didn't have the heart to get him and in the first few months the Bush administration didn't either. We now know, and you just heard the FBI agent say that Afghanistan has been involved for years harbouring and training these kinds of people. Certainly, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, those five countries, certainly have been hostile to the United States and given safe harbour to these terrorists. That's a fact. > > > > BOYLE: Well, let me point out, the secretary of state was very careful in the words he used. He said Osama bin Laden was a suspect. He did not accuse him. > And, again, under these circumstances... > > > > O'REILLY: No, he didn't use the word suspect. He used another word. > > > > BOYLE: The account I read in, just off the wire service, said suspect. But let me continue my point. Under these circumstances, where we have 5,000 Americans dead and we could have many more Americans killed in a conflict, we have to be very careful, Congress and the American people and the president, in not to over-escalate the rhetoric, here. > > > > We have to look at this very rationally. This is a democracy. We have a right to see what the evidence is and proceed in a very slow and deliberate manner. > > > > O'REILLY: No, we don't. We do not, as a republic, we don't have the right to see what the evidence is if the evidence is of a national security situation, as you know. > > > > Now, I'm trusting my government to do the right thing, here. I am trusting. But I think it's beyond a doubt right now, beyond a reasonable doubt, which is, as you know, a court of law standard, that there are at least five, North Korea you could put in to, six states in the world that have harboured continually these terrorists. > > > > Now, we know that this was a well-coordinated effort. Our initial intelligence shows that some of the people that have been arrested have ties to Osama bin Laden. We know, as you just heard the FBI agent say, that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was tied in to a guy who knew bin Laden. So, bin Laden -- I agree with you, that you don't want to be a hothead. You don't want to overreact. You don't want to lob a missile at the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, which was terrible, and that was the one good point, or fair point, that Mr. Husseini made, you don't want to do that. > > > > But, on the other hand, professor, I think Americans are rightful, are right, to demand action against states that we know in the past have harboured these individuals and there's a warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest. So, if he is in Afghanistan, I would give that government a couple of days to hand him over, and if they did not, I'd go in. > > > > BOYLE: Well, again. The American people are right. We need to see the evidence. > I remember people saying a generation ago, during the Vietnam war, I trusted my government. And I think people of my generation found out that that was wrong. > We needed more evidence. > > > > O'REILLY: All right. Professor, let me stop you there, though. This is another point that Mr. Husseini tried to make. Just because the United States of America has made mistakes in the past, does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves now. > > > > This is a unique situation in history. We have now been attacked by forces without borders, OK? We've been attacked. And it hasn't been a military attack, it's been an attack on civilians. The reason, the sole reason a federal government exists is to protect the people of the United States. > > > > And as I said in my "Talking Points" memo, they haven't really done the job, for political reasons. > > > > But now's the time to correct those things. So, there's going to be a reckoning, Professor. You know it's going to happen. I know it's going to happen. And it's going to come down on Osama bin Laden first and maybe some of these rouge states later. Will you support that action? > > > > BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. > > > > My recommendation to Congress is to slow down, let's see what develops and let's see what this evidence is before we knowingly go out and not only kill large numbers of people, perhaps in Afghanistan and other countries, but undoubtedly in our own armed forces. > > > > 58,000 men of my generation will killed in Vietnam because of irresponsible behavior by the Johnson administration rushing that Tonkin Gulf resolution through Congress, exactly what we're seeing now. And we need to pull back and stop and think and ask the hard questions and demand to see the evidence first, before we march off to war. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, so it's not enough that people arrested in the bombings of the embassies in Africa testified in court that Osama bin Laden was behind and financed and coordinated those bombings. That evidence is not enough for you? > > > > BOYLE: Well, Africa is a very is a very different story than what happened in the World Trade Center. > > > > O'REILLY: No, it's not. He's wanted, he's wanted in the United States for the bombings of those two embassies. Is that evidence enough for you, professor, for the United States to go in and get this man? Is it enough? > > > > BOYLE: That, that matter was treated and handled as an act of international terrorism in accordance with the normal laws and procedures of the United States of America as a question of domestic and international law enforcement. And I am suggesting that is the way we need to proceed here... > > > > O'REILLY: Well, wait. You're dodging the question professor. > > > > BOYLE: ... unless we have evidence that... > > > > O'REILLY: Wait, professor. Professor. This is a no spin zone. Hold it. Hold it. > Even out in Urbana Champagne, the no spin zone rules. You're dodging the question. There is an absolutely rock solid arrest warrant out for this man. > Evidence in court, testimony by people who did the bombings that this man was behind it. Is that enough evidence for you to have the United States go in and get him now? Is it enough? > > > > BOYLE: The United States has been attempting to secure his extradition from Afghanistan. I support... > > > > O'REILLY: Yeah, that's long enough. > > > > BOYLE: I support that approach as international... > > > > O'REILLY: Come on already, I mean, eight years, we've been attempting to extradite this guy. Now's the time to tell the Afghans you've got 48 hours or 72 hours to turn him over. You don't turn him over, we're coming in and getting him. You try to stop us, and you're toast. Enough is enough, professor. > > > > BOYLE: That's vigilantism. It is not what the United States of America is supposed to stand for. We are supposed to stand... > > > > O'REILLY: No, what that is is protecting the country from terrorists who kill civilians. > > > > BOYLE: ... for rule of law. > > > > O'REILLY: It's not vigilantism. > > > > BOYLE: We are supposed to stand for rule of law, and that is clearly vigilantism. There is a Security Council, there is Congress, there are procedures and there are laws, and they are there to protect all of us here in the United States as well as... > > > > O'REILLY: So, you're telling me... > > > > BOYLE: ... as well as our servicemen and women. Look, Bill, if we allegedly, as you put it, go in, you are not going in, I am not going in. It's going to be young men and women serving in our armed forces... > > > > O'REILLY: And that's their job. To protect us. But, professor, let me, you know, what you're saying is, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. > > > > B0YLE: ... with the constitution and the laws of the United States. > > > > O'REILLY: We're not violating any laws here, professor. No one is going to violate the law. There is going to be a state of war induced against states, states, terroristic states, who have attacked us. And what you're saying is, though, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that even though there is a legitimate warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest, and even though most civilized nations would honor that warrant and turn him over to us, extradite him to us, the vast majority of nations on earth would do that, you still are opposed for the United States to demand that the Taliban government arrest this man and turn him over? You are opposed to that? > > > > BOYLE: During the Gulf War, President Bush father, who has far more experience that the current president Bush, got a Security Council resolution authorizing the United States of America to use force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Second, President Bush father got a War Powers Authorization Resolution from Congress that gave him the constitutional authority to use military force to enforce that Security Council resolution. > > > > What I'm calling for here is the same adherence to international law and the United States constitution that the first President Bush adhered to in dealing with Iraq. > > > > O'REILLY: Well, you'll get that, professor. That's just a formality. There -- nobody on Capitol Hill right now, they're not going to -- there's no profile of courages up there anyway, usually. They're going to give President Bush what he wants. If he wants a War Powers Act, they're going to give it to him. He wants a declaration, they're going to give it to him. > > > > BOYLE: Actually, they're arguing about it right now... > > > > O'REILLY: They're going to give it to him. But I'm not interested in that, because it's going to happen. It's going to happen. > > > > BOYLE: The reports -- no, the reports I read was that this President Bush initially asked for a blank check, and Congress balked because they had been suckered once before... > > > > O'REILLY: All right, I'm not -- speculation is not what I'm in -- all right, professor. I don't want to speculate. I'm just going to say in my opinion he's going to have the authority to go in and get Osama bin Laden and his pals, wherever they are. He will get that authority, whether it takes a day or a week, he'll get it. And once he gets it, now, that's what I want to talk about here. > Once he gets it, are you and others like you going to say, oh, no, we shouldn't do this, even though we have proof of the man's -- masterminded the bombings in Africa and the Cole,testimony in Yemen, are you going to still say, even after the authority is granted by Congress, which it will be, no, don't do it, let Afghanistan handle him? > > > > Are you going to still do that, professor? > > > > BOYLE: Second, like his father, his father also got authorization from the United States, the United Nations Security Council under chapter seven of the United Nations charter... > > > > O'REILLY: Oh, you want to go to U.N. now? You want the U.N. involved now. > > > > BOYLE: Is exactly what his father did... > > > > O'REILLY: So what? > > > > BOYLE: And that's exactly right. > > > > O'REILLY: His father made a huge mistake by not taking out Sadam Hussein when he could of. > > > > BOYLE: His father adhered to the required procedures under the United States constitution and the United Nations charter that is a treaty and the supreme law of our land. I expect the current President Bush to do exactly what his father did before he starts engaging in a massive military campaign in Iraq or against other countries... > > > > O'REILLY: All right, I don't know whether he's going to go -- I know he's not going to let the U.N. dictate. He might go for a consensus. He's already got it with Putin and all of our NATO allies, he's already go that. Whether he goes -- I think it would be a mistake to let -- empowering the U.N. in this situation. > > > > BOYLE: Then why did his father do this? > > > > O'REILLY: I'm going -- we're going to wrap this up with this. I'm going to give my last summation and then you can give yours, I'll give you the last word on it. > > > > This is a fugitive we're dealing with here. He has now been tied in by U.S. > intelligence agencies, according to Attorney General Ashcroft and the secretary of state, tied into this horrendous bombing here in New York. The United States must make a response to this, and I am agreeing with you in a sense, it can't be a knee-jerk. It's got to be done in a methodical way. > > > > Congress will go along, they may debate it or whatever, but they will go along in either a War Powers, special War Powers Act or a declaration of war against forces hostile to the United States. Then they will go in and they will take him. This man you're looking at on the TV screen is a dead man. He should be a dead man. You don't do what he did and be allowed to walk around this earth. > > > > Now, I'm distressed, professor, by your reliance, reliance on the strict letter of propriety, when we've got 10,000 people laying in the street about 22 miles from me right now. I want deliberation. I want methodical discipline, but I also want action. We know who this guy is. We know the governments that are protecting him. We know the other rouge states that have terrorist camps there. > They all have to be dealt with, in my opinion. I'll give you the last word. > > > > BOYLE: Sure, I agree with you, Bill. He is a fugitive from justice and this should be handled as a matter as other fugitives from justice of international law enforcement. If indeed there is evidence that a foreign state orchestrated and ordered an attack against the United States then clearly that is an act of war that should be dealt with as such... > > > > O'REILLY: What about harbouring? > > > > BOYLE: Right now... > > > > O'REILLY: Is harbouring an act of war? > > > > BOYLE: In my opinion, no. And under the current circumstances, I don't see it. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, professor. > > > > BOYLE: I think there is a distinction here. > > > > O'REILLY: OK, all right, wrap it up, if you would. > > > > BOYLE: I agree -- I agree that the -- if we go to war in a hasty manner here, we could see thousands of U.S. military personnel being killed without proper authorization by Congress or by the United Nations Security Council. > > > > O'REILLY: OK. > > > > BOYLE: Our founding fathers decided that the most awesome decision we would ever make would be to go to war, and we have to be very careful in making that decision. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, professor, I appreciate it very much. Thank you for your point of view. > > > > BOYLE: Thank you, Bill. > > > > ________________________________ > View post online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/st/?post=40110&anc=p40110#p40110 > View mailing list online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/si/?topic=355 > Start new thread via email: mailto:SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org > Unsubscribe from this mailing list: https://connect.aals.org/o/fo/?topic=355 > Manage your subscription: https://connect.aals.org/p/us/to/ > > This email has been sent to: fboyle at illinois.edu > > > This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. > Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: > https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 > ________________________________ > From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Apr 20 13:50:12 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:50:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One good woman--we have them on this list. All of you took down Killer Koh. Thanks again. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:48 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! This man has been abusive, a lier, and a government propagandist for many years. It took one woman to bring him down. Nothing like a good sex scandal to clean the swamp. > On Apr 20, 2017, at 06:44, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:39 AM > To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org > Subject: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! > > Does anyone know if Fox's Susan Estrich is representing Bill along with Their Big Buddy Roger Ailes? Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:support at lists.aals.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 9:26 AM > To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org > Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! > > I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. > > > > After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:12 PM > To: Killeacle > Subject: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle > > BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The number of US military deaths in the Afghan theater officially passed 2,000 by June 21 and are now at least 2,106, but you didn't know this if you rely on the MSM. They ignore the official Pentagon numbers in favor of the AP--which excludes troops who died (or received wounds or injuries from which they died after evacuation) in the official "Enduring Freedom" operation but outside Afghanistan. The Pentagon web site lists those countries. > > US military occupation forces in Afghanistan under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 139 casualties in the week ending Sept. 6, as the official casualty total for the Iraq and AfPak wars* rose to 115,289. > > The total includes 79,468 casualties since the US invaded Iraq in March, 2003 (Operations "Iraqi Freedom" and "New Dawn"), and 35,821 since the US invaded Afghanistan in November, 2001 (Operation "Enduring Freedom") > > AFGHANISTAN THEATER: US forces suffered 139 combat casualties in the week ending September 6, raising the total to 35,821 This includes 19,184 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 16,637(-6) dead or medically evacuated (as of May 7!) from what it calls "non-hostile" causes. > > > LENGTH: 3653 words > > HEADLINE: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle > > BYLINE: Francis A Boyle > > BODY: > > > by Francis Boyle > > On the morning of 13 September 2001, that is 48 hours after the terrible tragedies in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, I received telephone call from a producer at Fox Television Network News in New York City. > He asked me to go onto The O'Reilly Factor TV program live that evening in order to debate Bill O'Reilly on the question of war versus peace. O'Reilly would argue for the United States going to war in reaction to the terrorist attacks on > 11 September, and I would argue for a peaceful resolution of this matter. > > > Up until then I had deliberately declined numerous requests for interviews about the terrible events of September 11 and what should be done about them because it was not clear to me precisely what was going on. But unfortunately The O'Reilly Factor had the Number One ranking in TV viewership for any news media talk program in America. I felt very strongly as a matter of principle that at least one person from the American Peace Movement had to go onto that program and argue the case directly to the American people that the United States of America must not go to war despite the terrible tragedy that had been inflicted upon us all. > > > > I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. > > > > After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. > > > > When I returned to my office the next day, so many complaints had been filed and accumulated with numerous university officials that the then Dean of my law school issued a public statement repudiating me and then placing it on the law school's web-site. Obviously the then Dean of my law school believed that a Law Professor should advocate the Law of the Jungle instead of the Rule of Law. He is now "deaning" elsewhere, just like a previous Dean who had tried to get rid of me because of my fervid belief in the Rule of Law and public activities in support thereof. > > > > On the positive side, however, my besting of O'Reilly in the debate led to my being inundated by requests for interviews from mainstream and progressive news media sources all over the world. This plethora of interviews have continued apace until today during the course of all the terrible events that have transpired in the world since September 11: the war against Afghanistan; the global war on terrorism; massive assaults on international law, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and the United States Constitution; the war against Iraq; Guantanamo; kangaroo courts; the Bush Jr. torture scandal, etc. > > > > I have done the best I can to oppose this Bush Jr. juggernaut of nihilism--now continued and expanded by Obama. > Ultimately it will be up to the American people to decide the future direction of the United States of America and thus indirectly, because of America's preponderant power, unfairly for the rest of the world. > > > > The present danger still remains Machiavellian power politics. The only known antidote is international law, international organizations, human rights, and the United States Constitution. In our thermonuclear age, humankind's existential choice is that stark, ominous, and compelling. As Americans, we must not hesitate to apply this imperative regimen immediately before it becomes too late for the continuation of our human species itself. > > > > The Rush to War > > > > SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR (20:29) September 13, 2001 Thursday Transcript # > 091303cb.256 > > SECTION: News; Domestic > > LENGTH: 3973 words > > HEADLINE: America Unites: How Should the U.S. Bring Terrorists to Justice? > > > > GUESTS: Sam Huessini, Francis Boyle > > > > BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly > > > > > > O'REILLY: While most Americans are united in their support of President Bush and the desire to bring Osama bin Laden and other terrorists to justice, there are some differing voices. > > > > Joining us now from Washington is Sam Husseini, the former spokesman for the Arab Anti -- American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and from Urbana, Illinois, is Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[...] > > > > O'REILLY: Cut his mike. All right, now, Mr. Boyle, Professor Boyle, let's have a little bit more of a rational discussion here. That was absurd. > > > > The United States now has to take action against certain segments in this world who we know have been harbouring people like Osama bin Laden. That's going to happen. How will you react to that? > > > > FRANCIS BOYLE, LAW PROFESSOR: Well, first I think you have to look at the law involved. Clearly what we have here, under United States domestic law and statutes, is an act of international terrorism that should be treated as such. > It is not yet elevated to an act of war. For an act of war, we need proof that a foreign state actually ordered or launched an attack upon the United States of America. So far, we do not yet have that evidence. We could... > > > > O'REILLY: All right, now why are you, why are you, why are you taking this position when you know forces have attacked the United States. Now, maybe they don't have a country, but they are forces. They have attacked the United States, all right? Without warning, without provocation. Civilian targets. They've done everything that an act of war does. > > > > So, I'm saying that because we live in a different world now, where borders don't really matter, where terrorism is the weapon of choice, that you would declare war -- if I were President Bush, I would declare war on any hostile forces, notice those words, professor, hostile forces to the United States. I would have a blanket declaration of war so I could go in and kill those people. > Would I be wrong? > > > > BOYLE: Well, Bill, so far you'll note Congress has been unwilling to declare war. And indeed, this matter is being debated right now. Right now, it appears that what they are seeking is not a full declaration of war, but only what we law professors call an imperfect declaration, which means a limited use of military force under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. > > > > Precisely for the problem that we don't know if any state was involved and we still do not know who was responsible for this undoubted terrorist attack upon the United States of America. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, but we have the secretary of state saying that Osama bin Laden now has been linked into and, you know, we don't have all the intelligence information, as President Bush said today. He's not going to give us, and he shouldn't, the people of America all the information that they have. But when the secretary of state gets up and says, look, we know this guy was involved to some extent, I believe him. > > > > And he's a wanted man, professor. He's been wanted for eight years. The Clinton administration didn't have the heart to get him and in the first few months the Bush administration didn't either. We now know, and you just heard the FBI agent say that Afghanistan has been involved for years harbouring and training these kinds of people. Certainly, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, those five countries, certainly have been hostile to the United States and given safe harbour to these terrorists. That's a fact. > > > > BOYLE: Well, let me point out, the secretary of state was very careful in the words he used. He said Osama bin Laden was a suspect. He did not accuse him. > And, again, under these circumstances... > > > > O'REILLY: No, he didn't use the word suspect. He used another word. > > > > BOYLE: The account I read in, just off the wire service, said suspect. But let me continue my point. Under these circumstances, where we have 5,000 Americans dead and we could have many more Americans killed in a conflict, we have to be very careful, Congress and the American people and the president, in not to over-escalate the rhetoric, here. > > > > We have to look at this very rationally. This is a democracy. We have a right to see what the evidence is and proceed in a very slow and deliberate manner. > > > > O'REILLY: No, we don't. We do not, as a republic, we don't have the right to see what the evidence is if the evidence is of a national security situation, as you know. > > > > Now, I'm trusting my government to do the right thing, here. I am trusting. But I think it's beyond a doubt right now, beyond a reasonable doubt, which is, as you know, a court of law standard, that there are at least five, North Korea you could put in to, six states in the world that have harboured continually these terrorists. > > > > Now, we know that this was a well-coordinated effort. Our initial intelligence shows that some of the people that have been arrested have ties to Osama bin Laden. We know, as you just heard the FBI agent say, that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was tied in to a guy who knew bin Laden. So, bin Laden -- I agree with you, that you don't want to be a hothead. You don't want to overreact. You don't want to lob a missile at the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, which was terrible, and that was the one good point, or fair point, that Mr. Husseini made, you don't want to do that. > > > > But, on the other hand, professor, I think Americans are rightful, are right, to demand action against states that we know in the past have harboured these individuals and there's a warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest. So, if he is in Afghanistan, I would give that government a couple of days to hand him over, and if they did not, I'd go in. > > > > BOYLE: Well, again. The American people are right. We need to see the evidence. > I remember people saying a generation ago, during the Vietnam war, I trusted my government. And I think people of my generation found out that that was wrong. > We needed more evidence. > > > > O'REILLY: All right. Professor, let me stop you there, though. This is another point that Mr. Husseini tried to make. Just because the United States of America has made mistakes in the past, does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves now. > > > > This is a unique situation in history. We have now been attacked by forces without borders, OK? We've been attacked. And it hasn't been a military attack, it's been an attack on civilians. The reason, the sole reason a federal government exists is to protect the people of the United States. > > > > And as I said in my "Talking Points" memo, they haven't really done the job, for political reasons. > > > > But now's the time to correct those things. So, there's going to be a reckoning, Professor. You know it's going to happen. I know it's going to happen. And it's going to come down on Osama bin Laden first and maybe some of these rouge states later. Will you support that action? > > > > BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. > > > > My recommendation to Congress is to slow down, let's see what develops and let's see what this evidence is before we knowingly go out and not only kill large numbers of people, perhaps in Afghanistan and other countries, but undoubtedly in our own armed forces. > > > > 58,000 men of my generation will killed in Vietnam because of irresponsible behavior by the Johnson administration rushing that Tonkin Gulf resolution through Congress, exactly what we're seeing now. And we need to pull back and stop and think and ask the hard questions and demand to see the evidence first, before we march off to war. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, so it's not enough that people arrested in the bombings of the embassies in Africa testified in court that Osama bin Laden was behind and financed and coordinated those bombings. That evidence is not enough for you? > > > > BOYLE: Well, Africa is a very is a very different story than what happened in the World Trade Center. > > > > O'REILLY: No, it's not. He's wanted, he's wanted in the United States for the bombings of those two embassies. Is that evidence enough for you, professor, for the United States to go in and get this man? Is it enough? > > > > BOYLE: That, that matter was treated and handled as an act of international terrorism in accordance with the normal laws and procedures of the United States of America as a question of domestic and international law enforcement. And I am suggesting that is the way we need to proceed here... > > > > O'REILLY: Well, wait. You're dodging the question professor. > > > > BOYLE: ... unless we have evidence that... > > > > O'REILLY: Wait, professor. Professor. This is a no spin zone. Hold it. Hold it. > Even out in Urbana Champagne, the no spin zone rules. You're dodging the question. There is an absolutely rock solid arrest warrant out for this man. > Evidence in court, testimony by people who did the bombings that this man was behind it. Is that enough evidence for you to have the United States go in and get him now? Is it enough? > > > > BOYLE: The United States has been attempting to secure his extradition from Afghanistan. I support... > > > > O'REILLY: Yeah, that's long enough. > > > > BOYLE: I support that approach as international... > > > > O'REILLY: Come on already, I mean, eight years, we've been attempting to extradite this guy. Now's the time to tell the Afghans you've got 48 hours or 72 hours to turn him over. You don't turn him over, we're coming in and getting him. You try to stop us, and you're toast. Enough is enough, professor. > > > > BOYLE: That's vigilantism. It is not what the United States of America is supposed to stand for. We are supposed to stand... > > > > O'REILLY: No, what that is is protecting the country from terrorists who kill civilians. > > > > BOYLE: ... for rule of law. > > > > O'REILLY: It's not vigilantism. > > > > BOYLE: We are supposed to stand for rule of law, and that is clearly vigilantism. There is a Security Council, there is Congress, there are procedures and there are laws, and they are there to protect all of us here in the United States as well as... > > > > O'REILLY: So, you're telling me... > > > > BOYLE: ... as well as our servicemen and women. Look, Bill, if we allegedly, as you put it, go in, you are not going in, I am not going in. It's going to be young men and women serving in our armed forces... > > > > O'REILLY: And that's their job. To protect us. But, professor, let me, you know, what you're saying is, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. > > > > B0YLE: ... with the constitution and the laws of the United States. > > > > O'REILLY: We're not violating any laws here, professor. No one is going to violate the law. There is going to be a state of war induced against states, states, terroristic states, who have attacked us. And what you're saying is, though, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that even though there is a legitimate warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest, and even though most civilized nations would honor that warrant and turn him over to us, extradite him to us, the vast majority of nations on earth would do that, you still are opposed for the United States to demand that the Taliban government arrest this man and turn him over? You are opposed to that? > > > > BOYLE: During the Gulf War, President Bush father, who has far more experience that the current president Bush, got a Security Council resolution authorizing the United States of America to use force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Second, President Bush father got a War Powers Authorization Resolution from Congress that gave him the constitutional authority to use military force to enforce that Security Council resolution. > > > > What I'm calling for here is the same adherence to international law and the United States constitution that the first President Bush adhered to in dealing with Iraq. > > > > O'REILLY: Well, you'll get that, professor. That's just a formality. There -- nobody on Capitol Hill right now, they're not going to -- there's no profile of courages up there anyway, usually. They're going to give President Bush what he wants. If he wants a War Powers Act, they're going to give it to him. He wants a declaration, they're going to give it to him. > > > > BOYLE: Actually, they're arguing about it right now... > > > > O'REILLY: They're going to give it to him. But I'm not interested in that, because it's going to happen. It's going to happen. > > > > BOYLE: The reports -- no, the reports I read was that this President Bush initially asked for a blank check, and Congress balked because they had been suckered once before... > > > > O'REILLY: All right, I'm not -- speculation is not what I'm in -- all right, professor. I don't want to speculate. I'm just going to say in my opinion he's going to have the authority to go in and get Osama bin Laden and his pals, wherever they are. He will get that authority, whether it takes a day or a week, he'll get it. And once he gets it, now, that's what I want to talk about here. > Once he gets it, are you and others like you going to say, oh, no, we shouldn't do this, even though we have proof of the man's -- masterminded the bombings in Africa and the Cole,testimony in Yemen, are you going to still say, even after the authority is granted by Congress, which it will be, no, don't do it, let Afghanistan handle him? > > > > Are you going to still do that, professor? > > > > BOYLE: Second, like his father, his father also got authorization from the United States, the United Nations Security Council under chapter seven of the United Nations charter... > > > > O'REILLY: Oh, you want to go to U.N. now? You want the U.N. involved now. > > > > BOYLE: Is exactly what his father did... > > > > O'REILLY: So what? > > > > BOYLE: And that's exactly right. > > > > O'REILLY: His father made a huge mistake by not taking out Sadam Hussein when he could of. > > > > BOYLE: His father adhered to the required procedures under the United States constitution and the United Nations charter that is a treaty and the supreme law of our land. I expect the current President Bush to do exactly what his father did before he starts engaging in a massive military campaign in Iraq or against other countries... > > > > O'REILLY: All right, I don't know whether he's going to go -- I know he's not going to let the U.N. dictate. He might go for a consensus. He's already got it with Putin and all of our NATO allies, he's already go that. Whether he goes -- I think it would be a mistake to let -- empowering the U.N. in this situation. > > > > BOYLE: Then why did his father do this? > > > > O'REILLY: I'm going -- we're going to wrap this up with this. I'm going to give my last summation and then you can give yours, I'll give you the last word on it. > > > > This is a fugitive we're dealing with here. He has now been tied in by U.S. > intelligence agencies, according to Attorney General Ashcroft and the secretary of state, tied into this horrendous bombing here in New York. The United States must make a response to this, and I am agreeing with you in a sense, it can't be a knee-jerk. It's got to be done in a methodical way. > > > > Congress will go along, they may debate it or whatever, but they will go along in either a War Powers, special War Powers Act or a declaration of war against forces hostile to the United States. Then they will go in and they will take him. This man you're looking at on the TV screen is a dead man. He should be a dead man. You don't do what he did and be allowed to walk around this earth. > > > > Now, I'm distressed, professor, by your reliance, reliance on the strict letter of propriety, when we've got 10,000 people laying in the street about 22 miles from me right now. I want deliberation. I want methodical discipline, but I also want action. We know who this guy is. We know the governments that are protecting him. We know the other rouge states that have terrorist camps there. > They all have to be dealt with, in my opinion. I'll give you the last word. > > > > BOYLE: Sure, I agree with you, Bill. He is a fugitive from justice and this should be handled as a matter as other fugitives from justice of international law enforcement. If indeed there is evidence that a foreign state orchestrated and ordered an attack against the United States then clearly that is an act of war that should be dealt with as such... > > > > O'REILLY: What about harbouring? > > > > BOYLE: Right now... > > > > O'REILLY: Is harbouring an act of war? > > > > BOYLE: In my opinion, no. And under the current circumstances, I don't see it. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, professor. > > > > BOYLE: I think there is a distinction here. > > > > O'REILLY: OK, all right, wrap it up, if you would. > > > > BOYLE: I agree -- I agree that the -- if we go to war in a hasty manner here, we could see thousands of U.S. military personnel being killed without proper authorization by Congress or by the United Nations Security Council. > > > > O'REILLY: OK. > > > > BOYLE: Our founding fathers decided that the most awesome decision we would ever make would be to go to war, and we have to be very careful in making that decision. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, professor, I appreciate it very much. Thank you for your point of view. > > > > BOYLE: Thank you, Bill. > > > > ________________________________ > View post online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/st/?post=40110&anc=p40110#p40110 > View mailing list online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/si/?topic=355 > Start new thread via email: mailto:SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org > Unsubscribe from this mailing list: https://connect.aals.org/o/fo/?topic=355 > Manage your subscription: https://connect.aals.org/p/us/to/ > > This email has been sent to: fboyle at illinois.edu > > > This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. > Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: > https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 > ________________________________ > From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Apr 20 14:31:14 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:31:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! Message-ID: September 13, 2001 Yeah 48 hours After THAT day Fox calls Those Scumbags Asking me to debate O'Reilly That scumbag On War versus Peace Him for war and me for peace That night live Deliberately walking into a buzz-saw But the lot had fallen to me To argue the case to My American People For Peace instead of War Of course I said yes Won the debate But when I could not defend myself on air O'Reilly, Newtie Gingrich and Reagan's Kirkpatrick Accused me of being an Al Qaeda Supporter Those scumbags! Threats, complaints, protests all night Next day my Law Dean That Scumbag! Put out a Statement Publicly disavowing and repudiating me To everyone possible Then put it on the law school web-site For all to see Proving to all That the Law of the Jungle Means More Than the Rule of Law and the Constitution At this so-called College of Law Then draped himself in the American Flag Patriotism -- the last refuge of that scoundrel And of all scoundrels everywhere So it has been now for 15 years Me arguing for Peace Against all those scumbags and scoundrels Mongering for Wars, Torture, and Drones All over the world Even here at home Their American Nazi Homeland My Wild Irish Ass! O'Reilly, Hannity, Kelly & VanSusteren, Esq. Those Fox scumbags! A disgrace to my Irish Race Blacks have their Uncle Toms We Irish have our Uncle Paddies and Aunt Patties Rupert Murdoch's House Micks and War Whores His Kept Irish Men and Women Pretty clever of Rupie That Neo-Con Arch-Zionist To have Irish doing his dirty work for him In front of the American people Night after night Polluting and poisoning America's airwaves With bigotry, racism, warmongering, totalitarianism Murdoch's Irish Scumbags On Rupie’s Fox Scumbag Network Julius Streicher in the Nuremberg Dock Would be proud of them all at Murdoch's Fox Seventy years after World War Two The Nazis have won   Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:44 AM To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: FW: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:39 AM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! Does anyone know if Fox's Susan Estrich is representing Bill along with Their Big Buddy Roger Ailes? Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:support at lists.aals.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 9:26 AM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:12 PM To: Killeacle Subject: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of US military deaths in the Afghan theater officially passed 2,000 by June 21 and are now at least 2,106, but you didn't know this if you rely on the MSM. They ignore the official Pentagon numbers in favor of the AP--which excludes troops who died (or received wounds or injuries from which they died after evacuation) in the official "Enduring Freedom" operation but outside Afghanistan. The Pentagon web site lists those countries. US military occupation forces in Afghanistan under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 139 casualties in the week ending Sept. 6, as the official casualty total for the Iraq and AfPak wars* rose to 115,289. The total includes 79,468 casualties since the US invaded Iraq in March, 2003 (Operations "Iraqi Freedom" and "New Dawn"), and 35,821 since the US invaded Afghanistan in November, 2001 (Operation "Enduring Freedom") AFGHANISTAN THEATER: US forces suffered 139 combat casualties in the week ending September 6, raising the total to 35,821 This includes 19,184 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 16,637(-6) dead or medically evacuated (as of May 7!) from what it calls "non-hostile" causes. LENGTH: 3653 words HEADLINE: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle BYLINE: Francis A Boyle BODY:     by Francis Boyle On the morning of 13 September 2001, that is 48 hours after the terrible tragedies in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, I received telephone call from a producer at Fox Television Network News in New York City. He asked me to go onto The O'Reilly Factor TV program live that evening in order to debate Bill O'Reilly on the question of war versus peace. O'Reilly would argue for the United States going to war in reaction to the terrorist attacks on 11 September, and I would argue for a peaceful resolution of this matter.    Up until then I had deliberately declined numerous requests for interviews about the terrible events of September 11 and what should be done about them because it was not clear to me precisely what was going on. But unfortunately The O'Reilly Factor had the Number One ranking in TV viewership for any news media talk program in America. I felt very strongly as a matter of principle that at least one person from the American Peace Movement had to go onto that program and argue the case directly to the American people that the United States of America must not go to war despite the terrible tragedy that had been inflicted upon us all. I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. When I returned to my office the next day, so many complaints had been filed and accumulated with numerous university officials that the then Dean of my law school issued a public statement repudiating me and then placing it on the law school's web-site. Obviously the then Dean of my law school believed that a Law Professor should advocate the Law of the Jungle instead of the Rule of Law. He is now "deaning" elsewhere, just like a previous Dean who had tried to get rid of me because of my fervid belief in the Rule of Law and public activities in support thereof. On the positive side, however, my besting of O'Reilly in the debate led to my being inundated by requests for interviews from mainstream and progressive news media sources all over the world. This plethora of interviews have continued apace until today during the course of all the terrible events that have transpired in the world since September 11: the war against Afghanistan; the global war on terrorism; massive assaults on international law, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and the United States Constitution; the war against Iraq; Guantanamo; kangaroo courts; the Bush Jr. torture scandal, etc. I have done the best I can to oppose this Bush Jr. juggernaut of nihilism--now continued and expanded by Obama. Ultimately it will be up to the American people to decide the future direction of the United States of America and thus indirectly, because of America's preponderant power, unfairly for the rest of the world. The present danger still remains Machiavellian power politics. The only known antidote is international law, international organizations, human rights, and the United States Constitution. In our thermonuclear age, humankind's existential choice is that stark, ominous, and compelling. As Americans, we must not hesitate to apply this imperative regimen immediately before it becomes too late for the continuation of our human species itself. The Rush to War SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR (20:29) September 13, 2001 Thursday Transcript # 091303cb.256 SECTION: News; Domestic LENGTH: 3973 words HEADLINE: America Unites: How Should the U.S. Bring Terrorists to Justice? GUESTS: Sam Huessini, Francis Boyle BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly O'REILLY: While most Americans are united in their support of President Bush and the desire to bring Osama bin Laden and other terrorists to justice, there are some differing voices. Joining us now from Washington is Sam Husseini, the former spokesman for the Arab Anti -- American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and from Urbana, Illinois, is Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[...] O'REILLY: Cut his mike. All right, now, Mr. Boyle, Professor Boyle, let's have a little bit more of a rational discussion here. That was absurd. The United States now has to take action against certain segments in this world who we know have been harbouring people like Osama bin Laden. That's going to happen. How will you react to that? FRANCIS BOYLE, LAW PROFESSOR: Well, first I think you have to look at the law involved. Clearly what we have here, under United States domestic law and statutes, is an act of international terrorism that should be treated as such. It is not yet elevated to an act of war. For an act of war, we need proof that a foreign state actually ordered or launched an attack upon the United States of America. So far, we do not yet have that evidence. We could... O'REILLY: All right, now why are you, why are you, why are you taking this position when you know forces have attacked the United States. Now, maybe they don't have a country, but they are forces. They have attacked the United States, all right? Without warning, without provocation. Civilian targets. They've done everything that an act of war does. So, I'm saying that because we live in a different world now, where borders don't really matter, where terrorism is the weapon of choice, that you would declare war -- if I were President Bush, I would declare war on any hostile forces, notice those words, professor, hostile forces to the United States. I would have a blanket declaration of war so I could go in and kill those people. Would I be wrong? BOYLE: Well, Bill, so far you'll note Congress has been unwilling to declare war. And indeed, this matter is being debated right now. Right now, it appears that what they are seeking is not a full declaration of war, but only what we law professors call an imperfect declaration, which means a limited use of military force under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Precisely for the problem that we don't know if any state was involved and we still do not know who was responsible for this undoubted terrorist attack upon the United States of America. O'REILLY: All right, but we have the secretary of state saying that Osama bin Laden now has been linked into and, you know, we don't have all the intelligence information, as President Bush said today. He's not going to give us, and he shouldn't, the people of America all the information that they have. But when the secretary of state gets up and says, look, we know this guy was involved to some extent, I believe him. And he's a wanted man, professor. He's been wanted for eight years. The Clinton administration didn't have the heart to get him and in the first few months the Bush administration didn't either. We now know, and you just heard the FBI agent say that Afghanistan has been involved for years harbouring and training these kinds of people. Certainly, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, those five countries, certainly have been hostile to the United States and given safe harbour to these terrorists. That's a fact. BOYLE: Well, let me point out, the secretary of state was very careful in the words he used. He said Osama bin Laden was a suspect. He did not accuse him. And, again, under these circumstances... O'REILLY: No, he didn't use the word suspect. He used another word. BOYLE: The account I read in, just off the wire service, said suspect. But let me continue my point. Under these circumstances, where we have 5,000 Americans dead and we could have many more Americans killed in a conflict, we have to be very careful, Congress and the American people and the president, in not to over-escalate the rhetoric, here. We have to look at this very rationally. This is a democracy. We have a right to see what the evidence is and proceed in a very slow and deliberate manner. O'REILLY: No, we don't. We do not, as a republic, we don't have the right to see what the evidence is if the evidence is of a national security situation, as you know. Now, I'm trusting my government to do the right thing, here. I am trusting. But I think it's beyond a doubt right now, beyond a reasonable doubt, which is, as you know, a court of law standard, that there are at least five, North Korea you could put in to, six states in the world that have harboured continually these terrorists. Now, we know that this was a well-coordinated effort. Our initial intelligence shows that some of the people that have been arrested have ties to Osama bin Laden. We know, as you just heard the FBI agent say, that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was tied in to a guy who knew bin Laden. So, bin Laden -- I agree with you, that you don't want to be a hothead. You don't want to overreact. You don't want to lob a missile at the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, which was terrible, and that was the one good point, or fair point, that Mr. Husseini made, you don't want to do that. But, on the other hand, professor, I think Americans are rightful, are right, to demand action against states that we know in the past have harboured these individuals and there's a warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest. So, if he is in Afghanistan, I would give that government a couple of days to hand him over, and if they did not, I'd go in. BOYLE: Well, again. The American people are right. We need to see the evidence. I remember people saying a generation ago, during the Vietnam war, I trusted my government. And I think people of my generation found out that that was wrong. We needed more evidence. O'REILLY: All right. Professor, let me stop you there, though. This is another point that Mr. Husseini tried to make. Just because the United States of America has made mistakes in the past, does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves now. This is a unique situation in history. We have now been attacked by forces without borders, OK? We've been attacked. And it hasn't been a military attack, it's been an attack on civilians. The reason, the sole reason a federal government exists is to protect the people of the United States. And as I said in my "Talking Points" memo, they haven't really done the job, for political reasons. But now's the time to correct those things. So, there's going to be a reckoning, Professor. You know it's going to happen. I know it's going to happen. And it's going to come down on Osama bin Laden first and maybe some of these rouge states later. Will you support that action? BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. My recommendation to Congress is to slow down, let's see what develops and let's see what this evidence is before we knowingly go out and not only kill large numbers of people, perhaps in Afghanistan and other countries, but undoubtedly in our own armed forces. 58,000 men of my generation will killed in Vietnam because of irresponsible behavior by the Johnson administration rushing that Tonkin Gulf resolution through Congress, exactly what we're seeing now. And we need to pull back and stop and think and ask the hard questions and demand to see the evidence first, before we march off to war. O'REILLY: All right, so it's not enough that people arrested in the bombings of the embassies in Africa testified in court that Osama bin Laden was behind and financed and coordinated those bombings. That evidence is not enough for you? BOYLE: Well, Africa is a very is a very different story than what happened in the World Trade Center. O'REILLY: No, it's not. He's wanted, he's wanted in the United States for the bombings of those two embassies. Is that evidence enough for you, professor, for the United States to go in and get this man? Is it enough? BOYLE: That, that matter was treated and handled as an act of international terrorism in accordance with the normal laws and procedures of the United States of America as a question of domestic and international law enforcement. And I am suggesting that is the way we need to proceed here... O'REILLY: Well, wait. You're dodging the question professor. BOYLE: ... unless we have evidence that... O'REILLY: Wait, professor. Professor. This is a no spin zone. Hold it. Hold it. Even out in Urbana Champagne, the no spin zone rules. You're dodging the question. There is an absolutely rock solid arrest warrant out for this man. Evidence in court, testimony by people who did the bombings that this man was behind it. Is that enough evidence for you to have the United States go in and get him now? Is it enough? BOYLE: The United States has been attempting to secure his extradition from Afghanistan. I support... O'REILLY: Yeah, that's long enough. BOYLE: I support that approach as international... O'REILLY: Come on already, I mean, eight years, we've been attempting to extradite this guy. Now's the time to tell the Afghans you've got 48 hours or 72 hours to turn him over. You don't turn him over, we're coming in and getting him. You try to stop us, and you're toast. Enough is enough, professor. BOYLE: That's vigilantism. It is not what the United States of America is supposed to stand for. We are supposed to stand... O'REILLY: No, what that is is protecting the country from terrorists who kill civilians. BOYLE: ... for rule of law. O'REILLY: It's not vigilantism. BOYLE: We are supposed to stand for rule of law, and that is clearly vigilantism. There is a Security Council, there is Congress, there are procedures and there are laws, and they are there to protect all of us here in the United States as well as... O'REILLY: So, you're telling me... BOYLE: ... as well as our servicemen and women. Look, Bill, if we allegedly, as you put it, go in, you are not going in, I am not going in. It's going to be young men and women serving in our armed forces... O'REILLY: And that's their job. To protect us. But, professor, let me, you know, what you're saying is, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. B0YLE: ... with the constitution and the laws of the United States. O'REILLY: We're not violating any laws here, professor. No one is going to violate the law. There is going to be a state of war induced against states, states, terroristic states, who have attacked us. And what you're saying is, though, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that even though there is a legitimate warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest, and even though most civilized nations would honor that warrant and turn him over to us, extradite him to us, the vast majority of nations on earth would do that, you still are opposed for the United States to demand that the Taliban government arrest this man and turn him over? You are opposed to that? BOYLE: During the Gulf War, President Bush father, who has far more experience that the current president Bush, got a Security Council resolution authorizing the United States of America to use force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Second, President Bush father got a War Powers Authorization Resolution from Congress that gave him the constitutional authority to use military force to enforce that Security Council resolution. What I'm calling for here is the same adherence to international law and the United States constitution that the first President Bush adhered to in dealing with Iraq. O'REILLY: Well, you'll get that, professor. That's just a formality. There -- nobody on Capitol Hill right now, they're not going to -- there's no profile of courages up there anyway, usually. They're going to give President Bush what he wants. If he wants a War Powers Act, they're going to give it to him. He wants a declaration, they're going to give it to him. BOYLE: Actually, they're arguing about it right now... O'REILLY: They're going to give it to him. But I'm not interested in that, because it's going to happen. It's going to happen. BOYLE: The reports -- no, the reports I read was that this President Bush initially asked for a blank check, and Congress balked because they had been suckered once before... O'REILLY: All right, I'm not -- speculation is not what I'm in -- all right, professor. I don't want to speculate. I'm just going to say in my opinion he's going to have the authority to go in and get Osama bin Laden and his pals, wherever they are. He will get that authority, whether it takes a day or a week, he'll get it. And once he gets it, now, that's what I want to talk about here. Once he gets it, are you and others like you going to say, oh, no, we shouldn't do this, even though we have proof of the man's -- masterminded the bombings in Africa and the Cole,testimony in Yemen, are you going to still say, even after the authority is granted by Congress, which it will be, no, don't do it, let Afghanistan handle him? Are you going to still do that, professor? BOYLE: Second, like his father, his father also got authorization from the United States, the United Nations Security Council under chapter seven of the United Nations charter... O'REILLY: Oh, you want to go to U.N. now? You want the U.N. involved now. BOYLE: Is exactly what his father did... O'REILLY: So what? BOYLE: And that's exactly right. O'REILLY: His father made a huge mistake by not taking out Sadam Hussein when he could of. BOYLE: His father adhered to the required procedures under the United States constitution and the United Nations charter that is a treaty and the supreme law of our land. I expect the current President Bush to do exactly what his father did before he starts engaging in a massive military campaign in Iraq or against other countries... O'REILLY: All right, I don't know whether he's going to go -- I know he's not going to let the U.N. dictate. He might go for a consensus. He's already got it with Putin and all of our NATO allies, he's already go that. Whether he goes -- I think it would be a mistake to let -- empowering the U.N. in this situation. BOYLE: Then why did his father do this? O'REILLY: I'm going -- we're going to wrap this up with this. I'm going to give my last summation and then you can give yours, I'll give you the last word on it. This is a fugitive we're dealing with here. He has now been tied in by U.S. intelligence agencies, according to Attorney General Ashcroft and the secretary of state, tied into this horrendous bombing here in New York. The United States must make a response to this, and I am agreeing with you in a sense, it can't be a knee-jerk. It's got to be done in a methodical way. Congress will go along, they may debate it or whatever, but they will go along in either a War Powers, special War Powers Act or a declaration of war against forces hostile to the United States. Then they will go in and they will take him. This man you're looking at on the TV screen is a dead man. He should be a dead man. You don't do what he did and be allowed to walk around this earth. Now, I'm distressed, professor, by your reliance, reliance on the strict letter of propriety, when we've got 10,000 people laying in the street about 22 miles from me right now. I want deliberation. I want methodical discipline, but I also want action. We know who this guy is. We know the governments that are protecting him. We know the other rouge states that have terrorist camps there. They all have to be dealt with, in my opinion. I'll give you the last word. BOYLE: Sure, I agree with you, Bill. He is a fugitive from justice and this should be handled as a matter as other fugitives from justice of international law enforcement. If indeed there is evidence that a foreign state orchestrated and ordered an attack against the United States then clearly that is an act of war that should be dealt with as such... O'REILLY: What about harbouring? BOYLE: Right now... O'REILLY: Is harbouring an act of war? BOYLE: In my opinion, no. And under the current circumstances, I don't see it. O'REILLY: All right, professor. BOYLE: I think there is a distinction here. O'REILLY: OK, all right, wrap it up, if you would. BOYLE: I agree -- I agree that the -- if we go to war in a hasty manner here, we could see thousands of U.S. military personnel being killed without proper authorization by Congress or by the United Nations Security Council. O'REILLY: OK. BOYLE: Our founding fathers decided that the most awesome decision we would ever make would be to go to war, and we have to be very careful in making that decision. O'REILLY: All right, professor, I appreciate it very much. Thank you for your point of view. BOYLE: Thank you, Bill. ________________________________ View post online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/st/?post=40110&anc=p40110#p40110 View mailing list online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/si/?topic=355 Start new thread via email: mailto:SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list: https://connect.aals.org/o/fo/?topic=355 Manage your subscription: https://connect.aals.org/p/us/to/ This email has been sent to: fboyle at illinois.edu This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 ________________________________ From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Apr 20 14:56:45 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:56:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” —Beckett, 'Worstward Ho’ > On Apr 20, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > September 13, 2001 > > Yeah > 48 hours > After THAT day > Fox calls > Those Scumbags > Asking me to debate O'Reilly > That scumbag > On War versus Peace > Him for war and me for peace > That night live > > Deliberately walking into a buzz-saw > But the lot had fallen to me > To argue the case to My American People > For Peace instead of War > Of course I said yes > > Won the debate > But when I could not defend myself on air > O'Reilly, Newtie Gingrich and Reagan's Kirkpatrick > Accused me of being an Al Qaeda Supporter > Those scumbags! > > Threats, complaints, protests all night > Next day my Law Dean > That Scumbag! > Put out a Statement > Publicly disavowing and repudiating me > To everyone possible > Then put it on the law school web-site > For all to see > Proving to all > That the Law of the Jungle Means More > Than the Rule of Law and the Constitution > At this so-called College of Law > > Then draped himself in the American Flag > Patriotism -- the last refuge of that scoundrel > And of all scoundrels everywhere > > So it has been now for 15 years > Me arguing for Peace > Against all those scumbags and scoundrels > Mongering for Wars, Torture, and Drones > All over the world > Even here at home > Their American Nazi Homeland > My Wild Irish Ass! > > O'Reilly, Hannity, Kelly & VanSusteren, Esq. > Those Fox scumbags! > A disgrace to my Irish Race > > Blacks have their Uncle Toms > We Irish have our Uncle Paddies and Aunt Patties > Rupert Murdoch's House Micks and War Whores > His Kept Irish Men and Women > > Pretty clever of Rupie > That Neo-Con Arch-Zionist > To have Irish doing his dirty work for him > In front of the American people > Night after night > > Polluting and poisoning America's airwaves > With bigotry, racism, warmongering, totalitarianism > Murdoch's Irish Scumbags > On Rupie’s Fox Scumbag Network > > Julius Streicher in the Nuremberg Dock > Would be proud of them all at Murdoch's Fox > Seventy years after World War Two > The Nazis have won >   > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:44 AM > To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: FW: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:39 AM > To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org > Subject: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! > > Does anyone know if Fox's Susan Estrich is representing Bill along with Their Big Buddy Roger Ailes? Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:support at lists.aals.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 9:26 AM > To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org > Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! > > I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. > > > > After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:12 PM > To: Killeacle > Subject: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle > > BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The number of US military deaths in the Afghan theater officially passed 2,000 by June 21 and are now at least 2,106, but you didn't know this if you rely on the MSM. They ignore the official Pentagon numbers in favor of the AP--which excludes troops who died (or received wounds or injuries from which they died after evacuation) in the official "Enduring Freedom" operation but outside Afghanistan. The Pentagon web site lists those countries. > > US military occupation forces in Afghanistan under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 139 casualties in the week ending Sept. 6, as the official casualty total for the Iraq and AfPak wars* rose to 115,289. > > The total includes 79,468 casualties since the US invaded Iraq in March, 2003 (Operations "Iraqi Freedom" and "New Dawn"), and 35,821 since the US invaded Afghanistan in November, 2001 (Operation "Enduring Freedom") > > AFGHANISTAN THEATER: US forces suffered 139 combat casualties in the week ending September 6, raising the total to 35,821 This includes 19,184 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 16,637(-6) dead or medically evacuated (as of May 7!) from what it calls "non-hostile" causes. > > > LENGTH: 3653 words > > HEADLINE: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle > > BYLINE: Francis A Boyle > > BODY: > > > by Francis Boyle > > On the morning of 13 September 2001, that is 48 hours after the terrible tragedies in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, I received telephone call from a producer at Fox Television Network News in New York City. > He asked me to go onto The O'Reilly Factor TV program live that evening in order to debate Bill O'Reilly on the question of war versus peace. O'Reilly would argue for the United States going to war in reaction to the terrorist attacks on > 11 September, and I would argue for a peaceful resolution of this matter. > > > Up until then I had deliberately declined numerous requests for interviews about the terrible events of September 11 and what should be done about them because it was not clear to me precisely what was going on. But unfortunately The O'Reilly Factor had the Number One ranking in TV viewership for any news media talk program in America. I felt very strongly as a matter of principle that at least one person from the American Peace Movement had to go onto that program and argue the case directly to the American people that the United States of America must not go to war despite the terrible tragedy that had been inflicted upon us all. > > > > I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. > > > > After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. > > > > When I returned to my office the next day, so many complaints had been filed and accumulated with numerous university officials that the then Dean of my law school issued a public statement repudiating me and then placing it on the law school's web-site. Obviously the then Dean of my law school believed that a Law Professor should advocate the Law of the Jungle instead of the Rule of Law. He is now "deaning" elsewhere, just like a previous Dean who had tried to get rid of me because of my fervid belief in the Rule of Law and public activities in support thereof. > > > > On the positive side, however, my besting of O'Reilly in the debate led to my being inundated by requests for interviews from mainstream and progressive news media sources all over the world. This plethora of interviews have continued apace until today during the course of all the terrible events that have transpired in the world since September 11: the war against Afghanistan; the global war on terrorism; massive assaults on international law, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and the United States Constitution; the war against Iraq; Guantanamo; kangaroo courts; the Bush Jr. torture scandal, etc. > > > > I have done the best I can to oppose this Bush Jr. juggernaut of nihilism--now continued and expanded by Obama. > Ultimately it will be up to the American people to decide the future direction of the United States of America and thus indirectly, because of America's preponderant power, unfairly for the rest of the world. > > > > The present danger still remains Machiavellian power politics. The only known antidote is international law, international organizations, human rights, and the United States Constitution. In our thermonuclear age, humankind's existential choice is that stark, ominous, and compelling. As Americans, we must not hesitate to apply this imperative regimen immediately before it becomes too late for the continuation of our human species itself. > > > > The Rush to War > > > > SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR (20:29) September 13, 2001 Thursday Transcript # > 091303cb.256 > > SECTION: News; Domestic > > LENGTH: 3973 words > > HEADLINE: America Unites: How Should the U.S. Bring Terrorists to Justice? > > > > GUESTS: Sam Huessini, Francis Boyle > > > > BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly > > > > > > O'REILLY: While most Americans are united in their support of President Bush and the desire to bring Osama bin Laden and other terrorists to justice, there are some differing voices. > > > > Joining us now from Washington is Sam Husseini, the former spokesman for the Arab Anti -- American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and from Urbana, Illinois, is Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[...] > > > > O'REILLY: Cut his mike. All right, now, Mr. Boyle, Professor Boyle, let's have a little bit more of a rational discussion here. That was absurd. > > > > The United States now has to take action against certain segments in this world who we know have been harbouring people like Osama bin Laden. That's going to happen. How will you react to that? > > > > FRANCIS BOYLE, LAW PROFESSOR: Well, first I think you have to look at the law involved. Clearly what we have here, under United States domestic law and statutes, is an act of international terrorism that should be treated as such. > It is not yet elevated to an act of war. For an act of war, we need proof that a foreign state actually ordered or launched an attack upon the United States of America. So far, we do not yet have that evidence. We could... > > > > O'REILLY: All right, now why are you, why are you, why are you taking this position when you know forces have attacked the United States. Now, maybe they don't have a country, but they are forces. They have attacked the United States, all right? Without warning, without provocation. Civilian targets. They've done everything that an act of war does. > > > > So, I'm saying that because we live in a different world now, where borders don't really matter, where terrorism is the weapon of choice, that you would declare war -- if I were President Bush, I would declare war on any hostile forces, notice those words, professor, hostile forces to the United States. I would have a blanket declaration of war so I could go in and kill those people. > Would I be wrong? > > > > BOYLE: Well, Bill, so far you'll note Congress has been unwilling to declare war. And indeed, this matter is being debated right now. Right now, it appears that what they are seeking is not a full declaration of war, but only what we law professors call an imperfect declaration, which means a limited use of military force under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. > > > > Precisely for the problem that we don't know if any state was involved and we still do not know who was responsible for this undoubted terrorist attack upon the United States of America. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, but we have the secretary of state saying that Osama bin Laden now has been linked into and, you know, we don't have all the intelligence information, as President Bush said today. He's not going to give us, and he shouldn't, the people of America all the information that they have. But when the secretary of state gets up and says, look, we know this guy was involved to some extent, I believe him. > > > > And he's a wanted man, professor. He's been wanted for eight years. The Clinton administration didn't have the heart to get him and in the first few months the Bush administration didn't either. We now know, and you just heard the FBI agent say that Afghanistan has been involved for years harbouring and training these kinds of people. Certainly, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, those five countries, certainly have been hostile to the United States and given safe harbour to these terrorists. That's a fact. > > > > BOYLE: Well, let me point out, the secretary of state was very careful in the words he used. He said Osama bin Laden was a suspect. He did not accuse him. > And, again, under these circumstances... > > > > O'REILLY: No, he didn't use the word suspect. He used another word. > > > > BOYLE: The account I read in, just off the wire service, said suspect. But let me continue my point. Under these circumstances, where we have 5,000 Americans dead and we could have many more Americans killed in a conflict, we have to be very careful, Congress and the American people and the president, in not to over-escalate the rhetoric, here. > > > > We have to look at this very rationally. This is a democracy. We have a right to see what the evidence is and proceed in a very slow and deliberate manner. > > > > O'REILLY: No, we don't. We do not, as a republic, we don't have the right to see what the evidence is if the evidence is of a national security situation, as you know. > > > > Now, I'm trusting my government to do the right thing, here. I am trusting. But I think it's beyond a doubt right now, beyond a reasonable doubt, which is, as you know, a court of law standard, that there are at least five, North Korea you could put in to, six states in the world that have harboured continually these terrorists. > > > > Now, we know that this was a well-coordinated effort. Our initial intelligence shows that some of the people that have been arrested have ties to Osama bin Laden. We know, as you just heard the FBI agent say, that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was tied in to a guy who knew bin Laden. So, bin Laden -- I agree with you, that you don't want to be a hothead. You don't want to overreact. You don't want to lob a missile at the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, which was terrible, and that was the one good point, or fair point, that Mr. Husseini made, you don't want to do that. > > > > But, on the other hand, professor, I think Americans are rightful, are right, to demand action against states that we know in the past have harboured these individuals and there's a warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest. So, if he is in Afghanistan, I would give that government a couple of days to hand him over, and if they did not, I'd go in. > > > > BOYLE: Well, again. The American people are right. We need to see the evidence. > I remember people saying a generation ago, during the Vietnam war, I trusted my government. And I think people of my generation found out that that was wrong. > We needed more evidence. > > > > O'REILLY: All right. Professor, let me stop you there, though. This is another point that Mr. Husseini tried to make. Just because the United States of America has made mistakes in the past, does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves now. > > > > This is a unique situation in history. We have now been attacked by forces without borders, OK? We've been attacked. And it hasn't been a military attack, it's been an attack on civilians. The reason, the sole reason a federal government exists is to protect the people of the United States. > > > > And as I said in my "Talking Points" memo, they haven't really done the job, for political reasons. > > > > But now's the time to correct those things. So, there's going to be a reckoning, Professor. You know it's going to happen. I know it's going to happen. And it's going to come down on Osama bin Laden first and maybe some of these rouge states later. Will you support that action? > > > > BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. > > > > My recommendation to Congress is to slow down, let's see what develops and let's see what this evidence is before we knowingly go out and not only kill large numbers of people, perhaps in Afghanistan and other countries, but undoubtedly in our own armed forces. > > > > 58,000 men of my generation will killed in Vietnam because of irresponsible behavior by the Johnson administration rushing that Tonkin Gulf resolution through Congress, exactly what we're seeing now. And we need to pull back and stop and think and ask the hard questions and demand to see the evidence first, before we march off to war. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, so it's not enough that people arrested in the bombings of the embassies in Africa testified in court that Osama bin Laden was behind and financed and coordinated those bombings. That evidence is not enough for you? > > > > BOYLE: Well, Africa is a very is a very different story than what happened in the World Trade Center. > > > > O'REILLY: No, it's not. He's wanted, he's wanted in the United States for the bombings of those two embassies. Is that evidence enough for you, professor, for the United States to go in and get this man? Is it enough? > > > > BOYLE: That, that matter was treated and handled as an act of international terrorism in accordance with the normal laws and procedures of the United States of America as a question of domestic and international law enforcement. And I am suggesting that is the way we need to proceed here... > > > > O'REILLY: Well, wait. You're dodging the question professor. > > > > BOYLE: ... unless we have evidence that... > > > > O'REILLY: Wait, professor. Professor. This is a no spin zone. Hold it. Hold it. > Even out in Urbana Champagne, the no spin zone rules. You're dodging the question. There is an absolutely rock solid arrest warrant out for this man. > Evidence in court, testimony by people who did the bombings that this man was behind it. Is that enough evidence for you to have the United States go in and get him now? Is it enough? > > > > BOYLE: The United States has been attempting to secure his extradition from Afghanistan. I support... > > > > O'REILLY: Yeah, that's long enough. > > > > BOYLE: I support that approach as international... > > > > O'REILLY: Come on already, I mean, eight years, we've been attempting to extradite this guy. Now's the time to tell the Afghans you've got 48 hours or 72 hours to turn him over. You don't turn him over, we're coming in and getting him. You try to stop us, and you're toast. Enough is enough, professor. > > > > BOYLE: That's vigilantism. It is not what the United States of America is supposed to stand for. We are supposed to stand... > > > > O'REILLY: No, what that is is protecting the country from terrorists who kill civilians. > > > > BOYLE: ... for rule of law. > > > > O'REILLY: It's not vigilantism. > > > > BOYLE: We are supposed to stand for rule of law, and that is clearly vigilantism. There is a Security Council, there is Congress, there are procedures and there are laws, and they are there to protect all of us here in the United States as well as... > > > > O'REILLY: So, you're telling me... > > > > BOYLE: ... as well as our servicemen and women. Look, Bill, if we allegedly, as you put it, go in, you are not going in, I am not going in. It's going to be young men and women serving in our armed forces... > > > > O'REILLY: And that's their job. To protect us. But, professor, let me, you know, what you're saying is, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. > > > > B0YLE: ... with the constitution and the laws of the United States. > > > > O'REILLY: We're not violating any laws here, professor. No one is going to violate the law. There is going to be a state of war induced against states, states, terroristic states, who have attacked us. And what you're saying is, though, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that even though there is a legitimate warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest, and even though most civilized nations would honor that warrant and turn him over to us, extradite him to us, the vast majority of nations on earth would do that, you still are opposed for the United States to demand that the Taliban government arrest this man and turn him over? You are opposed to that? > > > > BOYLE: During the Gulf War, President Bush father, who has far more experience that the current president Bush, got a Security Council resolution authorizing the United States of America to use force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Second, President Bush father got a War Powers Authorization Resolution from Congress that gave him the constitutional authority to use military force to enforce that Security Council resolution. > > > > What I'm calling for here is the same adherence to international law and the United States constitution that the first President Bush adhered to in dealing with Iraq. > > > > O'REILLY: Well, you'll get that, professor. That's just a formality. There -- nobody on Capitol Hill right now, they're not going to -- there's no profile of courages up there anyway, usually. They're going to give President Bush what he wants. If he wants a War Powers Act, they're going to give it to him. He wants a declaration, they're going to give it to him. > > > > BOYLE: Actually, they're arguing about it right now... > > > > O'REILLY: They're going to give it to him. But I'm not interested in that, because it's going to happen. It's going to happen. > > > > BOYLE: The reports -- no, the reports I read was that this President Bush initially asked for a blank check, and Congress balked because they had been suckered once before... > > > > O'REILLY: All right, I'm not -- speculation is not what I'm in -- all right, professor. I don't want to speculate. I'm just going to say in my opinion he's going to have the authority to go in and get Osama bin Laden and his pals, wherever they are. He will get that authority, whether it takes a day or a week, he'll get it. And once he gets it, now, that's what I want to talk about here. > Once he gets it, are you and others like you going to say, oh, no, we shouldn't do this, even though we have proof of the man's -- masterminded the bombings in Africa and the Cole,testimony in Yemen, are you going to still say, even after the authority is granted by Congress, which it will be, no, don't do it, let Afghanistan handle him? > > > > Are you going to still do that, professor? > > > > BOYLE: Second, like his father, his father also got authorization from the United States, the United Nations Security Council under chapter seven of the United Nations charter... > > > > O'REILLY: Oh, you want to go to U.N. now? You want the U.N. involved now. > > > > BOYLE: Is exactly what his father did... > > > > O'REILLY: So what? > > > > BOYLE: And that's exactly right. > > > > O'REILLY: His father made a huge mistake by not taking out Sadam Hussein when he could of. > > > > BOYLE: His father adhered to the required procedures under the United States constitution and the United Nations charter that is a treaty and the supreme law of our land. I expect the current President Bush to do exactly what his father did before he starts engaging in a massive military campaign in Iraq or against other countries... > > > > O'REILLY: All right, I don't know whether he's going to go -- I know he's not going to let the U.N. dictate. He might go for a consensus. He's already got it with Putin and all of our NATO allies, he's already go that. Whether he goes -- I think it would be a mistake to let -- empowering the U.N. in this situation. > > > > BOYLE: Then why did his father do this? > > > > O'REILLY: I'm going -- we're going to wrap this up with this. I'm going to give my last summation and then you can give yours, I'll give you the last word on it. > > > > This is a fugitive we're dealing with here. He has now been tied in by U.S. > intelligence agencies, according to Attorney General Ashcroft and the secretary of state, tied into this horrendous bombing here in New York. The United States must make a response to this, and I am agreeing with you in a sense, it can't be a knee-jerk. It's got to be done in a methodical way. > > > > Congress will go along, they may debate it or whatever, but they will go along in either a War Powers, special War Powers Act or a declaration of war against forces hostile to the United States. Then they will go in and they will take him. This man you're looking at on the TV screen is a dead man. He should be a dead man. You don't do what he did and be allowed to walk around this earth. > > > > Now, I'm distressed, professor, by your reliance, reliance on the strict letter of propriety, when we've got 10,000 people laying in the street about 22 miles from me right now. I want deliberation. I want methodical discipline, but I also want action. We know who this guy is. We know the governments that are protecting him. We know the other rouge states that have terrorist camps there. > They all have to be dealt with, in my opinion. I'll give you the last word. > > > > BOYLE: Sure, I agree with you, Bill. He is a fugitive from justice and this should be handled as a matter as other fugitives from justice of international law enforcement. If indeed there is evidence that a foreign state orchestrated and ordered an attack against the United States then clearly that is an act of war that should be dealt with as such... > > > > O'REILLY: What about harbouring? > > > > BOYLE: Right now... > > > > O'REILLY: Is harbouring an act of war? > > > > BOYLE: In my opinion, no. And under the current circumstances, I don't see it. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, professor. > > > > BOYLE: I think there is a distinction here. > > > > O'REILLY: OK, all right, wrap it up, if you would. > > > > BOYLE: I agree -- I agree that the -- if we go to war in a hasty manner here, we could see thousands of U.S. military personnel being killed without proper authorization by Congress or by the United Nations Security Council. > > > > O'REILLY: OK. > > > > BOYLE: Our founding fathers decided that the most awesome decision we would ever make would be to go to war, and we have to be very careful in making that decision. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, professor, I appreciate it very much. Thank you for your point of view. > > > > BOYLE: Thank you, Bill. > > > > ________________________________ > View post online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/st/?post=40110&anc=p40110#p40110 > View mailing list online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/si/?topic=355 > Start new thread via email: mailto:SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org > Unsubscribe from this mailing list: https://connect.aals.org/o/fo/?topic=355 > Manage your subscription: https://connect.aals.org/p/us/to/ > > This email has been sent to: fboyle at illinois.edu > > > This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. > Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: > https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 > ________________________________ > From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Apr 20 15:03:05 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:03:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So it has been now for 15 1/2+ years Me arguing for Peace Against all those scumbags and scoundrels Mongering for Wars, Torture, and Drones All over the world Even here at home Their American Nazi Homeland My Wild Irish Ass! 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: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 9:57 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram Subject: Re: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! "All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” —Beckett, 'Worstward Ho’ > On Apr 20, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > September 13, 2001 > > Yeah > 48 hours > After THAT day > Fox calls > Those Scumbags > Asking me to debate O'Reilly > That scumbag > On War versus Peace > Him for war and me for peace > That night live > > Deliberately walking into a buzz-saw > But the lot had fallen to me > To argue the case to My American People For Peace instead of War Of > course I said yes > > Won the debate > But when I could not defend myself on air O'Reilly, Newtie Gingrich > and Reagan's Kirkpatrick Accused me of being an Al Qaeda Supporter > Those scumbags! > > Threats, complaints, protests all night Next day my Law Dean That > Scumbag! > Put out a Statement > Publicly disavowing and repudiating me To everyone possible Then put > it on the law school web-site For all to see Proving to all That the > Law of the Jungle Means More Than the Rule of Law and the Constitution > At this so-called College of Law > > Then draped himself in the American Flag Patriotism -- the last refuge > of that scoundrel And of all scoundrels everywhere > > So it has been now for 15 years > Me arguing for Peace > Against all those scumbags and scoundrels Mongering for Wars, Torture, > and Drones All over the world Even here at home Their American Nazi > Homeland My Wild Irish Ass! > > O'Reilly, Hannity, Kelly & VanSusteren, Esq. > Those Fox scumbags! > A disgrace to my Irish Race > > Blacks have their Uncle Toms > We Irish have our Uncle Paddies and Aunt Patties Rupert Murdoch's > House Micks and War Whores His Kept Irish Men and Women > > Pretty clever of Rupie > That Neo-Con Arch-Zionist > To have Irish doing his dirty work for him In front of the American > people Night after night > > Polluting and poisoning America's airwaves With bigotry, racism, > warmongering, totalitarianism Murdoch's Irish Scumbags On Rupie’s Fox > Scumbag Network > > Julius Streicher in the Nuremberg Dock Would be proud of them all at > Murdoch's Fox Seventy years after World War Two The Nazis have won >   > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:44 AM > To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; Jay Becker ; > a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe > Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave > Trippel ; Arlene Hickory > ; David Swanson ; > peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne > ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram > ; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: FW: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:39 AM > To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org > Subject: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! > > Does anyone know if Fox's Susan Estrich is representing Bill along with Their Big Buddy Roger Ailes? Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:support at lists.aals.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 9:26 AM > To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org > Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! > > I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. > > > > After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:12 PM > To: Killeacle > Subject: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle > > BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > The number of US military deaths in the Afghan theater officially passed 2,000 by June 21 and are now at least 2,106, but you didn't know this if you rely on the MSM. They ignore the official Pentagon numbers in favor of the AP--which excludes troops who died (or received wounds or injuries from which they died after evacuation) in the official "Enduring Freedom" operation but outside Afghanistan. The Pentagon web site lists those countries. > > US military occupation forces in Afghanistan under Commander-in-Chief Obama suffered 139 casualties in the week ending Sept. 6, as the official casualty total for the Iraq and AfPak wars* rose to 115,289. > > The total includes 79,468 casualties since the US invaded Iraq in > March, 2003 (Operations "Iraqi Freedom" and "New Dawn"), and 35,821 > since the US invaded Afghanistan in November, 2001 (Operation > "Enduring Freedom") > > AFGHANISTAN THEATER: US forces suffered 139 combat casualties in the week ending September 6, raising the total to 35,821 This includes 19,184 dead and wounded from what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 16,637(-6) dead or medically evacuated (as of May 7!) from what it calls "non-hostile" causes. > > > LENGTH: 3653 words > > HEADLINE: O'Reilly and the Law of the Jungle > > BYLINE: Francis A Boyle > > BODY: > > > by Francis Boyle > > On the morning of 13 September 2001, that is 48 hours after the terrible tragedies in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, I received telephone call from a producer at Fox Television Network News in New York City. > He asked me to go onto The O'Reilly Factor TV program live that > evening in order to debate Bill O'Reilly on the question of war versus > peace. O'Reilly would argue for the United States going to war in > reaction to the terrorist attacks on > 11 September, and I would argue for a peaceful resolution of this matter. > > > Up until then I had deliberately declined numerous requests for interviews about the terrible events of September 11 and what should be done about them because it was not clear to me precisely what was going on. But unfortunately The O'Reilly Factor had the Number One ranking in TV viewership for any news media talk program in America. I felt very strongly as a matter of principle that at least one person from the American Peace Movement had to go onto that program and argue the case directly to the American people that the United States of America must not go to war despite the terrible tragedy that had been inflicted upon us all. > > > > I had debated O'Reilly before so I was fully aware of the type of abuse to expect from him. So for the next few hours I negotiated with O'Reilly through his producer as to the terms and conditions of my appearance and our debate, which they agreed to. At the time I did not realize that O'Reilly was setting me up to be fired as he would next successfully do to Professor Sami Al-Arian soon after debating me. > > > > After our debate had concluded, I returned from the campus television studio to my office in order to shut the computer down, and then go home for what little remained of the evening. When I arrived in my office, I found that my voice mail message system had been flooded with mean, nasty, vicious complaints and threats. The same was true for my e-mail in-box. I deleted all these messages as best I could, and then finally went home to watch the rest of O'Reilly's 9/11 coverage that evening on Fox with my wife. By then he was replaying selected segments of our debate and asking for hostile commentaries from Newt Gingrich and Jeane Kirkpatrick. We turned off the TV in disgust when O'Reilly publicly accused me of being an Al Qaeda supporter. My understanding was that Fox then continued to rebroadcast a tape of this outright character assassination upon me for the rest of the night. > > > > When I returned to my office the next day, so many complaints had been filed and accumulated with numerous university officials that the then Dean of my law school issued a public statement repudiating me and then placing it on the law school's web-site. Obviously the then Dean of my law school believed that a Law Professor should advocate the Law of the Jungle instead of the Rule of Law. He is now "deaning" elsewhere, just like a previous Dean who had tried to get rid of me because of my fervid belief in the Rule of Law and public activities in support thereof. > > > > On the positive side, however, my besting of O'Reilly in the debate led to my being inundated by requests for interviews from mainstream and progressive news media sources all over the world. This plethora of interviews have continued apace until today during the course of all the terrible events that have transpired in the world since September 11: the war against Afghanistan; the global war on terrorism; massive assaults on international law, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and the United States Constitution; the war against Iraq; Guantanamo; kangaroo courts; the Bush Jr. torture scandal, etc. > > > > I have done the best I can to oppose this Bush Jr. juggernaut of nihilism--now continued and expanded by Obama. > Ultimately it will be up to the American people to decide the future direction of the United States of America and thus indirectly, because of America's preponderant power, unfairly for the rest of the world. > > > > The present danger still remains Machiavellian power politics. The only known antidote is international law, international organizations, human rights, and the United States Constitution. In our thermonuclear age, humankind's existential choice is that stark, ominous, and compelling. As Americans, we must not hesitate to apply this imperative regimen immediately before it becomes too late for the continuation of our human species itself. > > > > The Rush to War > > > > SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR (20:29) September 13, 2001 Thursday > Transcript # > 091303cb.256 > > SECTION: News; Domestic > > LENGTH: 3973 words > > HEADLINE: America Unites: How Should the U.S. Bring Terrorists to Justice? > > > > GUESTS: Sam Huessini, Francis Boyle > > > > BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly > > > > > > O'REILLY: While most Americans are united in their support of President Bush and the desire to bring Osama bin Laden and other terrorists to justice, there are some differing voices. > > > > Joining us now from Washington is Sam Husseini, the former spokesman > for the Arab Anti -- American Anti-Discrimination Committee, and from > Urbana, Illinois, is Francis Boyle, an international law professor at > the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.[...] > > > > O'REILLY: Cut his mike. All right, now, Mr. Boyle, Professor Boyle, let's have a little bit more of a rational discussion here. That was absurd. > > > > The United States now has to take action against certain segments in this world who we know have been harbouring people like Osama bin Laden. That's going to happen. How will you react to that? > > > > FRANCIS BOYLE, LAW PROFESSOR: Well, first I think you have to look at the law involved. Clearly what we have here, under United States domestic law and statutes, is an act of international terrorism that should be treated as such. > It is not yet elevated to an act of war. For an act of war, we need proof that a foreign state actually ordered or launched an attack upon the United States of America. So far, we do not yet have that evidence. We could... > > > > O'REILLY: All right, now why are you, why are you, why are you taking this position when you know forces have attacked the United States. Now, maybe they don't have a country, but they are forces. They have attacked the United States, all right? Without warning, without provocation. Civilian targets. They've done everything that an act of war does. > > > > So, I'm saying that because we live in a different world now, where borders don't really matter, where terrorism is the weapon of choice, that you would declare war -- if I were President Bush, I would declare war on any hostile forces, notice those words, professor, hostile forces to the United States. I would have a blanket declaration of war so I could go in and kill those people. > Would I be wrong? > > > > BOYLE: Well, Bill, so far you'll note Congress has been unwilling to declare war. And indeed, this matter is being debated right now. Right now, it appears that what they are seeking is not a full declaration of war, but only what we law professors call an imperfect declaration, which means a limited use of military force under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. > > > > Precisely for the problem that we don't know if any state was involved and we still do not know who was responsible for this undoubted terrorist attack upon the United States of America. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, but we have the secretary of state saying that Osama bin Laden now has been linked into and, you know, we don't have all the intelligence information, as President Bush said today. He's not going to give us, and he shouldn't, the people of America all the information that they have. But when the secretary of state gets up and says, look, we know this guy was involved to some extent, I believe him. > > > > And he's a wanted man, professor. He's been wanted for eight years. The Clinton administration didn't have the heart to get him and in the first few months the Bush administration didn't either. We now know, and you just heard the FBI agent say that Afghanistan has been involved for years harbouring and training these kinds of people. Certainly, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, those five countries, certainly have been hostile to the United States and given safe harbour to these terrorists. That's a fact. > > > > BOYLE: Well, let me point out, the secretary of state was very careful in the words he used. He said Osama bin Laden was a suspect. He did not accuse him. > And, again, under these circumstances... > > > > O'REILLY: No, he didn't use the word suspect. He used another word. > > > > BOYLE: The account I read in, just off the wire service, said suspect. But let me continue my point. Under these circumstances, where we have 5,000 Americans dead and we could have many more Americans killed in a conflict, we have to be very careful, Congress and the American people and the president, in not to over-escalate the rhetoric, here. > > > > We have to look at this very rationally. This is a democracy. We have a right to see what the evidence is and proceed in a very slow and deliberate manner. > > > > O'REILLY: No, we don't. We do not, as a republic, we don't have the right to see what the evidence is if the evidence is of a national security situation, as you know. > > > > Now, I'm trusting my government to do the right thing, here. I am trusting. But I think it's beyond a doubt right now, beyond a reasonable doubt, which is, as you know, a court of law standard, that there are at least five, North Korea you could put in to, six states in the world that have harboured continually these terrorists. > > > > Now, we know that this was a well-coordinated effort. Our initial intelligence shows that some of the people that have been arrested have ties to Osama bin Laden. We know, as you just heard the FBI agent say, that the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was tied in to a guy who knew bin Laden. So, bin Laden -- I agree with you, that you don't want to be a hothead. You don't want to overreact. You don't want to lob a missile at the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, which was terrible, and that was the one good point, or fair point, that Mr. Husseini made, you don't want to do that. > > > > But, on the other hand, professor, I think Americans are rightful, are right, to demand action against states that we know in the past have harboured these individuals and there's a warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest. So, if he is in Afghanistan, I would give that government a couple of days to hand him over, and if they did not, I'd go in. > > > > BOYLE: Well, again. The American people are right. We need to see the evidence. > I remember people saying a generation ago, during the Vietnam war, I trusted my government. And I think people of my generation found out that that was wrong. > We needed more evidence. > > > > O'REILLY: All right. Professor, let me stop you there, though. This is another point that Mr. Husseini tried to make. Just because the United States of America has made mistakes in the past, does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves now. > > > > This is a unique situation in history. We have now been attacked by forces without borders, OK? We've been attacked. And it hasn't been a military attack, it's been an attack on civilians. The reason, the sole reason a federal government exists is to protect the people of the United States. > > > > And as I said in my "Talking Points" memo, they haven't really done the job, for political reasons. > > > > But now's the time to correct those things. So, there's going to be a reckoning, Professor. You know it's going to happen. I know it's going to happen. And it's going to come down on Osama bin Laden first and maybe some of these rouge states later. Will you support that action? > > > > BOYLE: Before I support a war that will jeopardize the lives of tens of thousands of our servicemen and women, I want to see the evidence that we are relying on to justify this. So far, I do not see it. I see allegations. I see innuendo. I see winks and I see nods, but I do not see the evidence that you need under international law and the United States constitution so far to go to war. Maybe that evidence will be there, but it is not there now. > > > > My recommendation to Congress is to slow down, let's see what develops and let's see what this evidence is before we knowingly go out and not only kill large numbers of people, perhaps in Afghanistan and other countries, but undoubtedly in our own armed forces. > > > > 58,000 men of my generation will killed in Vietnam because of irresponsible behavior by the Johnson administration rushing that Tonkin Gulf resolution through Congress, exactly what we're seeing now. And we need to pull back and stop and think and ask the hard questions and demand to see the evidence first, before we march off to war. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, so it's not enough that people arrested in the bombings of the embassies in Africa testified in court that Osama bin Laden was behind and financed and coordinated those bombings. That evidence is not enough for you? > > > > BOYLE: Well, Africa is a very is a very different story than what happened in the World Trade Center. > > > > O'REILLY: No, it's not. He's wanted, he's wanted in the United States for the bombings of those two embassies. Is that evidence enough for you, professor, for the United States to go in and get this man? Is it enough? > > > > BOYLE: That, that matter was treated and handled as an act of international terrorism in accordance with the normal laws and procedures of the United States of America as a question of domestic and international law enforcement. And I am suggesting that is the way we need to proceed here... > > > > O'REILLY: Well, wait. You're dodging the question professor. > > > > BOYLE: ... unless we have evidence that... > > > > O'REILLY: Wait, professor. Professor. This is a no spin zone. Hold it. Hold it. > Even out in Urbana Champagne, the no spin zone rules. You're dodging the question. There is an absolutely rock solid arrest warrant out for this man. > Evidence in court, testimony by people who did the bombings that this man was behind it. Is that enough evidence for you to have the United States go in and get him now? Is it enough? > > > > BOYLE: The United States has been attempting to secure his extradition from Afghanistan. I support... > > > > O'REILLY: Yeah, that's long enough. > > > > BOYLE: I support that approach as international... > > > > O'REILLY: Come on already, I mean, eight years, we've been attempting to extradite this guy. Now's the time to tell the Afghans you've got 48 hours or 72 hours to turn him over. You don't turn him over, we're coming in and getting him. You try to stop us, and you're toast. Enough is enough, professor. > > > > BOYLE: That's vigilantism. It is not what the United States of America is supposed to stand for. We are supposed to stand... > > > > O'REILLY: No, what that is is protecting the country from terrorists who kill civilians. > > > > BOYLE: ... for rule of law. > > > > O'REILLY: It's not vigilantism. > > > > BOYLE: We are supposed to stand for rule of law, and that is clearly vigilantism. There is a Security Council, there is Congress, there are procedures and there are laws, and they are there to protect all of us here in the United States as well as... > > > > O'REILLY: So, you're telling me... > > > > BOYLE: ... as well as our servicemen and women. Look, Bill, if we allegedly, as you put it, go in, you are not going in, I am not going in. It's going to be young men and women serving in our armed forces... > > > > O'REILLY: And that's their job. To protect us. But, professor, let me, you know, what you're saying is, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. > > > > B0YLE: ... with the constitution and the laws of the United States. > > > > O'REILLY: We're not violating any laws here, professor. No one is going to violate the law. There is going to be a state of war induced against states, states, terroristic states, who have attacked us. And what you're saying is, though, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that even though there is a legitimate warrant out for Osama bin Laden's arrest, and even though most civilized nations would honor that warrant and turn him over to us, extradite him to us, the vast majority of nations on earth would do that, you still are opposed for the United States to demand that the Taliban government arrest this man and turn him over? You are opposed to that? > > > > BOYLE: During the Gulf War, President Bush father, who has far more experience that the current president Bush, got a Security Council resolution authorizing the United States of America to use force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Second, President Bush father got a War Powers Authorization Resolution from Congress that gave him the constitutional authority to use military force to enforce that Security Council resolution. > > > > What I'm calling for here is the same adherence to international law and the United States constitution that the first President Bush adhered to in dealing with Iraq. > > > > O'REILLY: Well, you'll get that, professor. That's just a formality. There -- nobody on Capitol Hill right now, they're not going to -- there's no profile of courages up there anyway, usually. They're going to give President Bush what he wants. If he wants a War Powers Act, they're going to give it to him. He wants a declaration, they're going to give it to him. > > > > BOYLE: Actually, they're arguing about it right now... > > > > O'REILLY: They're going to give it to him. But I'm not interested in that, because it's going to happen. It's going to happen. > > > > BOYLE: The reports -- no, the reports I read was that this President Bush initially asked for a blank check, and Congress balked because they had been suckered once before... > > > > O'REILLY: All right, I'm not -- speculation is not what I'm in -- all right, professor. I don't want to speculate. I'm just going to say in my opinion he's going to have the authority to go in and get Osama bin Laden and his pals, wherever they are. He will get that authority, whether it takes a day or a week, he'll get it. And once he gets it, now, that's what I want to talk about here. > Once he gets it, are you and others like you going to say, oh, no, we shouldn't do this, even though we have proof of the man's -- masterminded the bombings in Africa and the Cole,testimony in Yemen, are you going to still say, even after the authority is granted by Congress, which it will be, no, don't do it, let Afghanistan handle him? > > > > Are you going to still do that, professor? > > > > BOYLE: Second, like his father, his father also got authorization from the United States, the United Nations Security Council under chapter seven of the United Nations charter... > > > > O'REILLY: Oh, you want to go to U.N. now? You want the U.N. involved now. > > > > BOYLE: Is exactly what his father did... > > > > O'REILLY: So what? > > > > BOYLE: And that's exactly right. > > > > O'REILLY: His father made a huge mistake by not taking out Sadam Hussein when he could of. > > > > BOYLE: His father adhered to the required procedures under the United States constitution and the United Nations charter that is a treaty and the supreme law of our land. I expect the current President Bush to do exactly what his father did before he starts engaging in a massive military campaign in Iraq or against other countries... > > > > O'REILLY: All right, I don't know whether he's going to go -- I know he's not going to let the U.N. dictate. He might go for a consensus. He's already got it with Putin and all of our NATO allies, he's already go that. Whether he goes -- I think it would be a mistake to let -- empowering the U.N. in this situation. > > > > BOYLE: Then why did his father do this? > > > > O'REILLY: I'm going -- we're going to wrap this up with this. I'm going to give my last summation and then you can give yours, I'll give you the last word on it. > > > > This is a fugitive we're dealing with here. He has now been tied in by U.S. > intelligence agencies, according to Attorney General Ashcroft and the secretary of state, tied into this horrendous bombing here in New York. The United States must make a response to this, and I am agreeing with you in a sense, it can't be a knee-jerk. It's got to be done in a methodical way. > > > > Congress will go along, they may debate it or whatever, but they will go along in either a War Powers, special War Powers Act or a declaration of war against forces hostile to the United States. Then they will go in and they will take him. This man you're looking at on the TV screen is a dead man. He should be a dead man. You don't do what he did and be allowed to walk around this earth. > > > > Now, I'm distressed, professor, by your reliance, reliance on the strict letter of propriety, when we've got 10,000 people laying in the street about 22 miles from me right now. I want deliberation. I want methodical discipline, but I also want action. We know who this guy is. We know the governments that are protecting him. We know the other rouge states that have terrorist camps there. > They all have to be dealt with, in my opinion. I'll give you the last word. > > > > BOYLE: Sure, I agree with you, Bill. He is a fugitive from justice and this should be handled as a matter as other fugitives from justice of international law enforcement. If indeed there is evidence that a foreign state orchestrated and ordered an attack against the United States then clearly that is an act of war that should be dealt with as such... > > > > O'REILLY: What about harbouring? > > > > BOYLE: Right now... > > > > O'REILLY: Is harbouring an act of war? > > > > BOYLE: In my opinion, no. And under the current circumstances, I don't see it. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, professor. > > > > BOYLE: I think there is a distinction here. > > > > O'REILLY: OK, all right, wrap it up, if you would. > > > > BOYLE: I agree -- I agree that the -- if we go to war in a hasty manner here, we could see thousands of U.S. military personnel being killed without proper authorization by Congress or by the United Nations Security Council. > > > > O'REILLY: OK. > > > > BOYLE: Our founding fathers decided that the most awesome decision we would ever make would be to go to war, and we have to be very careful in making that decision. > > > > O'REILLY: All right, professor, I appreciate it very much. Thank you for your point of view. > > > > BOYLE: Thank you, Bill. > > > > ________________________________ > View post online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/st/?post=40110&anc=p40110#p40110 > View mailing list online: https://connect.aals.org/p/fo/si/?topic=355 > Start new thread via email: mailto:SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org > Unsubscribe from this mailing list: https://connect.aals.org/o/fo/?topic=355 > Manage your subscription: https://connect.aals.org/p/us/to/ > > This email has been sent to: fboyle at illinois.edu > > > This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. > Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: > https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 > ________________________________ > From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Apr 20 17:51:05 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:51:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Is this justice? Bill O'Reilly's punishment References: <1312854052.129690.1492701584585.JavaMail.nobody@prd-10-60-171-83.nodes.56m.dmtio.net> Message-ID: Millions of dollars reward for sexually harassing, not one, but at least five women. Bill O'Reilly will be paid tens of millions of dollars after his career at Fox News ended this week amid a cloud of harassment allegations. "It is a staggering amount," said a source personally involved in the exit maneuverings. 21st Century Fox and O'Reilly's representatives will not acknowledge the existence of a payout. A confidentiality agreement limits what the two sides can say. However, two well-placed sources confirmed to CNNMoney that O’Reilly does have a parachute because he signed a new contract prior to his ouster. The two sources, who spoke independently of one another, said the new contract was worth about $25 million per year. An investigation by The New York Times found O’Reilly and Fox had reached settlements totaling $13 million with five women who had accused O’Reilly of sexual harassment or verbal abuse. Those allegations also led dozens of sponsors to remove their ads from “The O’Reilly Factor." ---------------------------------------------- Get complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile. Watch CNN live or On Demand from your computer or mobile device using CNNgo. ---------------------------------------------- You have opted-in to receive this e-mail from CNN.com. To unsubscribe from Breaking News e-mail alerts, go to: http://cnn.com/EMAIL/breakingnews/unsubscribe.html?l=domestic-adh-bn One CNN Center Atlanta, GA 30303 (c) & (r) 2016 Cable News Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Apr 20 17:51:05 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:51:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Is this justice? Bill O'Reilly's punishment References: <1312854052.129690.1492701584585.JavaMail.nobody@prd-10-60-171-83.nodes.56m.dmtio.net> Message-ID: Millions of dollars reward for sexually harassing, not one, but at least five women. Bill O'Reilly will be paid tens of millions of dollars after his career at Fox News ended this week amid a cloud of harassment allegations. "It is a staggering amount," said a source personally involved in the exit maneuverings. 21st Century Fox and O'Reilly's representatives will not acknowledge the existence of a payout. A confidentiality agreement limits what the two sides can say. However, two well-placed sources confirmed to CNNMoney that O’Reilly does have a parachute because he signed a new contract prior to his ouster. The two sources, who spoke independently of one another, said the new contract was worth about $25 million per year. An investigation by The New York Times found O’Reilly and Fox had reached settlements totaling $13 million with five women who had accused O’Reilly of sexual harassment or verbal abuse. Those allegations also led dozens of sponsors to remove their ads from “The O’Reilly Factor." ---------------------------------------------- Get complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile. Watch CNN live or On Demand from your computer or mobile device using CNNgo. ---------------------------------------------- You have opted-in to receive this e-mail from CNN.com. To unsubscribe from Breaking News e-mail alerts, go to: http://cnn.com/EMAIL/breakingnews/unsubscribe.html?l=domestic-adh-bn One CNN Center Atlanta, GA 30303 (c) & (r) 2016 Cable News Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidcnswanson at gmail.com Thu Apr 20 17:54:11 2017 From: davidcnswanson at gmail.com (David Swanson) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:54:11 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: did you see that Congress has now declared that the UN Charter legalizes 3 rather than the traditional 2 types of war? https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/airbase.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Apr 20 18:29:44 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:29:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have refuted the alleged doctrines of “humanitarian intervention” and its avatar “responsibility to protect” in my books Tackling America’s Toughest Questions (2009) {chapter against humanitarian intervention} as updated by Destroying Libya and World Order (2013) {chapter against R2P}. As for Dinstein, he is a hard-core Zionist Legal Whore who works for the Israeli government. I have been repeatedly up against him. Most egregiously, I represented several women who were next of kin of the 3500+ Palestinian old men, women and children victims of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, suing the Israeli General Amos Yaron who was in charge of it all. Dinstein filed a sworn Affidavit in that case stating that Yaron had diplomatic privileges and immunities as Israel’s military attaché to the United States government despite the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946) and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) to the contrary. Dinstein is a total disgrace and a Hard-Core Zionist Legal Whore! As for the argument that military action can be “illegal” but “legitimate” or “illegal” but “moral” that monstrosity was developed by the Zionist Law Professor Richard Falk. An act of aggression is a Nuremberg Crime against Peace according to the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946) and the Nuremberg Principles (1950). A Nuremberg Crime against Peace can never be “legitimate” or “moral.” Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 12:54 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram Subject: Re: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! did you see that Congress has now declared that the UN Charter legalizes 3 rather than the traditional 2 types of war? https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/airbase.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Apr 20 18:35:01 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:35:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! References: Message-ID: The Hard-Core Zionist Legal Whore Dinstein filed a sworn affidavit on behalf of General Yaron in this case. As for Falk, he sabotaged the MacBride Commission Report to make sure that it did not determine that the Sabra and Shatilla Massacre was Genocide despite the fact that the United Nations General Assembly determined that it was Genocide. 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, April 20, 2017 1:30 PM To: 'David Swanson' Cc: Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! I have refuted the alleged doctrines of “humanitarian intervention” and its avatar “responsibility to protect” in my books Tackling America’s Toughest Questions (2009) {chapter against humanitarian intervention} as updated by Destroying Libya and World Order (2013) {chapter against R2P}. As for Dinstein, he is a hard-core Zionist Legal Whore who works for the Israeli government. I have been repeatedly up against him. Most egregiously, I represented several women who were next of kin of the 3500+ Palestinian old men, women and children victims of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, suing the Israeli General Amos Yaron who was in charge of it all. Dinstein filed a sworn Affidavit in that case stating that Yaron had diplomatic privileges and immunities as Israel’s military attaché to the United States government despite the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946) and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) to the contrary. Dinstein is a total disgrace and a Hard-Core Zionist Legal Whore! As for the argument that military action can be “illegal” but “legitimate” or “illegal” but “moral” that monstrosity was developed by the Zionist Law Professor Richard Falk. An act of aggression is a Nuremberg Crime against Peace according to the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946) and the Nuremberg Principles (1950). A Nuremberg Crime against Peace can never be “legitimate” or “moral.” Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 12:54 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! did you see that Congress has now declared that the UN Charter legalizes 3 rather than the traditional 2 types of war? https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/airbase.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Apr 20 18:40:15 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:40:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! References: Message-ID: Both Dinstein and Falk played completely disreputable if not outright unethical roles when it came to avoiding accountability for the Genocidal Massacre of 3500+ completely innocent Palestinian old men, women and children at Sabra and Shatilla. Fab. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Case No. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Against Amos Yaron CHARGE The Associate Prosecutor of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission pursuant to Article 7 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission charges: Amos Yaron Individually, for WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AND GENOCIDE as follows: The defendant Amos Yaron perpetrated War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law; and their related provisions set forth in articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. Particulars of the Charge: 1. Commencing on June 6, 1982, the Israeli Defense Forces (I.D.F.) of the State of Israel commenced a large-scale invasion of the State of Lebanon, and by June 14 had taken over the suburbs of Beirut and joined with Lebanese Phalangist forces controlling East Beirut. The I.D.F. lay siege to West Beirut, and through massive aerial bombardment attempted to dislodge the forces of Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization present in West Beirut. 2. The Israeli siege and bombardment of West Beirut continued throughout the summer of 1982, causing grievous devastation to the civilian population, but did not succeed in its goal of defeating or dislodging the Syrian and P.L.O. forces. 3. With the negotiating assistance of the United States through Ambassador Philip C. Habib, on August 19, 1982, an agreement was reached between Lebanon, the United States, France, Italy, Israel, and the P.L.O. for the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces under the auspices and protection of a multi-national force. The agreement further provided that the Israeli Defense Forces would not attempt to enter or occupy West Beirut following the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces. 4. Pursuant to that agreement the multinational American, French, and Italian force oversaw the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces until completed on September 1, 1982. The multinational force left Lebanon from September 10-12, 1982, after the completion of the evacuation. 5. On or about September 14, 1982, following receipt of word of the assassination of Lebanese President Bashir Jemayel, a Phalangist, in East Beirut, Israeli Prime Minister Begin, Prime Minister of Defense Sharon, and Chief of Staff Eitan, decided that the Israeli Defense Forces would immediately enter and occupy West Beirut. It was further agreed that the Lebanese Phalangist forces would immediately enter and occupy West Beirut. It was further agreed that the Lebanese Phalangist forces, following the I.D.F.’s occupation of West Beirut, would be sent into the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps. 6. Pursuant to the decision, on September 15, 1982, the I.D.F. entered West Beirut under the command of Brigadier General Amos Yaron, the defendant in this case. The I.D.F. established a forward command post on the roof of a five-story building southwest of the Shatila camp, and defendant Brigadier General Yaron commanded I.D.F. forces from that post. The area surrounding the camps was thereafter under the command and control of the I.D.F., and all forces in the area, including the Phalangists, were deemed to be operating under the authority of the I.D.F. and acting according to its instructions. 7. Simultaneous with the entry of the I.D.F. into West Beirut, senior Israeli officials including Chief of Staff Eitan, Minister of Defense Sharon, and Major General Drori directed the Phalangist commanders to have their forces enter the Sabra and Shatila camps with their entry coordinated with the defendant Brigadier General Yaron at the forward command post. The control by the I.D.F. of the area surrounding the camps and the decision to send the Phalangist forces into the camps was confirmed at a meeting in the earlier morning hours of September 16, 1982 among Chief of Staff Eitan, the Israeli Director of Military Intelligence, Brigadier General Saguy, and the chief aide to Defense Minister Sharon, at which Eitan announced: the whole city is in our hands, complete quiet prevails now, the camps are closed and surrounded, the Phalangists are to go in at 11:00-12:00. Yesterday we spoke to them…The situation now is that the entire city is in our hands, the camps are all closed. 8. Prior to September 16, 1982, the defendant Yaron, as well as other Israeli officials had reason to know that the Phalangists were likely to attempt to perpetrate massacres and other atrocities against the civilian population of the Sabra and Shatila camps. 9. At 11:00 a.m. on September 16, 1986, Major General Drori and the defendant Brigadier General Yaron met with Phalangist commanders to coordinate their entry into the camps. The defendant Yaron set up lookout posts on the roof of the forward command posts to monitor the entry of the Phalangist forces into the camps. The Phalangist unit that entered the camps was an intelligence unit headed by one Eli Hobeika, who did not himself enter the camps but remained on the roof of the Israeli forward command post throughout the night of September 16. 10. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 16, 1982, the Phalangists entered the camps, initially entering the Shatila camp from the west and southwest as directed by the I.D.F. At the request of the Phalangist liaison officer on the roof of the I.D.F. forward command post, I.D.F. personnel under the command of the defendant Yaron provided mortar, and subsequent aircraft, illumination for the Phalangists in the camps throughout the night. 11. At approximately 7:00 p.m. on September 16, Israeli Lieutenant Elul overheard, while he was on the roof of the command post, a transmission over the Phalangists’ communication set to Eli Hobeika. He heard a Phalangist officer from the forces in the camp tell Hobeika that “there were 50 women and children, and what should he do.” Hobeika replied, “This is the last time you’re going to ask me a question like that, you know exactly what to do,” this remark being followed by “raucous laughter” among the Phalangists on the roof. The defendant Brigadier General Yaron, who was also present on the roof, asked Lieutenant Elul what he had overheard and Lieutenant Elul reported to him the above information. 12. At approximately 8:00 p.m. another report of indiscriminate killing by the Phalangists was made in the presence of the defendant Yaron. The Phalangists liaison officer known as “G” told various people in the command post dining room, including the defendant Yaron and I.D.F. officers, that about 300 people had been killed in the camps, including civilians. Shortly thereafter “G” reduced the number of casualties he reported from 300 to 120. No action was taken by the defendant Yaron, or any other I.D.F. official to ascertain the circumstances giving rise to the report that the Phalangists had killed either 300 or 120 persons in the camps within hours after their entry. 13. At approximately 8:40 p.m., the defendant Yaron convened a meeting of I.D.F. officers at the forward command post for an update briefing on the Phalangists’ entry into the camps. At this meeting, an Israeli intelligence officer relayed a report he had received at 8:00 p.m. that evening from the Phalangist liaison officer. The Phalangist liaison officer had heard via radio from a Phalangist inside the camps that he was holding forty-five people and had asked the liaison officer what to do. The Phalangist officer replied, “Do the will of God” or words to that effect. The intelligence officer went on to express his concern regarding the Phalangists’ actions toward civilians in the camps, including women, and children, and older people, but the defendant Yaron cut him off and the matter of the Phalangists’ actions against civilians in the camps was not mentioned again. 14. During the night of Thursday, September 16, and in the early morning hours of Friday, September 17, the reports about killing of civilians by the Phalangists in the camps began to circulate among the I.D.F. officers under the defendant Yaron’s command at the forward command post. Yet the I.D.F. forces at the forward command post, following a request from the Phalangist liaison officer for more illumination of the camps, provided more illumination for the actions of the Phalangists then taking palce. 15. The following morning, Friday, September 17, 1982, the defendant Yaron was contacted by his superior officer Major General Drori for a report about various matters relating to the military actions in West Beirut. The defendant Yaron did not inform Major General Drori of any of the reports he had received regarding the Phalangists’ killing of civilians in the camps. 16. Following defendant Yaron’s rebuff of his report of killing of civilians in the camps at the aforementioned briefing at the forward command post on Thursday evening, September 16, the same intelligence officer between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. contacted his own superior officer and reported the Phalangist officer’s statement that 300 terrorists and civilians had been killed and that he had subsequently reduced the number to 120. By 5:30 a.m. on Friday, September 17 the report had been conveyed to the Israeli Director of Military Intelligence in Israel. 17. At 8:00 a.m. on Friday, September 17, the Director of Military Intelligence ordered that it be ascertained what was happening in the Sabra and Shatila camps. No confirmation was obtained, and as a result, the report of killing of civilians was treated as unreliable. 18. The I.D.F. soldiers under the command of the defendant Yaron, in the morning of Friday, September 17, detected more killings and abuses of civilians in the camps. For example Lieutenant Grabowsky, stationed 200 meters from the camp on an earth embankment, saw that the Phalangist soldiers had killed a group of five women and children and later saw another killing of a civilian by a Phalangist. He was deterred from making a report to his superiors by the other soldiers, who told him that the battalion commander had already been told civilians were being killed and he had only replied, “We know, it’s not to our liking, and don’t interfere.” 19. Yet, at 9:00 a.m. on Friday September 17, the defendant Yaron met with the Phalangists at the forward command post to discuss sending an additional force of Phalangists into the camps. 20. At 11:00 a.m. on Friday, September 17, Israeli journalist Ze’ev Schiff met in Tel Aviv with Minister Zapori and conveyed to the Minister a report of “slaughter” in the camps that he had received from an unidentified source in the General Staff of the I.D.F. Minister Zipori in Schiff’s presence called Foreign Minister Yizhtak Shamir to discuss Schiff’s report. Minister Zipori told Minister Shamir of the reports he had received regarding killing by the Phalangists in the camps, and asked Shamir to check the report with the United States and Israeli officials with whom Shamir was to meet at 12:30. 21. At 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 17, Foreign Minister Shamir met in his office in Tel Aviv with United States Ambassador Morris Draper, other United States representatives, Minister of Defense Sharon, the Director of Military Intelligence Saguy, and others. No one in the meeting made any mention of the Phalangists in the camps. The meeting ended at 3:00 p.m.; Foreign Minister Shamir went home and took no further action on the report. 22. At 11:00 a.m. on Friday, September 17, the defendant Yaron and Major General Drori again met and discussed the actions of the Phalangists in the camps. Although the accounts of Yaron and Drori differ as to the content of the meeting, either Yaron or Drori contacted the Phalangist commanders and conveyed an order that the Phalangists were to stop where they were in the camps and to advance no further. At this same meeting, Drori telephoned Chief of Staff Eitan, told him that the Phalangists had perhaps “gone too far,” and that he had ordered the operation halted. No action, however, was taken by the defendant Yaron on Friday, September 17, to monitor the actions of the Phalangists in the camps or to secure compliance with the order that they advance no further. 23. The same Lieutenant Grabowsky, who had witnessed the Phalangists’ treatment of civilians from the earth embankment outside the camps, was continuing his own inquiry that afternoon. One of his soldiers at this request asked one of the Phalangist soldiers in Arabic why they were killing civilians. He was told “the pregnant women will give birth to terrorists and the children will grow up to be terrorists.” Throughout the afternoon the I.D.F. soldiers under the defendant Yaron’s command saw the Phalangists’ treatment of men, women, and children and heard complaints and stories of the killing. One soldier said he heard a report made to the battalion commander of the Phalangists “running wild.” Lieutenant Grabowsky left area at 4:00 p.m. and later that afternoon related what he had seen to his commander and other officers. They referred him to his brigade commander to whom he conveyed again at 8:00 p.m. what he had seen earlier in the day. 24. At 3:30 p.m. on Friday, September 17, the defendant Yaron, Chief of Staff Eitan, and Major General Drori met and travelled together to a meeting with the Phalangist commanders at Phalangist headquarters. Major General Drori told Chief of Staff Eitan what he knew of the Phalangists’ actions and that he had ordered them to refrain from advancing further in the camps. Eitan did not see fit to ask any questions about the Phalangists’ actions or the order halting them. 25. At 4:00 p.m. the defendant Yaron, Eitan, and Drori met with the Phalangist staff at Phalangist headquarters. In this meeting, despite Drori’s earlier order halting the Phalangists and report on their actions, Chief of Staff Eitan “expressed his positive impression received from the statement by the Phalangist forces at their behavior in the field” and concluded they “continue action, mopping up the empty camps south of Fakhani until tomorrow [Saturday] at 5:00 a.m., at which time they must stop their action due to American pressure.” At this meeting neither defendant Yaron, Chief of Staff Eitan, or Major General Drori asked the Phalangists any questions or debriefed them about what happened in the camps. 26. At this same meeting, the Phalangists requested the I.D.F. to provide them with a tractor for use in the camps “to demolish illegal structures.” Defendant Yaron has acknowledged in testimony under oath that at the end of the meeting it was “clear” that “the Phalangists could still enter the camps, bring in tractors and do what they wanted ….”, and in fact the Phalangists continued to operate unchecked in the camps throughout the night of September 17 and the early morning hours of September 18. I.D.F. forces under the defendant Yaron’s command supplied the Phalangists with a tractor from which I.D.F. markings had been removed. During the night and the following morning the Phalangists used tractors and bulldozers to pile up and bury in mass graves the bodies of hundreds of men, women, and children they had killed in the camps. 27. The Phalangists did not leave the camps at 5:00 a.m., Saturday, September 18, 1982, as ordered. At 6:30 a.m. the defendant Yaron gave the Phalangist commander an order that the Phalangists must vacate the camps “without further delay.” 28. Defendant Yaron took no steps to enforce his order, however. Between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. a group of Phalangist soldiers entered the Gaza Hospital in Sabra and took a group of doctors, nurses, and foreign national workers out of the hospital under armed guard. They were interrogated by the Phalangists and then were taken to the I.D.F. forward command post from which they were later released. It was not until approximately 8:00 a.m. that the last of the Phalangists had left the camps. 29. A burial of the dead was done by the Red Cross which counted 328 bodies, including Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, Syrians, Pakistanis, and Algerians. Some family survivors buried their family members. Truckloads of bodies were removed by the Phalangists. Other bodies are believed to be under the ruins or in mass graves dug by the Phalangists. The I.D.F. itself estimates that 700 to 800 persons were killed by the Phalangists in the camps. In his definitive account of the massacre Sabra & Shatila: Inquiry Into a Massacre (1984), the Israeli investigative journalist Amnon Kapeliouk of Le Mondé Diplomatique arrived at a sum total of about 3000 killed victims. 30. The Kahan Commission, established by the Government of Israel to investigate the responsibility of Israeli officials for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, found that the defendant Brigadier General Yaron, in performing his duties as the commander of the I.D.F. forces occupying the area of the camps, (1) did not properly evaluate and did not check reports that reached him concerning the acts of killing and other irregular actions of the Phalangists in the camps, (2) did not pass on that information to the General Operations Command to the Chief of Staff immediately after it had been received on September 16, 1982, and (3) did not take appropriate steps to stop the Phalangists’ actions and to protect the population in the camps immediately upon receiving the reports. The Commission found he had committed a “grave error” in “breach of the duties incumbent upon him by virtue of his position,” and recommended that he not serve in the capacity of a field commander in the Israeli Defense Forces for three years. 31. No further action was taken by the Israeli Defense Forces or any other branch of the State of Israel regarding the defendant Yaron. In August of 1986, Israel appointed Yaron to serve as their military attaché to the United States, which accorded Yaron full diplomatic privileges and immunity from a lawsuit brought by the undersigned Associate Prosecutor on behalf of several survivors of the 1982 Massacre at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. In December of 1999, Israel appointed General Yaron to serve as Head of its Defense Ministry. Over the years, two attempts have been made to hold General Yaron accountable for these international crimes in the courts of the United States and Belgium, respectively. The undersigned Associate Prosecutor also served as an adviser and counsel to the Belgian lawyers suing defendant Yaron and others for the massacre at Sabra and Shatila. Both lawsuits failed because of interference by the governments of the United States and Belgium, respectively. In the professional opinion of the undersigned Associate Prosecutor who has been pursuing General Yaron since 1986, there is no realistic alternative court available anywhere in the world for the purpose of holding defendant Yaron fully responsible and make him accountable for the international crimes he perpetrated against the residents of Sabra and Shatila but the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. 32. The State of Israel, through its military arm the Israeli Defense Forces (I.D.F.), was the occupying power of West Beirut, including particularly the area containing the Sabra and Shatila camps, on the dates of September 16 through 18, 1982, in that the I.D.F., under the command of the defendant Yaron, was actually in control and was exercising authority over this area. 33. The Phalangists acted as the agents of the I.D.F. in entering and acting in the Sabra and Shatila Camps from September 16-18, 1982, in that the Phalangists entered the camps at the instigation of Israeli officials. Without the acquiescence and assistance of the I.D.F., the Phalangists’ entry into the Israeli surrounded camps would have been impossible. The defendant Yaron, as commander of the I.D.F. forces in West Beirut, had control of and could exercise command of the actions of Phalangists in the camps from September 16-18, 1982. 34. Civilian residents of the Sabra and Shatila Camps, were “protected persons” within the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and whose persons and property were protected by the Hague Convention of 1907 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. 35. The State of Israel, as occupying Power of West Beirut, and the defendant Yaron, were responsible under the Fourth Geneva Convention for the protection of the civilian population therein. Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates that the civilian population must be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof. Article 32 prohibits causing “physical suffering or extermination of protected persons,” and article 33 prohibits reprisals against protected persons. Article 29 provides that the party charged with protecting the civilian population is responsible for the treatment caused to them by its “agents” without regard to any individual agent’s responsibility. 36. Thus, the State of Israel was responsible for the actions of the Phalangists taken against the residents of Sabra and Shatila. 37. The defendant Yaron was further individually culpable for the actions of the Phalangists taken against the residents of Sabra and Shatila, under the Nuremberg Charter (1945), Judgment (1946), and Principles (1950) which are recognized by both the United States and Israel and the entire world as authoritative expressions of the customary law of nations. The Nuremberg Charter is an international agreement that establishes the customary law of nations with respect to personal responsibility for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 38. Nuremberg Charter article 6(b) defines the term “war crime” to include “murder, ill-treatment…of civilian population of or in occupied territory,…plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, town or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.” Article 6(c) of the Nuremberg Charter defines the term “crime against humanity” to include “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population.” Article 6 also provides that leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan. Article 7 of the Nuremberg Charter denies the applicability of the ‘act of state” defense by making it clear that the official position of those who have committed such heinous crimes “shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.” Finally, article 8 provides that the fact an individual acted pursuant to an order of his government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if justice so requires. 39. The United States Supreme Court has affirmed and applied these principles, in the case of Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946), in holding that an official or commander who has actual knowledge or should have knowledge through reports received by him or other means that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed war crimes, and fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Law of War, is responsible for such crimes. Accord, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, “The Law of Land Warfare,” par. 501 (1956). At all relevant times, this Yamashita test was at the time and still is today the current standard for defendant’s Command Responsibility under international criminal law for all the international crimes perpetrated against the residents of Sabra and Shatila. 40. The defendant Brigadier General Yaron, as the commander of the I.D.F. forces into whose control had fallen the Sabra and Shatila camps, as well as the State of Israel as Occupying Power, were thus criminally responsible for murders and devastation visited upon the civilian population by the Phalangist forces, in that defendant Yaron received reports of the killings of women and children on Thursday evening, September 16, 1982, yet did not check the reports, did not pass the reports on to his superiors, continued to provide logistical and material assistance to the Phalangists for their operations within the camps, and did not take appropriate steps to stop the Phalangists and protect the civilians. 41. On 16 December 1982, the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 37/123 determined that “the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps… was an act of genocide” as follows: The General Assembly, Recalling its resolution 95 (I) of 11 December 1946, Recalling also its resolution 96 (I) of 11 December 1946, in which it, inter alia, affirmed that genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices – whether private individuals, public officials or statesmen, and whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds – are punishable, Referring to the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948, Recalling the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, Appalled at the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps situated at Beirut, Recognizing the universal outrage and condemnation of that massacre, Recalling its resolution ES-7/9 of 24 September 1982, 1. Condemns in the strongest terms the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps; 2. Resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide. 42. As a result of the defendant Yaron’s grave breaches of duty, war crimes, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and genocide the residents of Sabra and Shatila suffered large-scale death and damages by reason of the wrongful deaths of them, and their relatives, and further suffered severe emotional distress and suffering and loss of property. 43. The defendant Yaron is not entitled to any immunity from accountability by virtue of a claim of diplomatic immunity or otherwise. Article 146 of Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 is an express waiver of diplomatic immunity with respect to those alleged to have committed grave breaches as defined by Article 147. Moreover, under the Nuremberg Principles and the principle of customary international law known as jus cogens which has been incorporated into the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, governments cannot agree to immunize a war criminal from accountability for his acts. 44. The defendant Yaron is not entitled to any immunity from accountability arising out of any otherwise arguably applicable statute of limitations, in that customary international law provides that there shall be no statute of limitations with respect to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide because of the particularly grievous nature of such violations. 45. On November 21, 2012 the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission heard live witness testimony from a survivor of the 1982 massacre at Sabra and Shatila, Ms. Chahira Abouardini. Her direct examination was conducted by the Chief Prosecutor on the basis of her Statutory Declaration Number 8. A complete transcript of her testimony can be found from pages 127 to 158 of the Commission’s Notes of Proceeding (November 2012). A succinct summary of her testimony is as follows: 46. She testified, “On 14 September 1982, the Lebanese President Bachir Gemayel was assassinated. After that incident, there were a lot of aircraft flying around Beirut. My husband told me that the situation may get worse, and to prepare the children so that we could leave. On 16 September we went to my father’s brick house on Sabra Street. There were other family members as well – my father, my sister (17 years old), my brother (24 years old) and his pregnant wife and 2 children, and my cousin and his wife and 2 children.” 47. Chahira who broke down while giving testimony said, “In the evening beginning from about 5pm, flares were thrown to light up the area. This went on throughout the night. The camp was full of light throughout the night. We did not know what was happening outside. We heard shooting and screaming outside. At about dusk, my sister ran out into the street to see what was happening. She was shot dead by armed militia. When my sister was shot, she shouted for my father. My father came out of the house to see what had happened to my sister. He was also shot and killed. Their bodies were left on the street. Later I found out that those who shot my sister and father were Lebanese Phalangist militia.” 48. In the early hours of the morning, about 16-17 armed soldiers entered her home and shot her husband, brother and cousin dead in front of her and children. She related that militia entered homes and shot at everyone including children and animals. 49. She said, “Along the way to the stadium, I saw my cousin’s daughter who was pregnant lying dead. The murderers had opened her body and taken out her baby and put the baby on her. The child was dead as well. She was lying on the street.” 50. “Along the streets there were a lot of dead bodies. Hundreds of bodies were strewn all over. We climbed a hill to the stadium. At the nearest houses I could see bodies of children. Between the houses, which had been half destroyed, there were bodies of men, and also women and children and animals.” 51. She testified, “In 36 hours, up to 3500 to 5,000 people from Shatila and Sabra had been massacred, There are also people unaccounted for who had disappeared. The Phalangist militia worked together with the Israelis. They were known to be puppets for Israeli forces. Israelis used them to go into our houses, because these soldiers knew the place, and could speak Lebanese. The Israelis were afraid to go in themselves.” 52. She concluded, “What I want is justice to be done and that those who killed my family members and all the people at Shatila and Sabra to be punished for their crimes.” 53. The Chief Prosecutor then called Anne Sunde, a 66-year-old Norwegian who is residing in Belgium. She was working as a volunteer social worker for the Palestinian Red Crescent Society in Beirut in the Sabra and Shatila camps. Her testimony can be found on pages 167 to 193 of the Commission’s Notes of Proceedings (November 2012). A succinct summary of her testimony is as follows: 54. She related, “On 4 June 1982, I visited my friend in Fakhani. While we are chatting in the building, which housed the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) offices, we heard loud noises of planes flying over. We rushed to the shelter in the basement of the building. Then we heard bombing nearby our building. It was loud. The building shook and I was expecting to die under it. It was my first experience of direct violence. One becomes aware of what life is. The bombing seemed eternity.” 55. She said, “After a few days the PRCS set up a hospital in La Houd School, Hamra. Since nobody among the volunteers wanted to do cleaning (janitor), I volunteered. I did this together with Kurdish refugees.” 56. She said, “Finally I decided to go back to Belgium on 15 September 1982 via Damascus. However, since it was the morning after Bachir Gemayel’s (the then President-elect) death, there were no taxis to take me to Damascus. Great nervousness was felt in town. I returned to the PRCS headquarter in Hamra where most of the foreigners were located.” 57. She then proceeded to relate her harrowing experiences of the killings at the Sabra and Shatila Camps. She further related that when she went to the Shatila Camp she saw many dead bodies of adults and children, both male and female, in strange positions. I also saw dead animals. The bodies were already decomposing and bloated in the summer heat. The smell, she said, was unbearable and there were flies all over. 58. She added, “It was a horrible scene and they were digging mass graves to bury the dead.” 59. In their Executive Summary, Findings and Recommendations of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Hearing on Palestine (PWTC: 20-21 November 2012) the Commission officially determined in relevant part as follows on pages 13-15: 60. 6th witness – Ms. Chahira Abouardini The witness, 54 years old, was born in B’albuq, Lebanon. Her parents were born in Palestine, and they moved to Lebanon in 1948 when Israel under the United Nations took their hand in Palestine. Thereafter her parents lived in refugee camps. The witness has lived and grown up these 54 years in the refugee camps (Shatila). She has three children. 61. On May 5, 1982, the Israeli army attacked the refugee camp. The attack lasted 3 months. The witness (together with his parents) managed to escape to Beirut, returning to the camp only after the attack was over. 62. The witness said that on the evening of September 16, 1982, her parents’ home was attacked by the Israeli army. Her 17 year old sister and 65 year old father were both shot as they went out of the house. They both died. 63. At 6 am the next morning, 16 to 17 Israeli soldiers carrying weapons entered the house. They asked the men to go outside the room. The soldiers searched them and seized everything from them – valuables, any watches or anything. And then they ordered them to face the wall. When the men had done that, the soldiers opened fire – killing the witness’s husband, brother and cousin. They all died. 64. After the men were killed, the soldiers herded the women outside. They were deciding who would shoot the women, but finally decided not to do it because there were children with them. The women were then taken (marched at gun-point) to a nearby sports complex. On the way to the place, the witness saw her cousin who was killed. 65. This was what she said in her testimony “Before they went to the sport complex, as they were walking down the street, I saw my cousin who at the time was 20 years old and she was 9 months pregnant. I found her on the side of the road, with her stomach open and the baby was placed over her chest – was taken out of her womb and placed over her body. Of course the child was dead too. My cousin was dead and nude…” 66. “All along the way there were dead bodies everywhere,” the Witness said. “Hundreds of dead bodies …. adults, children, all ages.” 67. Asked by the Prosecutor whether the Israeli soldiers “entering homes (were) killing people all the time,” the witness replied “Yes. We were actually at the first point where they started to kill and they expand it all the way to Sabra…” 68. Asked by the Prosecutor on the number of people killed, the witness said that during that one and half day massacre in Sabra Shatila, between 3,500 to 5,000 people were killed. The exact number is not known, because some bodies were never found. 69. The witness also said that Italian forces had previously signed an agreement to protect the civilians and they were stationed at the camp. However, one day before this massacre started, they all left. Some weeks later, after the massacre was over, the Italians returned. 70. Asked by the Commission Chairman, Musa, whether these Italians were UN peace keepers, whether they were wearing blue berets, the witness said that she could not remember. 71. The witness said that the killing was carried out by the Phalangist militia, who were recruited by the Israelis. “There were known to be the puppets for Israeli forces. Israelis used them to go into our houses, because these soldiers knew the place, and could speak Lebanese.” 72. Asked by Commissioner Denis Halliday whether these Phalangists were Christian militia, the witness said she recognized some of their names as Christian names, but she cannot confirm that all are Christians. 73. The witness said that apart from Ariel Sharon, the “person who was commanding the forces at that time, that attacked Sabra Shatila, was … General Amos Yaron.” …. 74. 8th witness – Ms. Anne K. Sunde The witness, who holds a Norwegian passport, is a resident of Belgium (since 1968). She was voluntary social worker with the Palestinian Red Crescent Society in Beirut when the Shatila Sabra massacre occurred. 75. In her testimony, the witness showed the Commission the geography and terrain of the Shatila Sabra area where the massacre occurred and where the Israeli soldiers were stationed. The witness said that in the Shatila camp, “I saw dead bodies of adults, children, male, female in all kinds of positions. Dead.” Conclusion Wherefore, it is respectfully submitted that the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal must convict the defendant Amos Yaron for War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law; and their related provisions set forth in articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. Professor Francis A. Boyle Associate Prosecutor Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Legal Team (Established by the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission) Done at Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A. on this _______ March 2013 Estabrook, Carl G ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu'; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'; 'abass10 at gmail.com'; 'mickalideh at gmail.com'; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net'; 'Karen Aram' ; 'David Swanson' 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, April 20, 2017 1:35 PM To: 'David Swanson' Cc: Estabrook, Carl G ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Karen Aram' Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! The Hard-Core Zionist Legal Whore Dinstein filed a sworn affidavit on behalf of General Yaron in this case. As for Falk, he sabotaged the MacBride Commission Report to make sure that it did not determine that the Sabra and Shatilla Massacre was Genocide despite the fact that the United Nations General Assembly determined that it was Genocide. 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, April 20, 2017 1:30 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram > Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! I have refuted the alleged doctrines of “humanitarian intervention” and its avatar “responsibility to protect” in my books Tackling America’s Toughest Questions (2009) {chapter against humanitarian intervention} as updated by Destroying Libya and World Order (2013) {chapter against R2P}. As for Dinstein, he is a hard-core Zionist Legal Whore who works for the Israeli government. I have been repeatedly up against him. Most egregiously, I represented several women who were next of kin of the 3500+ Palestinian old men, women and children victims of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, suing the Israeli General Amos Yaron who was in charge of it all. Dinstein filed a sworn Affidavit in that case stating that Yaron had diplomatic privileges and immunities as Israel’s military attaché to the United States government despite the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946) and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) to the contrary. Dinstein is a total disgrace and a Hard-Core Zionist Legal Whore! As for the argument that military action can be “illegal” but “legitimate” or “illegal” but “moral” that monstrosity was developed by the Zionist Law Professor Richard Falk. An act of aggression is a Nuremberg Crime against Peace according to the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946) and the Nuremberg Principles (1950). A Nuremberg Crime against Peace can never be “legitimate” or “moral.” Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 12:54 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! did you see that Congress has now declared that the UN Charter legalizes 3 rather than the traditional 2 types of war? https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/airbase.pdf -------------- 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: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Apr 20 18:42:42 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:42:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! References: Message-ID: To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time ever that anyone had sued an Israeli government official for war crimes against Palestinians. Fab. -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 2:45 PM To: 'Killeacle' Subject: Barak Appoints War Criminal Yaron! Importance: High Barak Appoints War Criminal Yaron by Francis A. Boyle Professor of International Law (The author served as Attorney in the lawsuit against General Yaron in Ali Aidi v. Yaron, 672 Fed. Supp. 516 (D.D.C. 1987), Palestine Yearbook of International Law, Vol. V, 1989.) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has nominated former Major General Amos Yaron to serve as director-general of the Israeli Defense Ministry, while Barak himself retains the portfolio of Minister of Defense. According to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, Yaron, whose appointment must be confirmed by the Israeli Cabinet, is a war criminal by virtue of his command responsibility for the murder of about 2000 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians during the 1982 Sabra and Shatila refugee camp massacre in Beirut, Lebanon. Should Yaron's appointment be confirmed, the U.S. government will be aiding and abetting the work of an infamous war criminal. In Fiscal Year 2000, Israel is scheduled to receive $1.92 billion dollars in U.S. military aid out of a total annual U.S. aid package to Israel worth $2.94 billion. In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, driving as far north as the capital, Beirut, purportedly in an effort to expel the Palestine Liberation Organization. In August 1982, special U.S. envoy Philip Habib negotiated the withdrawal of Palestinian forces from Beirut. According to that agreement the United States government guaranteed the safety of the remaining Palestinian civilians and obtained Israel's assurance that its armed forces would not enter West Beirut. Israel, breaking its own pledge, occupied West Beirut and surrounded the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps on September 15, 1982. On September 16, then Brigadier General Amos Yaron, acting under orders from the Israeli Ministry of Defense under General Ariel Sharon, allowed Phalangist troops to enter the refugee camps even though the same troops had previously engaged in massacres of Palestinians living in Lebanon. The killing at the refugee camps went on for three days. During nighttime Phalangist operations, Yaron's troops fired illumination rounds so the Phalangists could continue their bloody work. Israeli troops, under the command of Yaron, blocked the exits of the camps to prevent the refugees from escaping and supplied the Phalangists with at least one bulldozer, which was used to cover bodies with rubble. According to the official Israeli Commission of Inquiry into the massacre (the so-called Kahan Commission), Yaron, who was present on the roof of the IDF forward command post overlooking the Shatila camp on the evening of September 16, knew then that women and children were being killed by Phalangist militiamen who had entered the camps by prior arrangement with the Israeli military. Not until the morning of September 18 did Yaron move to end the killings. Israeli military intelligence later underestimated the death toll at between 700 and 800, which was criminal enough. In his testimony to the Kahan Commission, Yaron said he was "happy" about the decision to send the Phalangist forces into the refugee camps because "the fighting serves their purposes as well, so let them participate and not let the IDF do everything." Under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which was signed by both the United States and Israel, by his complicity in the massacre, Yaron allowed the willful causing of "great suffering" and "serious injury" to the residents of the camps, who were legally "protected persons" thereunder. In so doing, Yaron was guilty of "grave breaches" under Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In other words, because of his command responsibilities during the Sabra and Shatila massacre, Yaron was personally responsible for the commission of "war crimes" under general principles of both customary and conventional international law. On August 1, 1986, the Israeli government announced that it was nominating Yaron as its Military Attaché to the United States and Canada. Immediately thereafter, this author and Mr. Abdeen Jabara, Esq. who had recently become President of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in Washington, D.C., decided to launch a campaign to prevent the United States government from accepting Yaron's diplomatic credentials and admitting him into the country. Together, the two of us drafted telegrams to Secretary of State George Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and Attorney General Edwin Meese pointing out that Yaron was responsible for the commission of "grave breaches" of the Fourth Geneva Convention for the role that he played in supervising the Sabra and Shatila massacre. As such, the United States government was under an absolute obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention to prosecute Yaron for these heinous war crimes should he set foot on United States territory. Therefore, the telegrams argued, the United States government must not allow Yaron to enter the country for any reason other than prosecution. Otherwise, the United States government would be in breach of its own obligations under the Fourth Geneva Contention. ADC sent similar telegrams to the ambassadors for all states parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, requesting that pursuant to common article 1, their governments had an obligation to intervene with the United States government to demand that the latter not accept Yaron's diplomatic credentials. A few European states did indeed take this matter up with the United States government. In the meantime, this author sent a letter to the Legal Adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry stating that in the event Yaron were to set foot upon United States territory, he would personally sue Yaron in a U.S. court for his role in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. These vigorous efforts by this author, Jabara, the ADC, and others led the Reagan administration to hold up Yaron's Letter of Accreditation for a period of three months. According to the Israeli Press, these protests against Yaron's appointment were instrumental in prompting Washington to seek Yaron's recall. Israeli papers reported that the behind-the-scenes diplomatic fury which resulted over Yaron's nomination came after the Department of Defense received hundreds of letters from Arab-Americans and liberal Jewish groups protesting Yaron's presence in the United States. Several meetings were held between Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz over the question of Yaron's suitability to serve as Defense Attaché in light of his involvement in the Beirut massacres. The Israeli daily Davar, associated with the Labor Party, first broke the story of the meetings between U.S. and Israeli officials over Yaron in its October 22 edition, indicating that Washington and Tel Aviv had agreed that Yaron would be recalled but not immediately. Both sides later denied that a deal had been made, although a spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., Yossi Gal, confirmed that the negotiations had indeed taken place. On October 24, 1986 the Reagan administration officially accepted Yaron's Letter of Accreditation. Undaunted, ADC's Abdeen Jabara flew to Ottawa to convince the Canadian government to refuse diplomatic accreditation to Yaron as Israel's Military Attaché to Canada. To its great credit, on March 5, 1987 the Canadian government refused to accept Yaron's diplomatic credentials. Explaining the move, External Affairs Minister Joe Clark said that Canada did not consider it "appropriate" to accept Yaron's credentials. Officials of the External Affairs Ministry indicated privately that Canada had based its decision on the findings of the Kahan Commission Report. On March 28 the Jerusalem Post reported that Yaron had asked his superiors to cut short his Washington assignment. A "cool" reception from the diplomatic community in the U.S., followed by Canada's refusal to accept his appointment to Ottawa, were factors leading to Yaron's request to be considered for a territorial command, according to their sources. Apparently, Canada had rejected Yaron's credentials with Washington's approval. In the meantime, this author, Abdeen Jabara, Linda Huber, Esq., an attorney in Washington, D.C., Professor Linda Malone, now of the William and Mary School of Law, and Albert Mokhiber, Esq., then ADC Legal Affairs Director and later its President, convened at ADC Headquarters for the purpose of preparing a civil lawsuit against Yaron on behalf of some of the victims of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. This author and Linda Huber agreed to serve as Attorneys of Record for three Palestinian women who survived the massacre. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on May 4, 1987. The Complaint alleged that Yaron bore responsibility for the murder of the family members of the three Palestinian women under international treaties including the Nuremberg Principles, which forbid war crimes and crimes against humanity. The plaintiffs, Fatimeh Ali Aidi, Zeineb Sa'ad and Samia A. Khatib, all three of whom resided in the Shatila camp, each asked for $100,000 in punitive damages and an undetermined amount in compensatory damages against Yaron. The Complaint stated that the husband of Fatimeh Ali Aidi, the father and sister of Zeineb Sa'ad, and the mother, sister and five nieces and nephews of Samia A. Khatib, were "murdered in the Shatila Camp by agents of the defendant Yaron" and the IDF during Israel's occupation of West Beirut in September 1982. The lawsuit stated that Yaron was guilty of violating the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits the killing of civilians under military occupation and incriminates an occupying power even if its "agents" carry out the killing. Citing the Nuremberg Principles, which were designed to prevent the repetition of crimes against humanity such as were committed by the Nazi occupying power in Europe during the Second World War, the suit alleged that Yaron's position of authority, and knowledge of the ongoing massacre, rendered him personally responsible for the actions of the Phalangists. Yaron was served with a summons to appear in court as he left his Chevy Chase, Maryland apartment for work on the morning of May 5, one day after the suit was filed. On May 20, 50 demonstrators picketed Yaron's apartment building, calling attention to current efforts by France, Israel and the Soviet Union to bring Nazi war criminals to justice, while Yaron continued to enjoy diplomatic status in the United States. On May 26, a motion to dismiss the case was filed by lawyers representing Yaron, claiming that he enjoyed diplomatic immunity as Israel's Military Attaché, that the statute of limitations had expired, and that the international treaties cited by the plaintiffs allowed only governments, not individuals, to bring legal action for alleged treaty violations. During the course of the Yaron litigation, the United States Department of State took the official position that Yaron possessed diplomatic immunity under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the U.S. Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978. Yet, at the exact same time the U.S. State Department was also involved in efforts to put former U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim on the so-called "watch list" in order to bar his entry into the United States on the alleged grounds that he might have been an accomplice to the commission of war crimes during the Second World War. The U.S. Department of Justice so barred Waldheim as of April 27, 1987. By contrast, Yaron was directly responsible for the murder of about 2000 innocent Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, including women, children, and old people. Unlike Waldheim, however, not only was Yaron permitted to enter the United States, but the U.S. government also accorded him full diplomatic privileges and immunities under the Vienna Convention. The gross hypocrisy involved in these two contemporaneous decisions by the U.S. government could not have been more blatant. Nevertheless, the Federal District Judge who handled the Yaron case decided to defer to the wishes of the Department of State in this matter. The Judge observed that this was not a criminal tribunal, but only a civil action. Hence, the Judge ruled that Yaron was immune from civil proceedings in United States courts irrespective of whether or not he would be immune from criminal proceedings in some other forum. The Judge basically ignored expert Affidavits submitted to the Court independently by three American Professors of International Law, all of whom stated under oath that acknowledged war criminals such as Yaron were both criminally and civilly liable for the commission of their international crimes, whether in United States courts or elsewhere. Despite this setback, ADC continued to mount its nationwide campaign to convince Yaron that an acknowledged war criminal was not wanted by the American people to be roaming the streets of their capital, and that he should go home. Exactly one year after the Israeli government press office had quietly announced the appointment of Yaron, the Jerusalem Post of Aug. 1, 1987 reported that Yaron was to resign his diplomatic position "for reasons related to a lingering controversy" about his role in the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre. This "lingering controversy" was fueled by ADC's "Send Yaron Home" campaign. According to the Jerusalem Post, although the Reagan administration initially accepted Yaron's posting to Washington, it had since been actively trying to encourage Israel to recall him. Eventually Yaron returned home to Israel, where he currently lives and works with his fellow war criminals in the IDF and the Israeli government. Under basic principles of international law, the U.S. government must be concerned about directing billions of U.S. tax dollars to the control of an acknowledged war criminal such as Yaron. Accordingly, the U.S. government must discontinue all military assistance to Israel if Yaron's appointment is confirmed. Also, there is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Should Yaron attempt to return to the U.S., the U.S. government is obligated to prosecute him for war crimes. The same conclusion follows for any other State where Yaron might travel. Legally, General Yaron is just like General Pinochet: Hostis humani generis--The enemy of all humankind! Francis 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, April 20, 2017 1:40 PM To: 'David Swanson' Cc: Estabrook, Carl G ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Karen Aram' Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! Both Dinstein and Falk played completely disreputable if not outright unethical roles when it came to avoiding accountability for the Genocidal Massacre of 3500+ completely innocent Palestinian old men, women and children at Sabra and Shatilla. Fab. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Case No. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Against Amos Yaron CHARGE The Associate Prosecutor of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission pursuant to Article 7 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission charges: Amos Yaron Individually, for WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AND GENOCIDE as follows: The defendant Amos Yaron perpetrated War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law; and their related provisions set forth in articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. Particulars of the Charge: 1. Commencing on June 6, 1982, the Israeli Defense Forces (I.D.F.) of the State of Israel commenced a large-scale invasion of the State of Lebanon, and by June 14 had taken over the suburbs of Beirut and joined with Lebanese Phalangist forces controlling East Beirut. The I.D.F. lay siege to West Beirut, and through massive aerial bombardment attempted to dislodge the forces of Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization present in West Beirut. 2. The Israeli siege and bombardment of West Beirut continued throughout the summer of 1982, causing grievous devastation to the civilian population, but did not succeed in its goal of defeating or dislodging the Syrian and P.L.O. forces. 3. With the negotiating assistance of the United States through Ambassador Philip C. Habib, on August 19, 1982, an agreement was reached between Lebanon, the United States, France, Italy, Israel, and the P.L.O. for the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces under the auspices and protection of a multi-national force. The agreement further provided that the Israeli Defense Forces would not attempt to enter or occupy West Beirut following the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces. 4. Pursuant to that agreement the multinational American, French, and Italian force oversaw the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces until completed on September 1, 1982. The multinational force left Lebanon from September 10-12, 1982, after the completion of the evacuation. 5. On or about September 14, 1982, following receipt of word of the assassination of Lebanese President Bashir Jemayel, a Phalangist, in East Beirut, Israeli Prime Minister Begin, Prime Minister of Defense Sharon, and Chief of Staff Eitan, decided that the Israeli Defense Forces would immediately enter and occupy West Beirut. It was further agreed that the Lebanese Phalangist forces would immediately enter and occupy West Beirut. It was further agreed that the Lebanese Phalangist forces, following the I.D.F.’s occupation of West Beirut, would be sent into the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps. 6. Pursuant to the decision, on September 15, 1982, the I.D.F. entered West Beirut under the command of Brigadier General Amos Yaron, the defendant in this case. The I.D.F. established a forward command post on the roof of a five-story building southwest of the Shatila camp, and defendant Brigadier General Yaron commanded I.D.F. forces from that post. The area surrounding the camps was thereafter under the command and control of the I.D.F., and all forces in the area, including the Phalangists, were deemed to be operating under the authority of the I.D.F. and acting according to its instructions. 7. Simultaneous with the entry of the I.D.F. into West Beirut, senior Israeli officials including Chief of Staff Eitan, Minister of Defense Sharon, and Major General Drori directed the Phalangist commanders to have their forces enter the Sabra and Shatila camps with their entry coordinated with the defendant Brigadier General Yaron at the forward command post. The control by the I.D.F. of the area surrounding the camps and the decision to send the Phalangist forces into the camps was confirmed at a meeting in the earlier morning hours of September 16, 1982 among Chief of Staff Eitan, the Israeli Director of Military Intelligence, Brigadier General Saguy, and the chief aide to Defense Minister Sharon, at which Eitan announced: the whole city is in our hands, complete quiet prevails now, the camps are closed and surrounded, the Phalangists are to go in at 11:00-12:00. Yesterday we spoke to them…The situation now is that the entire city is in our hands, the camps are all closed. 8. Prior to September 16, 1982, the defendant Yaron, as well as other Israeli officials had reason to know that the Phalangists were likely to attempt to perpetrate massacres and other atrocities against the civilian population of the Sabra and Shatila camps. 9. At 11:00 a.m. on September 16, 1986, Major General Drori and the defendant Brigadier General Yaron met with Phalangist commanders to coordinate their entry into the camps. The defendant Yaron set up lookout posts on the roof of the forward command posts to monitor the entry of the Phalangist forces into the camps. The Phalangist unit that entered the camps was an intelligence unit headed by one Eli Hobeika, who did not himself enter the camps but remained on the roof of the Israeli forward command post throughout the night of September 16. 10. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 16, 1982, the Phalangists entered the camps, initially entering the Shatila camp from the west and southwest as directed by the I.D.F. At the request of the Phalangist liaison officer on the roof of the I.D.F. forward command post, I.D.F. personnel under the command of the defendant Yaron provided mortar, and subsequent aircraft, illumination for the Phalangists in the camps throughout the night. 11. At approximately 7:00 p.m. on September 16, Israeli Lieutenant Elul overheard, while he was on the roof of the command post, a transmission over the Phalangists’ communication set to Eli Hobeika. He heard a Phalangist officer from the forces in the camp tell Hobeika that “there were 50 women and children, and what should he do.” Hobeika replied, “This is the last time you’re going to ask me a question like that, you know exactly what to do,” this remark being followed by “raucous laughter” among the Phalangists on the roof. The defendant Brigadier General Yaron, who was also present on the roof, asked Lieutenant Elul what he had overheard and Lieutenant Elul reported to him the above information. 12. At approximately 8:00 p.m. another report of indiscriminate killing by the Phalangists was made in the presence of the defendant Yaron. The Phalangists liaison officer known as “G” told various people in the command post dining room, including the defendant Yaron and I.D.F. officers, that about 300 people had been killed in the camps, including civilians. Shortly thereafter “G” reduced the number of casualties he reported from 300 to 120. No action was taken by the defendant Yaron, or any other I.D.F. official to ascertain the circumstances giving rise to the report that the Phalangists had killed either 300 or 120 persons in the camps within hours after their entry. 13. At approximately 8:40 p.m., the defendant Yaron convened a meeting of I.D.F. officers at the forward command post for an update briefing on the Phalangists’ entry into the camps. At this meeting, an Israeli intelligence officer relayed a report he had received at 8:00 p.m. that evening from the Phalangist liaison officer. The Phalangist liaison officer had heard via radio from a Phalangist inside the camps that he was holding forty-five people and had asked the liaison officer what to do. The Phalangist officer replied, “Do the will of God” or words to that effect. The intelligence officer went on to express his concern regarding the Phalangists’ actions toward civilians in the camps, including women, and children, and older people, but the defendant Yaron cut him off and the matter of the Phalangists’ actions against civilians in the camps was not mentioned again. 14. During the night of Thursday, September 16, and in the early morning hours of Friday, September 17, the reports about killing of civilians by the Phalangists in the camps began to circulate among the I.D.F. officers under the defendant Yaron’s command at the forward command post. Yet the I.D.F. forces at the forward command post, following a request from the Phalangist liaison officer for more illumination of the camps, provided more illumination for the actions of the Phalangists then taking palce. 15. The following morning, Friday, September 17, 1982, the defendant Yaron was contacted by his superior officer Major General Drori for a report about various matters relating to the military actions in West Beirut. The defendant Yaron did not inform Major General Drori of any of the reports he had received regarding the Phalangists’ killing of civilians in the camps. 16. Following defendant Yaron’s rebuff of his report of killing of civilians in the camps at the aforementioned briefing at the forward command post on Thursday evening, September 16, the same intelligence officer between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. contacted his own superior officer and reported the Phalangist officer’s statement that 300 terrorists and civilians had been killed and that he had subsequently reduced the number to 120. By 5:30 a.m. on Friday, September 17 the report had been conveyed to the Israeli Director of Military Intelligence in Israel. 17. At 8:00 a.m. on Friday, September 17, the Director of Military Intelligence ordered that it be ascertained what was happening in the Sabra and Shatila camps. No confirmation was obtained, and as a result, the report of killing of civilians was treated as unreliable. 18. The I.D.F. soldiers under the command of the defendant Yaron, in the morning of Friday, September 17, detected more killings and abuses of civilians in the camps. For example Lieutenant Grabowsky, stationed 200 meters from the camp on an earth embankment, saw that the Phalangist soldiers had killed a group of five women and children and later saw another killing of a civilian by a Phalangist. He was deterred from making a report to his superiors by the other soldiers, who told him that the battalion commander had already been told civilians were being killed and he had only replied, “We know, it’s not to our liking, and don’t interfere.” 19. Yet, at 9:00 a.m. on Friday September 17, the defendant Yaron met with the Phalangists at the forward command post to discuss sending an additional force of Phalangists into the camps. 20. At 11:00 a.m. on Friday, September 17, Israeli journalist Ze’ev Schiff met in Tel Aviv with Minister Zapori and conveyed to the Minister a report of “slaughter” in the camps that he had received from an unidentified source in the General Staff of the I.D.F. Minister Zipori in Schiff’s presence called Foreign Minister Yizhtak Shamir to discuss Schiff’s report. Minister Zipori told Minister Shamir of the reports he had received regarding killing by the Phalangists in the camps, and asked Shamir to check the report with the United States and Israeli officials with whom Shamir was to meet at 12:30. 21. At 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 17, Foreign Minister Shamir met in his office in Tel Aviv with United States Ambassador Morris Draper, other United States representatives, Minister of Defense Sharon, the Director of Military Intelligence Saguy, and others. No one in the meeting made any mention of the Phalangists in the camps. The meeting ended at 3:00 p.m.; Foreign Minister Shamir went home and took no further action on the report. 22. At 11:00 a.m. on Friday, September 17, the defendant Yaron and Major General Drori again met and discussed the actions of the Phalangists in the camps. Although the accounts of Yaron and Drori differ as to the content of the meeting, either Yaron or Drori contacted the Phalangist commanders and conveyed an order that the Phalangists were to stop where they were in the camps and to advance no further. At this same meeting, Drori telephoned Chief of Staff Eitan, told him that the Phalangists had perhaps “gone too far,” and that he had ordered the operation halted. No action, however, was taken by the defendant Yaron on Friday, September 17, to monitor the actions of the Phalangists in the camps or to secure compliance with the order that they advance no further. 23. The same Lieutenant Grabowsky, who had witnessed the Phalangists’ treatment of civilians from the earth embankment outside the camps, was continuing his own inquiry that afternoon. One of his soldiers at this request asked one of the Phalangist soldiers in Arabic why they were killing civilians. He was told “the pregnant women will give birth to terrorists and the children will grow up to be terrorists.” Throughout the afternoon the I.D.F. soldiers under the defendant Yaron’s command saw the Phalangists’ treatment of men, women, and children and heard complaints and stories of the killing. One soldier said he heard a report made to the battalion commander of the Phalangists “running wild.” Lieutenant Grabowsky left area at 4:00 p.m. and later that afternoon related what he had seen to his commander and other officers. They referred him to his brigade commander to whom he conveyed again at 8:00 p.m. what he had seen earlier in the day. 24. At 3:30 p.m. on Friday, September 17, the defendant Yaron, Chief of Staff Eitan, and Major General Drori met and travelled together to a meeting with the Phalangist commanders at Phalangist headquarters. Major General Drori told Chief of Staff Eitan what he knew of the Phalangists’ actions and that he had ordered them to refrain from advancing further in the camps. Eitan did not see fit to ask any questions about the Phalangists’ actions or the order halting them. 25. At 4:00 p.m. the defendant Yaron, Eitan, and Drori met with the Phalangist staff at Phalangist headquarters. In this meeting, despite Drori’s earlier order halting the Phalangists and report on their actions, Chief of Staff Eitan “expressed his positive impression received from the statement by the Phalangist forces at their behavior in the field” and concluded they “continue action, mopping up the empty camps south of Fakhani until tomorrow [Saturday] at 5:00 a.m., at which time they must stop their action due to American pressure.” At this meeting neither defendant Yaron, Chief of Staff Eitan, or Major General Drori asked the Phalangists any questions or debriefed them about what happened in the camps. 26. At this same meeting, the Phalangists requested the I.D.F. to provide them with a tractor for use in the camps “to demolish illegal structures.” Defendant Yaron has acknowledged in testimony under oath that at the end of the meeting it was “clear” that “the Phalangists could still enter the camps, bring in tractors and do what they wanted ….”, and in fact the Phalangists continued to operate unchecked in the camps throughout the night of September 17 and the early morning hours of September 18. I.D.F. forces under the defendant Yaron’s command supplied the Phalangists with a tractor from which I.D.F. markings had been removed. During the night and the following morning the Phalangists used tractors and bulldozers to pile up and bury in mass graves the bodies of hundreds of men, women, and children they had killed in the camps. 27. The Phalangists did not leave the camps at 5:00 a.m., Saturday, September 18, 1982, as ordered. At 6:30 a.m. the defendant Yaron gave the Phalangist commander an order that the Phalangists must vacate the camps “without further delay.” 28. Defendant Yaron took no steps to enforce his order, however. Between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. a group of Phalangist soldiers entered the Gaza Hospital in Sabra and took a group of doctors, nurses, and foreign national workers out of the hospital under armed guard. They were interrogated by the Phalangists and then were taken to the I.D.F. forward command post from which they were later released. It was not until approximately 8:00 a.m. that the last of the Phalangists had left the camps. 29. A burial of the dead was done by the Red Cross which counted 328 bodies, including Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, Syrians, Pakistanis, and Algerians. Some family survivors buried their family members. Truckloads of bodies were removed by the Phalangists. Other bodies are believed to be under the ruins or in mass graves dug by the Phalangists. The I.D.F. itself estimates that 700 to 800 persons were killed by the Phalangists in the camps. In his definitive account of the massacre Sabra & Shatila: Inquiry Into a Massacre (1984), the Israeli investigative journalist Amnon Kapeliouk of Le Mondé Diplomatique arrived at a sum total of about 3000 killed victims. 30. The Kahan Commission, established by the Government of Israel to investigate the responsibility of Israeli officials for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, found that the defendant Brigadier General Yaron, in performing his duties as the commander of the I.D.F. forces occupying the area of the camps, (1) did not properly evaluate and did not check reports that reached him concerning the acts of killing and other irregular actions of the Phalangists in the camps, (2) did not pass on that information to the General Operations Command to the Chief of Staff immediately after it had been received on September 16, 1982, and (3) did not take appropriate steps to stop the Phalangists’ actions and to protect the population in the camps immediately upon receiving the reports. The Commission found he had committed a “grave error” in “breach of the duties incumbent upon him by virtue of his position,” and recommended that he not serve in the capacity of a field commander in the Israeli Defense Forces for three years. 31. No further action was taken by the Israeli Defense Forces or any other branch of the State of Israel regarding the defendant Yaron. In August of 1986, Israel appointed Yaron to serve as their military attaché to the United States, which accorded Yaron full diplomatic privileges and immunity from a lawsuit brought by the undersigned Associate Prosecutor on behalf of several survivors of the 1982 Massacre at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. In December of 1999, Israel appointed General Yaron to serve as Head of its Defense Ministry. Over the years, two attempts have been made to hold General Yaron accountable for these international crimes in the courts of the United States and Belgium, respectively. The undersigned Associate Prosecutor also served as an adviser and counsel to the Belgian lawyers suing defendant Yaron and others for the massacre at Sabra and Shatila. Both lawsuits failed because of interference by the governments of the United States and Belgium, respectively. In the professional opinion of the undersigned Associate Prosecutor who has been pursuing General Yaron since 1986, there is no realistic alternative court available anywhere in the world for the purpose of holding defendant Yaron fully responsible and make him accountable for the international crimes he perpetrated against the residents of Sabra and Shatila but the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. 32. The State of Israel, through its military arm the Israeli Defense Forces (I.D.F.), was the occupying power of West Beirut, including particularly the area containing the Sabra and Shatila camps, on the dates of September 16 through 18, 1982, in that the I.D.F., under the command of the defendant Yaron, was actually in control and was exercising authority over this area. 33. The Phalangists acted as the agents of the I.D.F. in entering and acting in the Sabra and Shatila Camps from September 16-18, 1982, in that the Phalangists entered the camps at the instigation of Israeli officials. Without the acquiescence and assistance of the I.D.F., the Phalangists’ entry into the Israeli surrounded camps would have been impossible. The defendant Yaron, as commander of the I.D.F. forces in West Beirut, had control of and could exercise command of the actions of Phalangists in the camps from September 16-18, 1982. 34. Civilian residents of the Sabra and Shatila Camps, were “protected persons” within the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and whose persons and property were protected by the Hague Convention of 1907 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. 35. The State of Israel, as occupying Power of West Beirut, and the defendant Yaron, were responsible under the Fourth Geneva Convention for the protection of the civilian population therein. Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates that the civilian population must be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof. Article 32 prohibits causing “physical suffering or extermination of protected persons,” and article 33 prohibits reprisals against protected persons. Article 29 provides that the party charged with protecting the civilian population is responsible for the treatment caused to them by its “agents” without regard to any individual agent’s responsibility. 36. Thus, the State of Israel was responsible for the actions of the Phalangists taken against the residents of Sabra and Shatila. 37. The defendant Yaron was further individually culpable for the actions of the Phalangists taken against the residents of Sabra and Shatila, under the Nuremberg Charter (1945), Judgment (1946), and Principles (1950) which are recognized by both the United States and Israel and the entire world as authoritative expressions of the customary law of nations. The Nuremberg Charter is an international agreement that establishes the customary law of nations with respect to personal responsibility for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 38. Nuremberg Charter article 6(b) defines the term “war crime” to include “murder, ill-treatment…of civilian population of or in occupied territory,…plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, town or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.” Article 6(c) of the Nuremberg Charter defines the term “crime against humanity” to include “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population.” Article 6 also provides that leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan. Article 7 of the Nuremberg Charter denies the applicability of the ‘act of state” defense by making it clear that the official position of those who have committed such heinous crimes “shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.” Finally, article 8 provides that the fact an individual acted pursuant to an order of his government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if justice so requires. 39. The United States Supreme Court has affirmed and applied these principles, in the case of Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946), in holding that an official or commander who has actual knowledge or should have knowledge through reports received by him or other means that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed war crimes, and fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Law of War, is responsible for such crimes. Accord, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, “The Law of Land Warfare,” par. 501 (1956). At all relevant times, this Yamashita test was at the time and still is today the current standard for defendant’s Command Responsibility under international criminal law for all the international crimes perpetrated against the residents of Sabra and Shatila. 40. The defendant Brigadier General Yaron, as the commander of the I.D.F. forces into whose control had fallen the Sabra and Shatila camps, as well as the State of Israel as Occupying Power, were thus criminally responsible for murders and devastation visited upon the civilian population by the Phalangist forces, in that defendant Yaron received reports of the killings of women and children on Thursday evening, September 16, 1982, yet did not check the reports, did not pass the reports on to his superiors, continued to provide logistical and material assistance to the Phalangists for their operations within the camps, and did not take appropriate steps to stop the Phalangists and protect the civilians. 41. On 16 December 1982, the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 37/123 determined that “the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps… was an act of genocide” as follows: The General Assembly, Recalling its resolution 95 (I) of 11 December 1946, Recalling also its resolution 96 (I) of 11 December 1946, in which it, inter alia, affirmed that genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices – whether private individuals, public officials or statesmen, and whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds – are punishable, Referring to the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948, Recalling the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, Appalled at the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps situated at Beirut, Recognizing the universal outrage and condemnation of that massacre, Recalling its resolution ES-7/9 of 24 September 1982, 1. Condemns in the strongest terms the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps; 2. Resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide. 42. As a result of the defendant Yaron’s grave breaches of duty, war crimes, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and genocide the residents of Sabra and Shatila suffered large-scale death and damages by reason of the wrongful deaths of them, and their relatives, and further suffered severe emotional distress and suffering and loss of property. 43. The defendant Yaron is not entitled to any immunity from accountability by virtue of a claim of diplomatic immunity or otherwise. Article 146 of Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 is an express waiver of diplomatic immunity with respect to those alleged to have committed grave breaches as defined by Article 147. Moreover, under the Nuremberg Principles and the principle of customary international law known as jus cogens which has been incorporated into the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, governments cannot agree to immunize a war criminal from accountability for his acts. 44. The defendant Yaron is not entitled to any immunity from accountability arising out of any otherwise arguably applicable statute of limitations, in that customary international law provides that there shall be no statute of limitations with respect to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide because of the particularly grievous nature of such violations. 45. On November 21, 2012 the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission heard live witness testimony from a survivor of the 1982 massacre at Sabra and Shatila, Ms. Chahira Abouardini. Her direct examination was conducted by the Chief Prosecutor on the basis of her Statutory Declaration Number 8. A complete transcript of her testimony can be found from pages 127 to 158 of the Commission’s Notes of Proceeding (November 2012). A succinct summary of her testimony is as follows: 46. She testified, “On 14 September 1982, the Lebanese President Bachir Gemayel was assassinated. After that incident, there were a lot of aircraft flying around Beirut. My husband told me that the situation may get worse, and to prepare the children so that we could leave. On 16 September we went to my father’s brick house on Sabra Street. There were other family members as well – my father, my sister (17 years old), my brother (24 years old) and his pregnant wife and 2 children, and my cousin and his wife and 2 children.” 47. Chahira who broke down while giving testimony said, “In the evening beginning from about 5pm, flares were thrown to light up the area. This went on throughout the night. The camp was full of light throughout the night. We did not know what was happening outside. We heard shooting and screaming outside. At about dusk, my sister ran out into the street to see what was happening. She was shot dead by armed militia. When my sister was shot, she shouted for my father. My father came out of the house to see what had happened to my sister. He was also shot and killed. Their bodies were left on the street. Later I found out that those who shot my sister and father were Lebanese Phalangist militia.” 48. In the early hours of the morning, about 16-17 armed soldiers entered her home and shot her husband, brother and cousin dead in front of her and children. She related that militia entered homes and shot at everyone including children and animals. 49. She said, “Along the way to the stadium, I saw my cousin’s daughter who was pregnant lying dead. The murderers had opened her body and taken out her baby and put the baby on her. The child was dead as well. She was lying on the street.” 50. “Along the streets there were a lot of dead bodies. Hundreds of bodies were strewn all over. We climbed a hill to the stadium. At the nearest houses I could see bodies of children. Between the houses, which had been half destroyed, there were bodies of men, and also women and children and animals.” 51. She testified, “In 36 hours, up to 3500 to 5,000 people from Shatila and Sabra had been massacred, There are also people unaccounted for who had disappeared. The Phalangist militia worked together with the Israelis. They were known to be puppets for Israeli forces. Israelis used them to go into our houses, because these soldiers knew the place, and could speak Lebanese. The Israelis were afraid to go in themselves.” 52. She concluded, “What I want is justice to be done and that those who killed my family members and all the people at Shatila and Sabra to be punished for their crimes.” 53. The Chief Prosecutor then called Anne Sunde, a 66-year-old Norwegian who is residing in Belgium. She was working as a volunteer social worker for the Palestinian Red Crescent Society in Beirut in the Sabra and Shatila camps. Her testimony can be found on pages 167 to 193 of the Commission’s Notes of Proceedings (November 2012). A succinct summary of her testimony is as follows: 54. She related, “On 4 June 1982, I visited my friend in Fakhani. While we are chatting in the building, which housed the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) offices, we heard loud noises of planes flying over. We rushed to the shelter in the basement of the building. Then we heard bombing nearby our building. It was loud. The building shook and I was expecting to die under it. It was my first experience of direct violence. One becomes aware of what life is. The bombing seemed eternity.” 55. She said, “After a few days the PRCS set up a hospital in La Houd School, Hamra. Since nobody among the volunteers wanted to do cleaning (janitor), I volunteered. I did this together with Kurdish refugees.” 56. She said, “Finally I decided to go back to Belgium on 15 September 1982 via Damascus. However, since it was the morning after Bachir Gemayel’s (the then President-elect) death, there were no taxis to take me to Damascus. Great nervousness was felt in town. I returned to the PRCS headquarter in Hamra where most of the foreigners were located.” 57. She then proceeded to relate her harrowing experiences of the killings at the Sabra and Shatila Camps. She further related that when she went to the Shatila Camp she saw many dead bodies of adults and children, both male and female, in strange positions. I also saw dead animals. The bodies were already decomposing and bloated in the summer heat. The smell, she said, was unbearable and there were flies all over. 58. She added, “It was a horrible scene and they were digging mass graves to bury the dead.” 59. In their Executive Summary, Findings and Recommendations of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Hearing on Palestine (PWTC: 20-21 November 2012) the Commission officially determined in relevant part as follows on pages 13-15: 60. 6th witness – Ms. Chahira Abouardini The witness, 54 years old, was born in B’albuq, Lebanon. Her parents were born in Palestine, and they moved to Lebanon in 1948 when Israel under the United Nations took their hand in Palestine. Thereafter her parents lived in refugee camps. The witness has lived and grown up these 54 years in the refugee camps (Shatila). She has three children. 61. On May 5, 1982, the Israeli army attacked the refugee camp. The attack lasted 3 months. The witness (together with his parents) managed to escape to Beirut, returning to the camp only after the attack was over. 62. The witness said that on the evening of September 16, 1982, her parents’ home was attacked by the Israeli army. Her 17 year old sister and 65 year old father were both shot as they went out of the house. They both died. 63. At 6 am the next morning, 16 to 17 Israeli soldiers carrying weapons entered the house. They asked the men to go outside the room. The soldiers searched them and seized everything from them – valuables, any watches or anything. And then they ordered them to face the wall. When the men had done that, the soldiers opened fire – killing the witness’s husband, brother and cousin. They all died. 64. After the men were killed, the soldiers herded the women outside. They were deciding who would shoot the women, but finally decided not to do it because there were children with them. The women were then taken (marched at gun-point) to a nearby sports complex. On the way to the place, the witness saw her cousin who was killed. 65. This was what she said in her testimony “Before they went to the sport complex, as they were walking down the street, I saw my cousin who at the time was 20 years old and she was 9 months pregnant. I found her on the side of the road, with her stomach open and the baby was placed over her chest – was taken out of her womb and placed over her body. Of course the child was dead too. My cousin was dead and nude…” 66. “All along the way there were dead bodies everywhere,” the Witness said. “Hundreds of dead bodies …. adults, children, all ages.” 67. Asked by the Prosecutor whether the Israeli soldiers “entering homes (were) killing people all the time,” the witness replied “Yes. We were actually at the first point where they started to kill and they expand it all the way to Sabra…” 68. Asked by the Prosecutor on the number of people killed, the witness said that during that one and half day massacre in Sabra Shatila, between 3,500 to 5,000 people were killed. The exact number is not known, because some bodies were never found. 69. The witness also said that Italian forces had previously signed an agreement to protect the civilians and they were stationed at the camp. However, one day before this massacre started, they all left. Some weeks later, after the massacre was over, the Italians returned. 70. Asked by the Commission Chairman, Musa, whether these Italians were UN peace keepers, whether they were wearing blue berets, the witness said that she could not remember. 71. The witness said that the killing was carried out by the Phalangist militia, who were recruited by the Israelis. “There were known to be the puppets for Israeli forces. Israelis used them to go into our houses, because these soldiers knew the place, and could speak Lebanese.” 72. Asked by Commissioner Denis Halliday whether these Phalangists were Christian militia, the witness said she recognized some of their names as Christian names, but she cannot confirm that all are Christians. 73. The witness said that apart from Ariel Sharon, the “person who was commanding the forces at that time, that attacked Sabra Shatila, was … General Amos Yaron.” …. 74. 8th witness – Ms. Anne K. Sunde The witness, who holds a Norwegian passport, is a resident of Belgium (since 1968). She was voluntary social worker with the Palestinian Red Crescent Society in Beirut when the Shatila Sabra massacre occurred. 75. In her testimony, the witness showed the Commission the geography and terrain of the Shatila Sabra area where the massacre occurred and where the Israeli soldiers were stationed. The witness said that in the Shatila camp, “I saw dead bodies of adults, children, male, female in all kinds of positions. Dead.” Conclusion Wherefore, it is respectfully submitted that the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal must convict the defendant Amos Yaron for War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law; and their related provisions set forth in articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. Professor Francis A. Boyle Associate Prosecutor Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Legal Team (Established by the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission) Done at Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A. on this _______ March 2013 Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu'; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'; 'abass10 at gmail.com'; 'mickalideh at gmail.com'; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net'; 'Karen Aram' >; 'David Swanson' > 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, April 20, 2017 1:35 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Karen Aram' > Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! The Hard-Core Zionist Legal Whore Dinstein filed a sworn affidavit on behalf of General Yaron in this case. As for Falk, he sabotaged the MacBride Commission Report to make sure that it did not determine that the Sabra and Shatilla Massacre was Genocide despite the fact that the United Nations General Assembly determined that it was Genocide. 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, April 20, 2017 1:30 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram > Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! I have refuted the alleged doctrines of “humanitarian intervention” and its avatar “responsibility to protect” in my books Tackling America’s Toughest Questions (2009) {chapter against humanitarian intervention} as updated by Destroying Libya and World Order (2013) {chapter against R2P}. As for Dinstein, he is a hard-core Zionist Legal Whore who works for the Israeli government. I have been repeatedly up against him. Most egregiously, I represented several women who were next of kin of the 3500+ Palestinian old men, women and children victims of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, suing the Israeli General Amos Yaron who was in charge of it all. Dinstein filed a sworn Affidavit in that case stating that Yaron had diplomatic privileges and immunities as Israel’s military attaché to the United States government despite the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946) and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) to the contrary. Dinstein is a total disgrace and a Hard-Core Zionist Legal Whore! As for the argument that military action can be “illegal” but “legitimate” or “illegal” but “moral” that monstrosity was developed by the Zionist Law Professor Richard Falk. An act of aggression is a Nuremberg Crime against Peace according to the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946) and the Nuremberg Principles (1950). A Nuremberg Crime against Peace can never be “legitimate” or “moral.” Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 12:54 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! did you see that Congress has now declared that the UN Charter legalizes 3 rather than the traditional 2 types of war? https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/airbase.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 130 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Apr 20 22:12:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:12:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! References: Message-ID: International Law Professor Dinstein from Israel is truly sick and demented to have entered this case in order to excuse General Yaron from his accountability under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgement and Principles for the Genocidal Massacre at Sabra and Shatilla and in the process Dinstein becoming himself an Accessory After the Fact to the Genocidal Sabra and Shatilla Massacre. And he is generally considered to be Israel’s “leading” international law professor. The Nazi rot starts from the top. 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, April 20, 2017 1:43 PM To: 'David Swanson' Cc: Estabrook, Carl G ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'Jay Becker' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Dave Trippel' ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Karen Aram' Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time ever that anyone had sued an Israeli government official for war crimes against Palestinians. Fab. -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 2:45 PM To: 'Killeacle' Subject: Barak Appoints War Criminal Yaron! Importance: High Barak Appoints War Criminal Yaron by Francis A. Boyle Professor of International Law (The author served as Attorney in the lawsuit against General Yaron in Ali Aidi v. Yaron, 672 Fed. Supp. 516 (D.D.C. 1987), Palestine Yearbook of International Law, Vol. V, 1989.) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has nominated former Major General Amos Yaron to serve as director-general of the Israeli Defense Ministry, while Barak himself retains the portfolio of Minister of Defense. According to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, Yaron, whose appointment must be confirmed by the Israeli Cabinet, is a war criminal by virtue of his command responsibility for the murder of about 2000 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians during the 1982 Sabra and Shatila refugee camp massacre in Beirut, Lebanon. Should Yaron's appointment be confirmed, the U.S. government will be aiding and abetting the work of an infamous war criminal. In Fiscal Year 2000, Israel is scheduled to receive $1.92 billion dollars in U.S. military aid out of a total annual U.S. aid package to Israel worth $2.94 billion. In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, driving as far north as the capital, Beirut, purportedly in an effort to expel the Palestine Liberation Organization. In August 1982, special U.S. envoy Philip Habib negotiated the withdrawal of Palestinian forces from Beirut. According to that agreement the United States government guaranteed the safety of the remaining Palestinian civilians and obtained Israel's assurance that its armed forces would not enter West Beirut. Israel, breaking its own pledge, occupied West Beirut and surrounded the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps on September 15, 1982. On September 16, then Brigadier General Amos Yaron, acting under orders from the Israeli Ministry of Defense under General Ariel Sharon, allowed Phalangist troops to enter the refugee camps even though the same troops had previously engaged in massacres of Palestinians living in Lebanon. The killing at the refugee camps went on for three days. During nighttime Phalangist operations, Yaron's troops fired illumination rounds so the Phalangists could continue their bloody work. Israeli troops, under the command of Yaron, blocked the exits of the camps to prevent the refugees from escaping and supplied the Phalangists with at least one bulldozer, which was used to cover bodies with rubble. According to the official Israeli Commission of Inquiry into the massacre (the so-called Kahan Commission), Yaron, who was present on the roof of the IDF forward command post overlooking the Shatila camp on the evening of September 16, knew then that women and children were being killed by Phalangist militiamen who had entered the camps by prior arrangement with the Israeli military. Not until the morning of September 18 did Yaron move to end the killings. Israeli military intelligence later underestimated the death toll at between 700 and 800, which was criminal enough. In his testimony to the Kahan Commission, Yaron said he was "happy" about the decision to send the Phalangist forces into the refugee camps because "the fighting serves their purposes as well, so let them participate and not let the IDF do everything." Under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which was signed by both the United States and Israel, by his complicity in the massacre, Yaron allowed the willful causing of "great suffering" and "serious injury" to the residents of the camps, who were legally "protected persons" thereunder. In so doing, Yaron was guilty of "grave breaches" under Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In other words, because of his command responsibilities during the Sabra and Shatila massacre, Yaron was personally responsible for the commission of "war crimes" under general principles of both customary and conventional international law. On August 1, 1986, the Israeli government announced that it was nominating Yaron as its Military Attaché to the United States and Canada. Immediately thereafter, this author and Mr. Abdeen Jabara, Esq. who had recently become President of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in Washington, D.C., decided to launch a campaign to prevent the United States government from accepting Yaron's diplomatic credentials and admitting him into the country. Together, the two of us drafted telegrams to Secretary of State George Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and Attorney General Edwin Meese pointing out that Yaron was responsible for the commission of "grave breaches" of the Fourth Geneva Convention for the role that he played in supervising the Sabra and Shatila massacre. As such, the United States government was under an absolute obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention to prosecute Yaron for these heinous war crimes should he set foot on United States territory. Therefore, the telegrams argued, the United States government must not allow Yaron to enter the country for any reason other than prosecution. Otherwise, the United States government would be in breach of its own obligations under the Fourth Geneva Contention. ADC sent similar telegrams to the ambassadors for all states parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, requesting that pursuant to common article 1, their governments had an obligation to intervene with the United States government to demand that the latter not accept Yaron's diplomatic credentials. A few European states did indeed take this matter up with the United States government. In the meantime, this author sent a letter to the Legal Adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry stating that in the event Yaron were to set foot upon United States territory, he would personally sue Yaron in a U.S. court for his role in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. These vigorous efforts by this author, Jabara, the ADC, and others led the Reagan administration to hold up Yaron's Letter of Accreditation for a period of three months. According to the Israeli Press, these protests against Yaron's appointment were instrumental in prompting Washington to seek Yaron's recall. Israeli papers reported that the behind-the-scenes diplomatic fury which resulted over Yaron's nomination came after the Department of Defense received hundreds of letters from Arab-Americans and liberal Jewish groups protesting Yaron's presence in the United States. Several meetings were held between Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz over the question of Yaron's suitability to serve as Defense Attaché in light of his involvement in the Beirut massacres. The Israeli daily Davar, associated with the Labor Party, first broke the story of the meetings between U.S. and Israeli officials over Yaron in its October 22 edition, indicating that Washington and Tel Aviv had agreed that Yaron would be recalled but not immediately. Both sides later denied that a deal had been made, although a spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., Yossi Gal, confirmed that the negotiations had indeed taken place. On October 24, 1986 the Reagan administration officially accepted Yaron's Letter of Accreditation. Undaunted, ADC's Abdeen Jabara flew to Ottawa to convince the Canadian government to refuse diplomatic accreditation to Yaron as Israel's Military Attaché to Canada. To its great credit, on March 5, 1987 the Canadian government refused to accept Yaron's diplomatic credentials. Explaining the move, External Affairs Minister Joe Clark said that Canada did not consider it "appropriate" to accept Yaron's credentials. Officials of the External Affairs Ministry indicated privately that Canada had based its decision on the findings of the Kahan Commission Report. On March 28 the Jerusalem Post reported that Yaron had asked his superiors to cut short his Washington assignment. A "cool" reception from the diplomatic community in the U.S., followed by Canada's refusal to accept his appointment to Ottawa, were factors leading to Yaron's request to be considered for a territorial command, according to their sources. Apparently, Canada had rejected Yaron's credentials with Washington's approval. In the meantime, this author, Abdeen Jabara, Linda Huber, Esq., an attorney in Washington, D.C., Professor Linda Malone, now of the William and Mary School of Law, and Albert Mokhiber, Esq., then ADC Legal Affairs Director and later its President, convened at ADC Headquarters for the purpose of preparing a civil lawsuit against Yaron on behalf of some of the victims of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. This author and Linda Huber agreed to serve as Attorneys of Record for three Palestinian women who survived the massacre. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on May 4, 1987. The Complaint alleged that Yaron bore responsibility for the murder of the family members of the three Palestinian women under international treaties including the Nuremberg Principles, which forbid war crimes and crimes against humanity. The plaintiffs, Fatimeh Ali Aidi, Zeineb Sa'ad and Samia A. Khatib, all three of whom resided in the Shatila camp, each asked for $100,000 in punitive damages and an undetermined amount in compensatory damages against Yaron. The Complaint stated that the husband of Fatimeh Ali Aidi, the father and sister of Zeineb Sa'ad, and the mother, sister and five nieces and nephews of Samia A. Khatib, were "murdered in the Shatila Camp by agents of the defendant Yaron" and the IDF during Israel's occupation of West Beirut in September 1982. The lawsuit stated that Yaron was guilty of violating the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits the killing of civilians under military occupation and incriminates an occupying power even if its "agents" carry out the killing. Citing the Nuremberg Principles, which were designed to prevent the repetition of crimes against humanity such as were committed by the Nazi occupying power in Europe during the Second World War, the suit alleged that Yaron's position of authority, and knowledge of the ongoing massacre, rendered him personally responsible for the actions of the Phalangists. Yaron was served with a summons to appear in court as he left his Chevy Chase, Maryland apartment for work on the morning of May 5, one day after the suit was filed. On May 20, 50 demonstrators picketed Yaron's apartment building, calling attention to current efforts by France, Israel and the Soviet Union to bring Nazi war criminals to justice, while Yaron continued to enjoy diplomatic status in the United States. On May 26, a motion to dismiss the case was filed by lawyers representing Yaron, claiming that he enjoyed diplomatic immunity as Israel's Military Attaché, that the statute of limitations had expired, and that the international treaties cited by the plaintiffs allowed only governments, not individuals, to bring legal action for alleged treaty violations. During the course of the Yaron litigation, the United States Department of State took the official position that Yaron possessed diplomatic immunity under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the U.S. Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978. Yet, at the exact same time the U.S. State Department was also involved in efforts to put former U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim on the so-called "watch list" in order to bar his entry into the United States on the alleged grounds that he might have been an accomplice to the commission of war crimes during the Second World War. The U.S. Department of Justice so barred Waldheim as of April 27, 1987. By contrast, Yaron was directly responsible for the murder of about 2000 innocent Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, including women, children, and old people. Unlike Waldheim, however, not only was Yaron permitted to enter the United States, but the U.S. government also accorded him full diplomatic privileges and immunities under the Vienna Convention. The gross hypocrisy involved in these two contemporaneous decisions by the U.S. government could not have been more blatant. Nevertheless, the Federal District Judge who handled the Yaron case decided to defer to the wishes of the Department of State in this matter. The Judge observed that this was not a criminal tribunal, but only a civil action. Hence, the Judge ruled that Yaron was immune from civil proceedings in United States courts irrespective of whether or not he would be immune from criminal proceedings in some other forum. The Judge basically ignored expert Affidavits submitted to the Court independently by three American Professors of International Law, all of whom stated under oath that acknowledged war criminals such as Yaron were both criminally and civilly liable for the commission of their international crimes, whether in United States courts or elsewhere. Despite this setback, ADC continued to mount its nationwide campaign to convince Yaron that an acknowledged war criminal was not wanted by the American people to be roaming the streets of their capital, and that he should go home. Exactly one year after the Israeli government press office had quietly announced the appointment of Yaron, the Jerusalem Post of Aug. 1, 1987 reported that Yaron was to resign his diplomatic position "for reasons related to a lingering controversy" about his role in the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre. This "lingering controversy" was fueled by ADC's "Send Yaron Home" campaign. According to the Jerusalem Post, although the Reagan administration initially accepted Yaron's posting to Washington, it had since been actively trying to encourage Israel to recall him. Eventually Yaron returned home to Israel, where he currently lives and works with his fellow war criminals in the IDF and the Israeli government. Under basic principles of international law, the U.S. government must be concerned about directing billions of U.S. tax dollars to the control of an acknowledged war criminal such as Yaron. Accordingly, the U.S. government must discontinue all military assistance to Israel if Yaron's appointment is confirmed. Also, there is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Should Yaron attempt to return to the U.S., the U.S. government is obligated to prosecute him for war crimes. The same conclusion follows for any other State where Yaron might travel. Legally, General Yaron is just like General Pinochet: Hostis humani generis--The enemy of all humankind! Francis 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, April 20, 2017 1:40 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Karen Aram' > Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! Both Dinstein and Falk played completely disreputable if not outright unethical roles when it came to avoiding accountability for the Genocidal Massacre of 3500+ completely innocent Palestinian old men, women and children at Sabra and Shatilla. Fab. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Case No. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Against Amos Yaron CHARGE The Associate Prosecutor of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission pursuant to Article 7 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission charges: Amos Yaron Individually, for WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AND GENOCIDE as follows: The defendant Amos Yaron perpetrated War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law; and their related provisions set forth in articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. Particulars of the Charge: 1. Commencing on June 6, 1982, the Israeli Defense Forces (I.D.F.) of the State of Israel commenced a large-scale invasion of the State of Lebanon, and by June 14 had taken over the suburbs of Beirut and joined with Lebanese Phalangist forces controlling East Beirut. The I.D.F. lay siege to West Beirut, and through massive aerial bombardment attempted to dislodge the forces of Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization present in West Beirut. 2. The Israeli siege and bombardment of West Beirut continued throughout the summer of 1982, causing grievous devastation to the civilian population, but did not succeed in its goal of defeating or dislodging the Syrian and P.L.O. forces. 3. With the negotiating assistance of the United States through Ambassador Philip C. Habib, on August 19, 1982, an agreement was reached between Lebanon, the United States, France, Italy, Israel, and the P.L.O. for the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces under the auspices and protection of a multi-national force. The agreement further provided that the Israeli Defense Forces would not attempt to enter or occupy West Beirut following the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces. 4. Pursuant to that agreement the multinational American, French, and Italian force oversaw the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces until completed on September 1, 1982. The multinational force left Lebanon from September 10-12, 1982, after the completion of the evacuation. 5. On or about September 14, 1982, following receipt of word of the assassination of Lebanese President Bashir Jemayel, a Phalangist, in East Beirut, Israeli Prime Minister Begin, Prime Minister of Defense Sharon, and Chief of Staff Eitan, decided that the Israeli Defense Forces would immediately enter and occupy West Beirut. It was further agreed that the Lebanese Phalangist forces would immediately enter and occupy West Beirut. It was further agreed that the Lebanese Phalangist forces, following the I.D.F.’s occupation of West Beirut, would be sent into the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps. 6. Pursuant to the decision, on September 15, 1982, the I.D.F. entered West Beirut under the command of Brigadier General Amos Yaron, the defendant in this case. The I.D.F. established a forward command post on the roof of a five-story building southwest of the Shatila camp, and defendant Brigadier General Yaron commanded I.D.F. forces from that post. The area surrounding the camps was thereafter under the command and control of the I.D.F., and all forces in the area, including the Phalangists, were deemed to be operating under the authority of the I.D.F. and acting according to its instructions. 7. Simultaneous with the entry of the I.D.F. into West Beirut, senior Israeli officials including Chief of Staff Eitan, Minister of Defense Sharon, and Major General Drori directed the Phalangist commanders to have their forces enter the Sabra and Shatila camps with their entry coordinated with the defendant Brigadier General Yaron at the forward command post. The control by the I.D.F. of the area surrounding the camps and the decision to send the Phalangist forces into the camps was confirmed at a meeting in the earlier morning hours of September 16, 1982 among Chief of Staff Eitan, the Israeli Director of Military Intelligence, Brigadier General Saguy, and the chief aide to Defense Minister Sharon, at which Eitan announced: the whole city is in our hands, complete quiet prevails now, the camps are closed and surrounded, the Phalangists are to go in at 11:00-12:00. Yesterday we spoke to them…The situation now is that the entire city is in our hands, the camps are all closed. 8. Prior to September 16, 1982, the defendant Yaron, as well as other Israeli officials had reason to know that the Phalangists were likely to attempt to perpetrate massacres and other atrocities against the civilian population of the Sabra and Shatila camps. 9. At 11:00 a.m. on September 16, 1986, Major General Drori and the defendant Brigadier General Yaron met with Phalangist commanders to coordinate their entry into the camps. The defendant Yaron set up lookout posts on the roof of the forward command posts to monitor the entry of the Phalangist forces into the camps. The Phalangist unit that entered the camps was an intelligence unit headed by one Eli Hobeika, who did not himself enter the camps but remained on the roof of the Israeli forward command post throughout the night of September 16. 10. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 16, 1982, the Phalangists entered the camps, initially entering the Shatila camp from the west and southwest as directed by the I.D.F. At the request of the Phalangist liaison officer on the roof of the I.D.F. forward command post, I.D.F. personnel under the command of the defendant Yaron provided mortar, and subsequent aircraft, illumination for the Phalangists in the camps throughout the night. 11. At approximately 7:00 p.m. on September 16, Israeli Lieutenant Elul overheard, while he was on the roof of the command post, a transmission over the Phalangists’ communication set to Eli Hobeika. He heard a Phalangist officer from the forces in the camp tell Hobeika that “there were 50 women and children, and what should he do.” Hobeika replied, “This is the last time you’re going to ask me a question like that, you know exactly what to do,” this remark being followed by “raucous laughter” among the Phalangists on the roof. The defendant Brigadier General Yaron, who was also present on the roof, asked Lieutenant Elul what he had overheard and Lieutenant Elul reported to him the above information. 12. At approximately 8:00 p.m. another report of indiscriminate killing by the Phalangists was made in the presence of the defendant Yaron. The Phalangists liaison officer known as “G” told various people in the command post dining room, including the defendant Yaron and I.D.F. officers, that about 300 people had been killed in the camps, including civilians. Shortly thereafter “G” reduced the number of casualties he reported from 300 to 120. No action was taken by the defendant Yaron, or any other I.D.F. official to ascertain the circumstances giving rise to the report that the Phalangists had killed either 300 or 120 persons in the camps within hours after their entry. 13. At approximately 8:40 p.m., the defendant Yaron convened a meeting of I.D.F. officers at the forward command post for an update briefing on the Phalangists’ entry into the camps. At this meeting, an Israeli intelligence officer relayed a report he had received at 8:00 p.m. that evening from the Phalangist liaison officer. The Phalangist liaison officer had heard via radio from a Phalangist inside the camps that he was holding forty-five people and had asked the liaison officer what to do. The Phalangist officer replied, “Do the will of God” or words to that effect. The intelligence officer went on to express his concern regarding the Phalangists’ actions toward civilians in the camps, including women, and children, and older people, but the defendant Yaron cut him off and the matter of the Phalangists’ actions against civilians in the camps was not mentioned again. 14. During the night of Thursday, September 16, and in the early morning hours of Friday, September 17, the reports about killing of civilians by the Phalangists in the camps began to circulate among the I.D.F. officers under the defendant Yaron’s command at the forward command post. Yet the I.D.F. forces at the forward command post, following a request from the Phalangist liaison officer for more illumination of the camps, provided more illumination for the actions of the Phalangists then taking palce. 15. The following morning, Friday, September 17, 1982, the defendant Yaron was contacted by his superior officer Major General Drori for a report about various matters relating to the military actions in West Beirut. The defendant Yaron did not inform Major General Drori of any of the reports he had received regarding the Phalangists’ killing of civilians in the camps. 16. Following defendant Yaron’s rebuff of his report of killing of civilians in the camps at the aforementioned briefing at the forward command post on Thursday evening, September 16, the same intelligence officer between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. contacted his own superior officer and reported the Phalangist officer’s statement that 300 terrorists and civilians had been killed and that he had subsequently reduced the number to 120. By 5:30 a.m. on Friday, September 17 the report had been conveyed to the Israeli Director of Military Intelligence in Israel. 17. At 8:00 a.m. on Friday, September 17, the Director of Military Intelligence ordered that it be ascertained what was happening in the Sabra and Shatila camps. No confirmation was obtained, and as a result, the report of killing of civilians was treated as unreliable. 18. The I.D.F. soldiers under the command of the defendant Yaron, in the morning of Friday, September 17, detected more killings and abuses of civilians in the camps. For example Lieutenant Grabowsky, stationed 200 meters from the camp on an earth embankment, saw that the Phalangist soldiers had killed a group of five women and children and later saw another killing of a civilian by a Phalangist. He was deterred from making a report to his superiors by the other soldiers, who told him that the battalion commander had already been told civilians were being killed and he had only replied, “We know, it’s not to our liking, and don’t interfere.” 19. Yet, at 9:00 a.m. on Friday September 17, the defendant Yaron met with the Phalangists at the forward command post to discuss sending an additional force of Phalangists into the camps. 20. At 11:00 a.m. on Friday, September 17, Israeli journalist Ze’ev Schiff met in Tel Aviv with Minister Zapori and conveyed to the Minister a report of “slaughter” in the camps that he had received from an unidentified source in the General Staff of the I.D.F. Minister Zipori in Schiff’s presence called Foreign Minister Yizhtak Shamir to discuss Schiff’s report. Minister Zipori told Minister Shamir of the reports he had received regarding killing by the Phalangists in the camps, and asked Shamir to check the report with the United States and Israeli officials with whom Shamir was to meet at 12:30. 21. At 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 17, Foreign Minister Shamir met in his office in Tel Aviv with United States Ambassador Morris Draper, other United States representatives, Minister of Defense Sharon, the Director of Military Intelligence Saguy, and others. No one in the meeting made any mention of the Phalangists in the camps. The meeting ended at 3:00 p.m.; Foreign Minister Shamir went home and took no further action on the report. 22. At 11:00 a.m. on Friday, September 17, the defendant Yaron and Major General Drori again met and discussed the actions of the Phalangists in the camps. Although the accounts of Yaron and Drori differ as to the content of the meeting, either Yaron or Drori contacted the Phalangist commanders and conveyed an order that the Phalangists were to stop where they were in the camps and to advance no further. At this same meeting, Drori telephoned Chief of Staff Eitan, told him that the Phalangists had perhaps “gone too far,” and that he had ordered the operation halted. No action, however, was taken by the defendant Yaron on Friday, September 17, to monitor the actions of the Phalangists in the camps or to secure compliance with the order that they advance no further. 23. The same Lieutenant Grabowsky, who had witnessed the Phalangists’ treatment of civilians from the earth embankment outside the camps, was continuing his own inquiry that afternoon. One of his soldiers at this request asked one of the Phalangist soldiers in Arabic why they were killing civilians. He was told “the pregnant women will give birth to terrorists and the children will grow up to be terrorists.” Throughout the afternoon the I.D.F. soldiers under the defendant Yaron’s command saw the Phalangists’ treatment of men, women, and children and heard complaints and stories of the killing. One soldier said he heard a report made to the battalion commander of the Phalangists “running wild.” Lieutenant Grabowsky left area at 4:00 p.m. and later that afternoon related what he had seen to his commander and other officers. They referred him to his brigade commander to whom he conveyed again at 8:00 p.m. what he had seen earlier in the day. 24. At 3:30 p.m. on Friday, September 17, the defendant Yaron, Chief of Staff Eitan, and Major General Drori met and travelled together to a meeting with the Phalangist commanders at Phalangist headquarters. Major General Drori told Chief of Staff Eitan what he knew of the Phalangists’ actions and that he had ordered them to refrain from advancing further in the camps. Eitan did not see fit to ask any questions about the Phalangists’ actions or the order halting them. 25. At 4:00 p.m. the defendant Yaron, Eitan, and Drori met with the Phalangist staff at Phalangist headquarters. In this meeting, despite Drori’s earlier order halting the Phalangists and report on their actions, Chief of Staff Eitan “expressed his positive impression received from the statement by the Phalangist forces at their behavior in the field” and concluded they “continue action, mopping up the empty camps south of Fakhani until tomorrow [Saturday] at 5:00 a.m., at which time they must stop their action due to American pressure.” At this meeting neither defendant Yaron, Chief of Staff Eitan, or Major General Drori asked the Phalangists any questions or debriefed them about what happened in the camps. 26. At this same meeting, the Phalangists requested the I.D.F. to provide them with a tractor for use in the camps “to demolish illegal structures.” Defendant Yaron has acknowledged in testimony under oath that at the end of the meeting it was “clear” that “the Phalangists could still enter the camps, bring in tractors and do what they wanted ….”, and in fact the Phalangists continued to operate unchecked in the camps throughout the night of September 17 and the early morning hours of September 18. I.D.F. forces under the defendant Yaron’s command supplied the Phalangists with a tractor from which I.D.F. markings had been removed. During the night and the following morning the Phalangists used tractors and bulldozers to pile up and bury in mass graves the bodies of hundreds of men, women, and children they had killed in the camps. 27. The Phalangists did not leave the camps at 5:00 a.m., Saturday, September 18, 1982, as ordered. At 6:30 a.m. the defendant Yaron gave the Phalangist commander an order that the Phalangists must vacate the camps “without further delay.” 28. Defendant Yaron took no steps to enforce his order, however. Between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. a group of Phalangist soldiers entered the Gaza Hospital in Sabra and took a group of doctors, nurses, and foreign national workers out of the hospital under armed guard. They were interrogated by the Phalangists and then were taken to the I.D.F. forward command post from which they were later released. It was not until approximately 8:00 a.m. that the last of the Phalangists had left the camps. 29. A burial of the dead was done by the Red Cross which counted 328 bodies, including Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, Syrians, Pakistanis, and Algerians. Some family survivors buried their family members. Truckloads of bodies were removed by the Phalangists. Other bodies are believed to be under the ruins or in mass graves dug by the Phalangists. The I.D.F. itself estimates that 700 to 800 persons were killed by the Phalangists in the camps. In his definitive account of the massacre Sabra & Shatila: Inquiry Into a Massacre (1984), the Israeli investigative journalist Amnon Kapeliouk of Le Mondé Diplomatique arrived at a sum total of about 3000 killed victims. 30. The Kahan Commission, established by the Government of Israel to investigate the responsibility of Israeli officials for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, found that the defendant Brigadier General Yaron, in performing his duties as the commander of the I.D.F. forces occupying the area of the camps, (1) did not properly evaluate and did not check reports that reached him concerning the acts of killing and other irregular actions of the Phalangists in the camps, (2) did not pass on that information to the General Operations Command to the Chief of Staff immediately after it had been received on September 16, 1982, and (3) did not take appropriate steps to stop the Phalangists’ actions and to protect the population in the camps immediately upon receiving the reports. The Commission found he had committed a “grave error” in “breach of the duties incumbent upon him by virtue of his position,” and recommended that he not serve in the capacity of a field commander in the Israeli Defense Forces for three years. 31. No further action was taken by the Israeli Defense Forces or any other branch of the State of Israel regarding the defendant Yaron. In August of 1986, Israel appointed Yaron to serve as their military attaché to the United States, which accorded Yaron full diplomatic privileges and immunity from a lawsuit brought by the undersigned Associate Prosecutor on behalf of several survivors of the 1982 Massacre at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. In December of 1999, Israel appointed General Yaron to serve as Head of its Defense Ministry. Over the years, two attempts have been made to hold General Yaron accountable for these international crimes in the courts of the United States and Belgium, respectively. The undersigned Associate Prosecutor also served as an adviser and counsel to the Belgian lawyers suing defendant Yaron and others for the massacre at Sabra and Shatila. Both lawsuits failed because of interference by the governments of the United States and Belgium, respectively. In the professional opinion of the undersigned Associate Prosecutor who has been pursuing General Yaron since 1986, there is no realistic alternative court available anywhere in the world for the purpose of holding defendant Yaron fully responsible and make him accountable for the international crimes he perpetrated against the residents of Sabra and Shatila but the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. 32. The State of Israel, through its military arm the Israeli Defense Forces (I.D.F.), was the occupying power of West Beirut, including particularly the area containing the Sabra and Shatila camps, on the dates of September 16 through 18, 1982, in that the I.D.F., under the command of the defendant Yaron, was actually in control and was exercising authority over this area. 33. The Phalangists acted as the agents of the I.D.F. in entering and acting in the Sabra and Shatila Camps from September 16-18, 1982, in that the Phalangists entered the camps at the instigation of Israeli officials. Without the acquiescence and assistance of the I.D.F., the Phalangists’ entry into the Israeli surrounded camps would have been impossible. The defendant Yaron, as commander of the I.D.F. forces in West Beirut, had control of and could exercise command of the actions of Phalangists in the camps from September 16-18, 1982. 34. Civilian residents of the Sabra and Shatila Camps, were “protected persons” within the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and whose persons and property were protected by the Hague Convention of 1907 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. 35. The State of Israel, as occupying Power of West Beirut, and the defendant Yaron, were responsible under the Fourth Geneva Convention for the protection of the civilian population therein. Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates that the civilian population must be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof. Article 32 prohibits causing “physical suffering or extermination of protected persons,” and article 33 prohibits reprisals against protected persons. Article 29 provides that the party charged with protecting the civilian population is responsible for the treatment caused to them by its “agents” without regard to any individual agent’s responsibility. 36. Thus, the State of Israel was responsible for the actions of the Phalangists taken against the residents of Sabra and Shatila. 37. The defendant Yaron was further individually culpable for the actions of the Phalangists taken against the residents of Sabra and Shatila, under the Nuremberg Charter (1945), Judgment (1946), and Principles (1950) which are recognized by both the United States and Israel and the entire world as authoritative expressions of the customary law of nations. The Nuremberg Charter is an international agreement that establishes the customary law of nations with respect to personal responsibility for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 38. Nuremberg Charter article 6(b) defines the term “war crime” to include “murder, ill-treatment…of civilian population of or in occupied territory,…plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, town or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.” Article 6(c) of the Nuremberg Charter defines the term “crime against humanity” to include “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population.” Article 6 also provides that leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan. Article 7 of the Nuremberg Charter denies the applicability of the ‘act of state” defense by making it clear that the official position of those who have committed such heinous crimes “shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.” Finally, article 8 provides that the fact an individual acted pursuant to an order of his government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if justice so requires. 39. The United States Supreme Court has affirmed and applied these principles, in the case of Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946), in holding that an official or commander who has actual knowledge or should have knowledge through reports received by him or other means that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed war crimes, and fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Law of War, is responsible for such crimes. Accord, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, “The Law of Land Warfare,” par. 501 (1956). At all relevant times, this Yamashita test was at the time and still is today the current standard for defendant’s Command Responsibility under international criminal law for all the international crimes perpetrated against the residents of Sabra and Shatila. 40. The defendant Brigadier General Yaron, as the commander of the I.D.F. forces into whose control had fallen the Sabra and Shatila camps, as well as the State of Israel as Occupying Power, were thus criminally responsible for murders and devastation visited upon the civilian population by the Phalangist forces, in that defendant Yaron received reports of the killings of women and children on Thursday evening, September 16, 1982, yet did not check the reports, did not pass the reports on to his superiors, continued to provide logistical and material assistance to the Phalangists for their operations within the camps, and did not take appropriate steps to stop the Phalangists and protect the civilians. 41. On 16 December 1982, the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 37/123 determined that “the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps… was an act of genocide” as follows: The General Assembly, Recalling its resolution 95 (I) of 11 December 1946, Recalling also its resolution 96 (I) of 11 December 1946, in which it, inter alia, affirmed that genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices – whether private individuals, public officials or statesmen, and whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds – are punishable, Referring to the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948, Recalling the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, Appalled at the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps situated at Beirut, Recognizing the universal outrage and condemnation of that massacre, Recalling its resolution ES-7/9 of 24 September 1982, 1. Condemns in the strongest terms the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps; 2. Resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide. 42. As a result of the defendant Yaron’s grave breaches of duty, war crimes, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and genocide the residents of Sabra and Shatila suffered large-scale death and damages by reason of the wrongful deaths of them, and their relatives, and further suffered severe emotional distress and suffering and loss of property. 43. The defendant Yaron is not entitled to any immunity from accountability by virtue of a claim of diplomatic immunity or otherwise. Article 146 of Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 is an express waiver of diplomatic immunity with respect to those alleged to have committed grave breaches as defined by Article 147. Moreover, under the Nuremberg Principles and the principle of customary international law known as jus cogens which has been incorporated into the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, governments cannot agree to immunize a war criminal from accountability for his acts. 44. The defendant Yaron is not entitled to any immunity from accountability arising out of any otherwise arguably applicable statute of limitations, in that customary international law provides that there shall be no statute of limitations with respect to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide because of the particularly grievous nature of such violations. 45. On November 21, 2012 the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission heard live witness testimony from a survivor of the 1982 massacre at Sabra and Shatila, Ms. Chahira Abouardini. Her direct examination was conducted by the Chief Prosecutor on the basis of her Statutory Declaration Number 8. A complete transcript of her testimony can be found from pages 127 to 158 of the Commission’s Notes of Proceeding (November 2012). A succinct summary of her testimony is as follows: 46. She testified, “On 14 September 1982, the Lebanese President Bachir Gemayel was assassinated. After that incident, there were a lot of aircraft flying around Beirut. My husband told me that the situation may get worse, and to prepare the children so that we could leave. On 16 September we went to my father’s brick house on Sabra Street. There were other family members as well – my father, my sister (17 years old), my brother (24 years old) and his pregnant wife and 2 children, and my cousin and his wife and 2 children.” 47. Chahira who broke down while giving testimony said, “In the evening beginning from about 5pm, flares were thrown to light up the area. This went on throughout the night. The camp was full of light throughout the night. We did not know what was happening outside. We heard shooting and screaming outside. At about dusk, my sister ran out into the street to see what was happening. She was shot dead by armed militia. When my sister was shot, she shouted for my father. My father came out of the house to see what had happened to my sister. He was also shot and killed. Their bodies were left on the street. Later I found out that those who shot my sister and father were Lebanese Phalangist militia.” 48. In the early hours of the morning, about 16-17 armed soldiers entered her home and shot her husband, brother and cousin dead in front of her and children. She related that militia entered homes and shot at everyone including children and animals. 49. She said, “Along the way to the stadium, I saw my cousin’s daughter who was pregnant lying dead. The murderers had opened her body and taken out her baby and put the baby on her. The child was dead as well. She was lying on the street.” 50. “Along the streets there were a lot of dead bodies. Hundreds of bodies were strewn all over. We climbed a hill to the stadium. At the nearest houses I could see bodies of children. Between the houses, which had been half destroyed, there were bodies of men, and also women and children and animals.” 51. She testified, “In 36 hours, up to 3500 to 5,000 people from Shatila and Sabra had been massacred, There are also people unaccounted for who had disappeared. The Phalangist militia worked together with the Israelis. They were known to be puppets for Israeli forces. Israelis used them to go into our houses, because these soldiers knew the place, and could speak Lebanese. The Israelis were afraid to go in themselves.” 52. She concluded, “What I want is justice to be done and that those who killed my family members and all the people at Shatila and Sabra to be punished for their crimes.” 53. The Chief Prosecutor then called Anne Sunde, a 66-year-old Norwegian who is residing in Belgium. She was working as a volunteer social worker for the Palestinian Red Crescent Society in Beirut in the Sabra and Shatila camps. Her testimony can be found on pages 167 to 193 of the Commission’s Notes of Proceedings (November 2012). A succinct summary of her testimony is as follows: 54. She related, “On 4 June 1982, I visited my friend in Fakhani. While we are chatting in the building, which housed the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) offices, we heard loud noises of planes flying over. We rushed to the shelter in the basement of the building. Then we heard bombing nearby our building. It was loud. The building shook and I was expecting to die under it. It was my first experience of direct violence. One becomes aware of what life is. The bombing seemed eternity.” 55. She said, “After a few days the PRCS set up a hospital in La Houd School, Hamra. Since nobody among the volunteers wanted to do cleaning (janitor), I volunteered. I did this together with Kurdish refugees.” 56. She said, “Finally I decided to go back to Belgium on 15 September 1982 via Damascus. However, since it was the morning after Bachir Gemayel’s (the then President-elect) death, there were no taxis to take me to Damascus. Great nervousness was felt in town. I returned to the PRCS headquarter in Hamra where most of the foreigners were located.” 57. She then proceeded to relate her harrowing experiences of the killings at the Sabra and Shatila Camps. She further related that when she went to the Shatila Camp she saw many dead bodies of adults and children, both male and female, in strange positions. I also saw dead animals. The bodies were already decomposing and bloated in the summer heat. The smell, she said, was unbearable and there were flies all over. 58. She added, “It was a horrible scene and they were digging mass graves to bury the dead.” 59. In their Executive Summary, Findings and Recommendations of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Hearing on Palestine (PWTC: 20-21 November 2012) the Commission officially determined in relevant part as follows on pages 13-15: 60. 6th witness – Ms. Chahira Abouardini The witness, 54 years old, was born in B’albuq, Lebanon. Her parents were born in Palestine, and they moved to Lebanon in 1948 when Israel under the United Nations took their hand in Palestine. Thereafter her parents lived in refugee camps. The witness has lived and grown up these 54 years in the refugee camps (Shatila). She has three children. 61. On May 5, 1982, the Israeli army attacked the refugee camp. The attack lasted 3 months. The witness (together with his parents) managed to escape to Beirut, returning to the camp only after the attack was over. 62. The witness said that on the evening of September 16, 1982, her parents’ home was attacked by the Israeli army. Her 17 year old sister and 65 year old father were both shot as they went out of the house. They both died. 63. At 6 am the next morning, 16 to 17 Israeli soldiers carrying weapons entered the house. They asked the men to go outside the room. The soldiers searched them and seized everything from them – valuables, any watches or anything. And then they ordered them to face the wall. When the men had done that, the soldiers opened fire – killing the witness’s husband, brother and cousin. They all died. 64. After the men were killed, the soldiers herded the women outside. They were deciding who would shoot the women, but finally decided not to do it because there were children with them. The women were then taken (marched at gun-point) to a nearby sports complex. On the way to the place, the witness saw her cousin who was killed. 65. This was what she said in her testimony “Before they went to the sport complex, as they were walking down the street, I saw my cousin who at the time was 20 years old and she was 9 months pregnant. I found her on the side of the road, with her stomach open and the baby was placed over her chest – was taken out of her womb and placed over her body. Of course the child was dead too. My cousin was dead and nude…” 66. “All along the way there were dead bodies everywhere,” the Witness said. “Hundreds of dead bodies …. adults, children, all ages.” 67. Asked by the Prosecutor whether the Israeli soldiers “entering homes (were) killing people all the time,” the witness replied “Yes. We were actually at the first point where they started to kill and they expand it all the way to Sabra…” 68. Asked by the Prosecutor on the number of people killed, the witness said that during that one and half day massacre in Sabra Shatila, between 3,500 to 5,000 people were killed. The exact number is not known, because some bodies were never found. 69. The witness also said that Italian forces had previously signed an agreement to protect the civilians and they were stationed at the camp. However, one day before this massacre started, they all left. Some weeks later, after the massacre was over, the Italians returned. 70. Asked by the Commission Chairman, Musa, whether these Italians were UN peace keepers, whether they were wearing blue berets, the witness said that she could not remember. 71. The witness said that the killing was carried out by the Phalangist militia, who were recruited by the Israelis. “There were known to be the puppets for Israeli forces. Israelis used them to go into our houses, because these soldiers knew the place, and could speak Lebanese.” 72. Asked by Commissioner Denis Halliday whether these Phalangists were Christian militia, the witness said she recognized some of their names as Christian names, but she cannot confirm that all are Christians. 73. The witness said that apart from Ariel Sharon, the “person who was commanding the forces at that time, that attacked Sabra Shatila, was … General Amos Yaron.” …. 74. 8th witness – Ms. Anne K. Sunde The witness, who holds a Norwegian passport, is a resident of Belgium (since 1968). She was voluntary social worker with the Palestinian Red Crescent Society in Beirut when the Shatila Sabra massacre occurred. 75. In her testimony, the witness showed the Commission the geography and terrain of the Shatila Sabra area where the massacre occurred and where the Israeli soldiers were stationed. The witness said that in the Shatila camp, “I saw dead bodies of adults, children, male, female in all kinds of positions. Dead.” Conclusion Wherefore, it is respectfully submitted that the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal must convict the defendant Amos Yaron for War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law; and their related provisions set forth in articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. Professor Francis A. Boyle Associate Prosecutor Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Legal Team (Established by the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission) Done at Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A. on this _______ March 2013 Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu'; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'; 'abass10 at gmail.com'; 'mickalideh at gmail.com'; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net'; 'Karen Aram' >; 'David Swanson' > 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, April 20, 2017 1:35 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Karen Aram' > Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! The Hard-Core Zionist Legal Whore Dinstein filed a sworn affidavit on behalf of General Yaron in this case. As for Falk, he sabotaged the MacBride Commission Report to make sure that it did not determine that the Sabra and Shatilla Massacre was Genocide despite the fact that the United Nations General Assembly determined that it was Genocide. 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, April 20, 2017 1:30 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram > Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! I have refuted the alleged doctrines of “humanitarian intervention” and its avatar “responsibility to protect” in my books Tackling America’s Toughest Questions (2009) {chapter against humanitarian intervention} as updated by Destroying Libya and World Order (2013) {chapter against R2P}. As for Dinstein, he is a hard-core Zionist Legal Whore who works for the Israeli government. I have been repeatedly up against him. Most egregiously, I represented several women who were next of kin of the 3500+ Palestinian old men, women and children victims of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, suing the Israeli General Amos Yaron who was in charge of it all. Dinstein filed a sworn Affidavit in that case stating that Yaron had diplomatic privileges and immunities as Israel’s military attaché to the United States government despite the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946) and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) to the contrary. Dinstein is a total disgrace and a Hard-Core Zionist Legal Whore! As for the argument that military action can be “illegal” but “legitimate” or “illegal” but “moral” that monstrosity was developed by the Zionist Law Professor Richard Falk. An act of aggression is a Nuremberg Crime against Peace according to the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946) and the Nuremberg Principles (1950). A Nuremberg Crime against Peace can never be “legitimate” or “moral.” Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 12:54 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! did you see that Congress has now declared that the UN Charter legalizes 3 rather than the traditional 2 types of war? https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/airbase.pdf -------------- 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: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Apr 20 22:24:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:24:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And for over a generation the Israeli International Lawyer Shabtai Rosenne was considered to be the world’s “leading” expert on the law and procedure of the International Court of Justice—until I demolished him twice in a row for the Bosnians against the Genocidal Yugoslavia. The Nazi Rot starts at the top of the Israeli “legal profession”—an oxymoron to be sure. Fab. [cid:image002.png at 01D2B9FA.A7B930E0] Francis A. Boyle (far left) on the floor of the International Court of Justice on 1 April 1993, squaring off against his adversary Shabtai Rosenne from Israel (far right) representing Yugoslavia, just before he argued and then won the first of his two World Court Orders overwhelmingly in favor of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention on April 8, 1993 and then again on September 13, 1993. This was the first time ever that any Government or Lawyer had won two such Orders in one case since the World Court was founded in 1921. On August 5, 1993, he also won an Article 74(4) Order from the World Court to the same effect. Under Article 74(4) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, when the Full Court is not in Session, the President of the Court exercises the Full Powers of the Court and can issue an Order that is binding upon the states parties in a case. Francis 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, April 20, 2017 5:12 PM To: David Swanson Cc: Estabrook, Carl G ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! International Law Professor Dinstein from Israel is truly sick and demented to have entered this case in order to excuse General Yaron from his accountability under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgement and Principles for the Genocidal Massacre at Sabra and Shatilla and in the process Dinstein becoming himself an Accessory After the Fact to the Genocidal Sabra and Shatilla Massacre. And he is generally considered to be Israel’s “leading” international law professor. The Nazi rot starts from the top. 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, April 20, 2017 1:43 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Karen Aram' > Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time ever that anyone had sued an Israeli government official for war crimes against Palestinians. Fab. -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:FBOYLE at LAW.UIUC.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 2:45 PM To: 'Killeacle' Subject: Barak Appoints War Criminal Yaron! Importance: High Barak Appoints War Criminal Yaron by Francis A. Boyle Professor of International Law (The author served as Attorney in the lawsuit against General Yaron in Ali Aidi v. Yaron, 672 Fed. Supp. 516 (D.D.C. 1987), Palestine Yearbook of International Law, Vol. V, 1989.) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has nominated former Major General Amos Yaron to serve as director-general of the Israeli Defense Ministry, while Barak himself retains the portfolio of Minister of Defense. According to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, Yaron, whose appointment must be confirmed by the Israeli Cabinet, is a war criminal by virtue of his command responsibility for the murder of about 2000 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians during the 1982 Sabra and Shatila refugee camp massacre in Beirut, Lebanon. Should Yaron's appointment be confirmed, the U.S. government will be aiding and abetting the work of an infamous war criminal. In Fiscal Year 2000, Israel is scheduled to receive $1.92 billion dollars in U.S. military aid out of a total annual U.S. aid package to Israel worth $2.94 billion. In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, driving as far north as the capital, Beirut, purportedly in an effort to expel the Palestine Liberation Organization. In August 1982, special U.S. envoy Philip Habib negotiated the withdrawal of Palestinian forces from Beirut. According to that agreement the United States government guaranteed the safety of the remaining Palestinian civilians and obtained Israel's assurance that its armed forces would not enter West Beirut. Israel, breaking its own pledge, occupied West Beirut and surrounded the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps on September 15, 1982. On September 16, then Brigadier General Amos Yaron, acting under orders from the Israeli Ministry of Defense under General Ariel Sharon, allowed Phalangist troops to enter the refugee camps even though the same troops had previously engaged in massacres of Palestinians living in Lebanon. The killing at the refugee camps went on for three days. During nighttime Phalangist operations, Yaron's troops fired illumination rounds so the Phalangists could continue their bloody work. Israeli troops, under the command of Yaron, blocked the exits of the camps to prevent the refugees from escaping and supplied the Phalangists with at least one bulldozer, which was used to cover bodies with rubble. According to the official Israeli Commission of Inquiry into the massacre (the so-called Kahan Commission), Yaron, who was present on the roof of the IDF forward command post overlooking the Shatila camp on the evening of September 16, knew then that women and children were being killed by Phalangist militiamen who had entered the camps by prior arrangement with the Israeli military. Not until the morning of September 18 did Yaron move to end the killings. Israeli military intelligence later underestimated the death toll at between 700 and 800, which was criminal enough. In his testimony to the Kahan Commission, Yaron said he was "happy" about the decision to send the Phalangist forces into the refugee camps because "the fighting serves their purposes as well, so let them participate and not let the IDF do everything." Under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which was signed by both the United States and Israel, by his complicity in the massacre, Yaron allowed the willful causing of "great suffering" and "serious injury" to the residents of the camps, who were legally "protected persons" thereunder. In so doing, Yaron was guilty of "grave breaches" under Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In other words, because of his command responsibilities during the Sabra and Shatila massacre, Yaron was personally responsible for the commission of "war crimes" under general principles of both customary and conventional international law. On August 1, 1986, the Israeli government announced that it was nominating Yaron as its Military Attaché to the United States and Canada. Immediately thereafter, this author and Mr. Abdeen Jabara, Esq. who had recently become President of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in Washington, D.C., decided to launch a campaign to prevent the United States government from accepting Yaron's diplomatic credentials and admitting him into the country. Together, the two of us drafted telegrams to Secretary of State George Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and Attorney General Edwin Meese pointing out that Yaron was responsible for the commission of "grave breaches" of the Fourth Geneva Convention for the role that he played in supervising the Sabra and Shatila massacre. As such, the United States government was under an absolute obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention to prosecute Yaron for these heinous war crimes should he set foot on United States territory. Therefore, the telegrams argued, the United States government must not allow Yaron to enter the country for any reason other than prosecution. Otherwise, the United States government would be in breach of its own obligations under the Fourth Geneva Contention. ADC sent similar telegrams to the ambassadors for all states parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, requesting that pursuant to common article 1, their governments had an obligation to intervene with the United States government to demand that the latter not accept Yaron's diplomatic credentials. A few European states did indeed take this matter up with the United States government. In the meantime, this author sent a letter to the Legal Adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry stating that in the event Yaron were to set foot upon United States territory, he would personally sue Yaron in a U.S. court for his role in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. These vigorous efforts by this author, Jabara, the ADC, and others led the Reagan administration to hold up Yaron's Letter of Accreditation for a period of three months. According to the Israeli Press, these protests against Yaron's appointment were instrumental in prompting Washington to seek Yaron's recall. Israeli papers reported that the behind-the-scenes diplomatic fury which resulted over Yaron's nomination came after the Department of Defense received hundreds of letters from Arab-Americans and liberal Jewish groups protesting Yaron's presence in the United States. Several meetings were held between Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz over the question of Yaron's suitability to serve as Defense Attaché in light of his involvement in the Beirut massacres. The Israeli daily Davar, associated with the Labor Party, first broke the story of the meetings between U.S. and Israeli officials over Yaron in its October 22 edition, indicating that Washington and Tel Aviv had agreed that Yaron would be recalled but not immediately. Both sides later denied that a deal had been made, although a spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., Yossi Gal, confirmed that the negotiations had indeed taken place. On October 24, 1986 the Reagan administration officially accepted Yaron's Letter of Accreditation. Undaunted, ADC's Abdeen Jabara flew to Ottawa to convince the Canadian government to refuse diplomatic accreditation to Yaron as Israel's Military Attaché to Canada. To its great credit, on March 5, 1987 the Canadian government refused to accept Yaron's diplomatic credentials. Explaining the move, External Affairs Minister Joe Clark said that Canada did not consider it "appropriate" to accept Yaron's credentials. Officials of the External Affairs Ministry indicated privately that Canada had based its decision on the findings of the Kahan Commission Report. On March 28 the Jerusalem Post reported that Yaron had asked his superiors to cut short his Washington assignment. A "cool" reception from the diplomatic community in the U.S., followed by Canada's refusal to accept his appointment to Ottawa, were factors leading to Yaron's request to be considered for a territorial command, according to their sources. Apparently, Canada had rejected Yaron's credentials with Washington's approval. In the meantime, this author, Abdeen Jabara, Linda Huber, Esq., an attorney in Washington, D.C., Professor Linda Malone, now of the William and Mary School of Law, and Albert Mokhiber, Esq., then ADC Legal Affairs Director and later its President, convened at ADC Headquarters for the purpose of preparing a civil lawsuit against Yaron on behalf of some of the victims of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. This author and Linda Huber agreed to serve as Attorneys of Record for three Palestinian women who survived the massacre. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on May 4, 1987. The Complaint alleged that Yaron bore responsibility for the murder of the family members of the three Palestinian women under international treaties including the Nuremberg Principles, which forbid war crimes and crimes against humanity. The plaintiffs, Fatimeh Ali Aidi, Zeineb Sa'ad and Samia A. Khatib, all three of whom resided in the Shatila camp, each asked for $100,000 in punitive damages and an undetermined amount in compensatory damages against Yaron. The Complaint stated that the husband of Fatimeh Ali Aidi, the father and sister of Zeineb Sa'ad, and the mother, sister and five nieces and nephews of Samia A. Khatib, were "murdered in the Shatila Camp by agents of the defendant Yaron" and the IDF during Israel's occupation of West Beirut in September 1982. The lawsuit stated that Yaron was guilty of violating the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits the killing of civilians under military occupation and incriminates an occupying power even if its "agents" carry out the killing. Citing the Nuremberg Principles, which were designed to prevent the repetition of crimes against humanity such as were committed by the Nazi occupying power in Europe during the Second World War, the suit alleged that Yaron's position of authority, and knowledge of the ongoing massacre, rendered him personally responsible for the actions of the Phalangists. Yaron was served with a summons to appear in court as he left his Chevy Chase, Maryland apartment for work on the morning of May 5, one day after the suit was filed. On May 20, 50 demonstrators picketed Yaron's apartment building, calling attention to current efforts by France, Israel and the Soviet Union to bring Nazi war criminals to justice, while Yaron continued to enjoy diplomatic status in the United States. On May 26, a motion to dismiss the case was filed by lawyers representing Yaron, claiming that he enjoyed diplomatic immunity as Israel's Military Attaché, that the statute of limitations had expired, and that the international treaties cited by the plaintiffs allowed only governments, not individuals, to bring legal action for alleged treaty violations. During the course of the Yaron litigation, the United States Department of State took the official position that Yaron possessed diplomatic immunity under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the U.S. Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978. Yet, at the exact same time the U.S. State Department was also involved in efforts to put former U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim on the so-called "watch list" in order to bar his entry into the United States on the alleged grounds that he might have been an accomplice to the commission of war crimes during the Second World War. The U.S. Department of Justice so barred Waldheim as of April 27, 1987. By contrast, Yaron was directly responsible for the murder of about 2000 innocent Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, including women, children, and old people. Unlike Waldheim, however, not only was Yaron permitted to enter the United States, but the U.S. government also accorded him full diplomatic privileges and immunities under the Vienna Convention. The gross hypocrisy involved in these two contemporaneous decisions by the U.S. government could not have been more blatant. Nevertheless, the Federal District Judge who handled the Yaron case decided to defer to the wishes of the Department of State in this matter. The Judge observed that this was not a criminal tribunal, but only a civil action. Hence, the Judge ruled that Yaron was immune from civil proceedings in United States courts irrespective of whether or not he would be immune from criminal proceedings in some other forum. The Judge basically ignored expert Affidavits submitted to the Court independently by three American Professors of International Law, all of whom stated under oath that acknowledged war criminals such as Yaron were both criminally and civilly liable for the commission of their international crimes, whether in United States courts or elsewhere. Despite this setback, ADC continued to mount its nationwide campaign to convince Yaron that an acknowledged war criminal was not wanted by the American people to be roaming the streets of their capital, and that he should go home. Exactly one year after the Israeli government press office had quietly announced the appointment of Yaron, the Jerusalem Post of Aug. 1, 1987 reported that Yaron was to resign his diplomatic position "for reasons related to a lingering controversy" about his role in the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre. This "lingering controversy" was fueled by ADC's "Send Yaron Home" campaign. According to the Jerusalem Post, although the Reagan administration initially accepted Yaron's posting to Washington, it had since been actively trying to encourage Israel to recall him. Eventually Yaron returned home to Israel, where he currently lives and works with his fellow war criminals in the IDF and the Israeli government. Under basic principles of international law, the U.S. government must be concerned about directing billions of U.S. tax dollars to the control of an acknowledged war criminal such as Yaron. Accordingly, the U.S. government must discontinue all military assistance to Israel if Yaron's appointment is confirmed. Also, there is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Should Yaron attempt to return to the U.S., the U.S. government is obligated to prosecute him for war crimes. The same conclusion follows for any other State where Yaron might travel. Legally, General Yaron is just like General Pinochet: Hostis humani generis--The enemy of all humankind! Francis 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, April 20, 2017 1:40 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Karen Aram' > Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! Both Dinstein and Falk played completely disreputable if not outright unethical roles when it came to avoiding accountability for the Genocidal Massacre of 3500+ completely innocent Palestinian old men, women and children at Sabra and Shatilla. Fab. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Case No. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Against Amos Yaron CHARGE The Associate Prosecutor of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission pursuant to Article 7 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission charges: Amos Yaron Individually, for WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AND GENOCIDE as follows: The defendant Amos Yaron perpetrated War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law; and their related provisions set forth in articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. Particulars of the Charge: 1. Commencing on June 6, 1982, the Israeli Defense Forces (I.D.F.) of the State of Israel commenced a large-scale invasion of the State of Lebanon, and by June 14 had taken over the suburbs of Beirut and joined with Lebanese Phalangist forces controlling East Beirut. The I.D.F. lay siege to West Beirut, and through massive aerial bombardment attempted to dislodge the forces of Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization present in West Beirut. 2. The Israeli siege and bombardment of West Beirut continued throughout the summer of 1982, causing grievous devastation to the civilian population, but did not succeed in its goal of defeating or dislodging the Syrian and P.L.O. forces. 3. With the negotiating assistance of the United States through Ambassador Philip C. Habib, on August 19, 1982, an agreement was reached between Lebanon, the United States, France, Italy, Israel, and the P.L.O. for the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces under the auspices and protection of a multi-national force. The agreement further provided that the Israeli Defense Forces would not attempt to enter or occupy West Beirut following the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces. 4. Pursuant to that agreement the multinational American, French, and Italian force oversaw the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces until completed on September 1, 1982. The multinational force left Lebanon from September 10-12, 1982, after the completion of the evacuation. 5. On or about September 14, 1982, following receipt of word of the assassination of Lebanese President Bashir Jemayel, a Phalangist, in East Beirut, Israeli Prime Minister Begin, Prime Minister of Defense Sharon, and Chief of Staff Eitan, decided that the Israeli Defense Forces would immediately enter and occupy West Beirut. It was further agreed that the Lebanese Phalangist forces would immediately enter and occupy West Beirut. It was further agreed that the Lebanese Phalangist forces, following the I.D.F.’s occupation of West Beirut, would be sent into the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps. 6. Pursuant to the decision, on September 15, 1982, the I.D.F. entered West Beirut under the command of Brigadier General Amos Yaron, the defendant in this case. The I.D.F. established a forward command post on the roof of a five-story building southwest of the Shatila camp, and defendant Brigadier General Yaron commanded I.D.F. forces from that post. The area surrounding the camps was thereafter under the command and control of the I.D.F., and all forces in the area, including the Phalangists, were deemed to be operating under the authority of the I.D.F. and acting according to its instructions. 7. Simultaneous with the entry of the I.D.F. into West Beirut, senior Israeli officials including Chief of Staff Eitan, Minister of Defense Sharon, and Major General Drori directed the Phalangist commanders to have their forces enter the Sabra and Shatila camps with their entry coordinated with the defendant Brigadier General Yaron at the forward command post. The control by the I.D.F. of the area surrounding the camps and the decision to send the Phalangist forces into the camps was confirmed at a meeting in the earlier morning hours of September 16, 1982 among Chief of Staff Eitan, the Israeli Director of Military Intelligence, Brigadier General Saguy, and the chief aide to Defense Minister Sharon, at which Eitan announced: the whole city is in our hands, complete quiet prevails now, the camps are closed and surrounded, the Phalangists are to go in at 11:00-12:00. Yesterday we spoke to them…The situation now is that the entire city is in our hands, the camps are all closed. 8. Prior to September 16, 1982, the defendant Yaron, as well as other Israeli officials had reason to know that the Phalangists were likely to attempt to perpetrate massacres and other atrocities against the civilian population of the Sabra and Shatila camps. 9. At 11:00 a.m. on September 16, 1986, Major General Drori and the defendant Brigadier General Yaron met with Phalangist commanders to coordinate their entry into the camps. The defendant Yaron set up lookout posts on the roof of the forward command posts to monitor the entry of the Phalangist forces into the camps. The Phalangist unit that entered the camps was an intelligence unit headed by one Eli Hobeika, who did not himself enter the camps but remained on the roof of the Israeli forward command post throughout the night of September 16. 10. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 16, 1982, the Phalangists entered the camps, initially entering the Shatila camp from the west and southwest as directed by the I.D.F. At the request of the Phalangist liaison officer on the roof of the I.D.F. forward command post, I.D.F. personnel under the command of the defendant Yaron provided mortar, and subsequent aircraft, illumination for the Phalangists in the camps throughout the night. 11. At approximately 7:00 p.m. on September 16, Israeli Lieutenant Elul overheard, while he was on the roof of the command post, a transmission over the Phalangists’ communication set to Eli Hobeika. He heard a Phalangist officer from the forces in the camp tell Hobeika that “there were 50 women and children, and what should he do.” Hobeika replied, “This is the last time you’re going to ask me a question like that, you know exactly what to do,” this remark being followed by “raucous laughter” among the Phalangists on the roof. The defendant Brigadier General Yaron, who was also present on the roof, asked Lieutenant Elul what he had overheard and Lieutenant Elul reported to him the above information. 12. At approximately 8:00 p.m. another report of indiscriminate killing by the Phalangists was made in the presence of the defendant Yaron. The Phalangists liaison officer known as “G” told various people in the command post dining room, including the defendant Yaron and I.D.F. officers, that about 300 people had been killed in the camps, including civilians. Shortly thereafter “G” reduced the number of casualties he reported from 300 to 120. No action was taken by the defendant Yaron, or any other I.D.F. official to ascertain the circumstances giving rise to the report that the Phalangists had killed either 300 or 120 persons in the camps within hours after their entry. 13. At approximately 8:40 p.m., the defendant Yaron convened a meeting of I.D.F. officers at the forward command post for an update briefing on the Phalangists’ entry into the camps. At this meeting, an Israeli intelligence officer relayed a report he had received at 8:00 p.m. that evening from the Phalangist liaison officer. The Phalangist liaison officer had heard via radio from a Phalangist inside the camps that he was holding forty-five people and had asked the liaison officer what to do. The Phalangist officer replied, “Do the will of God” or words to that effect. The intelligence officer went on to express his concern regarding the Phalangists’ actions toward civilians in the camps, including women, and children, and older people, but the defendant Yaron cut him off and the matter of the Phalangists’ actions against civilians in the camps was not mentioned again. 14. During the night of Thursday, September 16, and in the early morning hours of Friday, September 17, the reports about killing of civilians by the Phalangists in the camps began to circulate among the I.D.F. officers under the defendant Yaron’s command at the forward command post. Yet the I.D.F. forces at the forward command post, following a request from the Phalangist liaison officer for more illumination of the camps, provided more illumination for the actions of the Phalangists then taking palce. 15. The following morning, Friday, September 17, 1982, the defendant Yaron was contacted by his superior officer Major General Drori for a report about various matters relating to the military actions in West Beirut. The defendant Yaron did not inform Major General Drori of any of the reports he had received regarding the Phalangists’ killing of civilians in the camps. 16. Following defendant Yaron’s rebuff of his report of killing of civilians in the camps at the aforementioned briefing at the forward command post on Thursday evening, September 16, the same intelligence officer between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. contacted his own superior officer and reported the Phalangist officer’s statement that 300 terrorists and civilians had been killed and that he had subsequently reduced the number to 120. By 5:30 a.m. on Friday, September 17 the report had been conveyed to the Israeli Director of Military Intelligence in Israel. 17. At 8:00 a.m. on Friday, September 17, the Director of Military Intelligence ordered that it be ascertained what was happening in the Sabra and Shatila camps. No confirmation was obtained, and as a result, the report of killing of civilians was treated as unreliable. 18. The I.D.F. soldiers under the command of the defendant Yaron, in the morning of Friday, September 17, detected more killings and abuses of civilians in the camps. For example Lieutenant Grabowsky, stationed 200 meters from the camp on an earth embankment, saw that the Phalangist soldiers had killed a group of five women and children and later saw another killing of a civilian by a Phalangist. He was deterred from making a report to his superiors by the other soldiers, who told him that the battalion commander had already been told civilians were being killed and he had only replied, “We know, it’s not to our liking, and don’t interfere.” 19. Yet, at 9:00 a.m. on Friday September 17, the defendant Yaron met with the Phalangists at the forward command post to discuss sending an additional force of Phalangists into the camps. 20. At 11:00 a.m. on Friday, September 17, Israeli journalist Ze’ev Schiff met in Tel Aviv with Minister Zapori and conveyed to the Minister a report of “slaughter” in the camps that he had received from an unidentified source in the General Staff of the I.D.F. Minister Zipori in Schiff’s presence called Foreign Minister Yizhtak Shamir to discuss Schiff’s report. Minister Zipori told Minister Shamir of the reports he had received regarding killing by the Phalangists in the camps, and asked Shamir to check the report with the United States and Israeli officials with whom Shamir was to meet at 12:30. 21. At 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 17, Foreign Minister Shamir met in his office in Tel Aviv with United States Ambassador Morris Draper, other United States representatives, Minister of Defense Sharon, the Director of Military Intelligence Saguy, and others. No one in the meeting made any mention of the Phalangists in the camps. The meeting ended at 3:00 p.m.; Foreign Minister Shamir went home and took no further action on the report. 22. At 11:00 a.m. on Friday, September 17, the defendant Yaron and Major General Drori again met and discussed the actions of the Phalangists in the camps. Although the accounts of Yaron and Drori differ as to the content of the meeting, either Yaron or Drori contacted the Phalangist commanders and conveyed an order that the Phalangists were to stop where they were in the camps and to advance no further. At this same meeting, Drori telephoned Chief of Staff Eitan, told him that the Phalangists had perhaps “gone too far,” and that he had ordered the operation halted. No action, however, was taken by the defendant Yaron on Friday, September 17, to monitor the actions of the Phalangists in the camps or to secure compliance with the order that they advance no further. 23. The same Lieutenant Grabowsky, who had witnessed the Phalangists’ treatment of civilians from the earth embankment outside the camps, was continuing his own inquiry that afternoon. One of his soldiers at this request asked one of the Phalangist soldiers in Arabic why they were killing civilians. He was told “the pregnant women will give birth to terrorists and the children will grow up to be terrorists.” Throughout the afternoon the I.D.F. soldiers under the defendant Yaron’s command saw the Phalangists’ treatment of men, women, and children and heard complaints and stories of the killing. One soldier said he heard a report made to the battalion commander of the Phalangists “running wild.” Lieutenant Grabowsky left area at 4:00 p.m. and later that afternoon related what he had seen to his commander and other officers. They referred him to his brigade commander to whom he conveyed again at 8:00 p.m. what he had seen earlier in the day. 24. At 3:30 p.m. on Friday, September 17, the defendant Yaron, Chief of Staff Eitan, and Major General Drori met and travelled together to a meeting with the Phalangist commanders at Phalangist headquarters. Major General Drori told Chief of Staff Eitan what he knew of the Phalangists’ actions and that he had ordered them to refrain from advancing further in the camps. Eitan did not see fit to ask any questions about the Phalangists’ actions or the order halting them. 25. At 4:00 p.m. the defendant Yaron, Eitan, and Drori met with the Phalangist staff at Phalangist headquarters. In this meeting, despite Drori’s earlier order halting the Phalangists and report on their actions, Chief of Staff Eitan “expressed his positive impression received from the statement by the Phalangist forces at their behavior in the field” and concluded they “continue action, mopping up the empty camps south of Fakhani until tomorrow [Saturday] at 5:00 a.m., at which time they must stop their action due to American pressure.” At this meeting neither defendant Yaron, Chief of Staff Eitan, or Major General Drori asked the Phalangists any questions or debriefed them about what happened in the camps. 26. At this same meeting, the Phalangists requested the I.D.F. to provide them with a tractor for use in the camps “to demolish illegal structures.” Defendant Yaron has acknowledged in testimony under oath that at the end of the meeting it was “clear” that “the Phalangists could still enter the camps, bring in tractors and do what they wanted ….”, and in fact the Phalangists continued to operate unchecked in the camps throughout the night of September 17 and the early morning hours of September 18. I.D.F. forces under the defendant Yaron’s command supplied the Phalangists with a tractor from which I.D.F. markings had been removed. During the night and the following morning the Phalangists used tractors and bulldozers to pile up and bury in mass graves the bodies of hundreds of men, women, and children they had killed in the camps. 27. The Phalangists did not leave the camps at 5:00 a.m., Saturday, September 18, 1982, as ordered. At 6:30 a.m. the defendant Yaron gave the Phalangist commander an order that the Phalangists must vacate the camps “without further delay.” 28. Defendant Yaron took no steps to enforce his order, however. Between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. a group of Phalangist soldiers entered the Gaza Hospital in Sabra and took a group of doctors, nurses, and foreign national workers out of the hospital under armed guard. They were interrogated by the Phalangists and then were taken to the I.D.F. forward command post from which they were later released. It was not until approximately 8:00 a.m. that the last of the Phalangists had left the camps. 29. A burial of the dead was done by the Red Cross which counted 328 bodies, including Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, Syrians, Pakistanis, and Algerians. Some family survivors buried their family members. Truckloads of bodies were removed by the Phalangists. Other bodies are believed to be under the ruins or in mass graves dug by the Phalangists. The I.D.F. itself estimates that 700 to 800 persons were killed by the Phalangists in the camps. In his definitive account of the massacre Sabra & Shatila: Inquiry Into a Massacre (1984), the Israeli investigative journalist Amnon Kapeliouk of Le Mondé Diplomatique arrived at a sum total of about 3000 killed victims. 30. The Kahan Commission, established by the Government of Israel to investigate the responsibility of Israeli officials for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, found that the defendant Brigadier General Yaron, in performing his duties as the commander of the I.D.F. forces occupying the area of the camps, (1) did not properly evaluate and did not check reports that reached him concerning the acts of killing and other irregular actions of the Phalangists in the camps, (2) did not pass on that information to the General Operations Command to the Chief of Staff immediately after it had been received on September 16, 1982, and (3) did not take appropriate steps to stop the Phalangists’ actions and to protect the population in the camps immediately upon receiving the reports. The Commission found he had committed a “grave error” in “breach of the duties incumbent upon him by virtue of his position,” and recommended that he not serve in the capacity of a field commander in the Israeli Defense Forces for three years. 31. No further action was taken by the Israeli Defense Forces or any other branch of the State of Israel regarding the defendant Yaron. In August of 1986, Israel appointed Yaron to serve as their military attaché to the United States, which accorded Yaron full diplomatic privileges and immunity from a lawsuit brought by the undersigned Associate Prosecutor on behalf of several survivors of the 1982 Massacre at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. In December of 1999, Israel appointed General Yaron to serve as Head of its Defense Ministry. Over the years, two attempts have been made to hold General Yaron accountable for these international crimes in the courts of the United States and Belgium, respectively. The undersigned Associate Prosecutor also served as an adviser and counsel to the Belgian lawyers suing defendant Yaron and others for the massacre at Sabra and Shatila. Both lawsuits failed because of interference by the governments of the United States and Belgium, respectively. In the professional opinion of the undersigned Associate Prosecutor who has been pursuing General Yaron since 1986, there is no realistic alternative court available anywhere in the world for the purpose of holding defendant Yaron fully responsible and make him accountable for the international crimes he perpetrated against the residents of Sabra and Shatila but the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. 32. The State of Israel, through its military arm the Israeli Defense Forces (I.D.F.), was the occupying power of West Beirut, including particularly the area containing the Sabra and Shatila camps, on the dates of September 16 through 18, 1982, in that the I.D.F., under the command of the defendant Yaron, was actually in control and was exercising authority over this area. 33. The Phalangists acted as the agents of the I.D.F. in entering and acting in the Sabra and Shatila Camps from September 16-18, 1982, in that the Phalangists entered the camps at the instigation of Israeli officials. Without the acquiescence and assistance of the I.D.F., the Phalangists’ entry into the Israeli surrounded camps would have been impossible. The defendant Yaron, as commander of the I.D.F. forces in West Beirut, had control of and could exercise command of the actions of Phalangists in the camps from September 16-18, 1982. 34. Civilian residents of the Sabra and Shatila Camps, were “protected persons” within the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and whose persons and property were protected by the Hague Convention of 1907 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. 35. The State of Israel, as occupying Power of West Beirut, and the defendant Yaron, were responsible under the Fourth Geneva Convention for the protection of the civilian population therein. Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates that the civilian population must be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof. Article 32 prohibits causing “physical suffering or extermination of protected persons,” and article 33 prohibits reprisals against protected persons. Article 29 provides that the party charged with protecting the civilian population is responsible for the treatment caused to them by its “agents” without regard to any individual agent’s responsibility. 36. Thus, the State of Israel was responsible for the actions of the Phalangists taken against the residents of Sabra and Shatila. 37. The defendant Yaron was further individually culpable for the actions of the Phalangists taken against the residents of Sabra and Shatila, under the Nuremberg Charter (1945), Judgment (1946), and Principles (1950) which are recognized by both the United States and Israel and the entire world as authoritative expressions of the customary law of nations. The Nuremberg Charter is an international agreement that establishes the customary law of nations with respect to personal responsibility for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 38. Nuremberg Charter article 6(b) defines the term “war crime” to include “murder, ill-treatment…of civilian population of or in occupied territory,…plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, town or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.” Article 6(c) of the Nuremberg Charter defines the term “crime against humanity” to include “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population.” Article 6 also provides that leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan. Article 7 of the Nuremberg Charter denies the applicability of the ‘act of state” defense by making it clear that the official position of those who have committed such heinous crimes “shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.” Finally, article 8 provides that the fact an individual acted pursuant to an order of his government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if justice so requires. 39. The United States Supreme Court has affirmed and applied these principles, in the case of Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946), in holding that an official or commander who has actual knowledge or should have knowledge through reports received by him or other means that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed war crimes, and fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Law of War, is responsible for such crimes. Accord, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, “The Law of Land Warfare,” par. 501 (1956). At all relevant times, this Yamashita test was at the time and still is today the current standard for defendant’s Command Responsibility under international criminal law for all the international crimes perpetrated against the residents of Sabra and Shatila. 40. The defendant Brigadier General Yaron, as the commander of the I.D.F. forces into whose control had fallen the Sabra and Shatila camps, as well as the State of Israel as Occupying Power, were thus criminally responsible for murders and devastation visited upon the civilian population by the Phalangist forces, in that defendant Yaron received reports of the killings of women and children on Thursday evening, September 16, 1982, yet did not check the reports, did not pass the reports on to his superiors, continued to provide logistical and material assistance to the Phalangists for their operations within the camps, and did not take appropriate steps to stop the Phalangists and protect the civilians. 41. On 16 December 1982, the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 37/123 determined that “the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps… was an act of genocide” as follows: The General Assembly, Recalling its resolution 95 (I) of 11 December 1946, Recalling also its resolution 96 (I) of 11 December 1946, in which it, inter alia, affirmed that genocide is a crime under international law which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices – whether private individuals, public officials or statesmen, and whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds – are punishable, Referring to the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948, Recalling the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, Appalled at the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps situated at Beirut, Recognizing the universal outrage and condemnation of that massacre, Recalling its resolution ES-7/9 of 24 September 1982, 1. Condemns in the strongest terms the large-scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps; 2. Resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide. 42. As a result of the defendant Yaron’s grave breaches of duty, war crimes, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and genocide the residents of Sabra and Shatila suffered large-scale death and damages by reason of the wrongful deaths of them, and their relatives, and further suffered severe emotional distress and suffering and loss of property. 43. The defendant Yaron is not entitled to any immunity from accountability by virtue of a claim of diplomatic immunity or otherwise. Article 146 of Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 is an express waiver of diplomatic immunity with respect to those alleged to have committed grave breaches as defined by Article 147. Moreover, under the Nuremberg Principles and the principle of customary international law known as jus cogens which has been incorporated into the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, governments cannot agree to immunize a war criminal from accountability for his acts. 44. The defendant Yaron is not entitled to any immunity from accountability arising out of any otherwise arguably applicable statute of limitations, in that customary international law provides that there shall be no statute of limitations with respect to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide because of the particularly grievous nature of such violations. 45. On November 21, 2012 the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission heard live witness testimony from a survivor of the 1982 massacre at Sabra and Shatila, Ms. Chahira Abouardini. Her direct examination was conducted by the Chief Prosecutor on the basis of her Statutory Declaration Number 8. A complete transcript of her testimony can be found from pages 127 to 158 of the Commission’s Notes of Proceeding (November 2012). A succinct summary of her testimony is as follows: 46. She testified, “On 14 September 1982, the Lebanese President Bachir Gemayel was assassinated. After that incident, there were a lot of aircraft flying around Beirut. My husband told me that the situation may get worse, and to prepare the children so that we could leave. On 16 September we went to my father’s brick house on Sabra Street. There were other family members as well – my father, my sister (17 years old), my brother (24 years old) and his pregnant wife and 2 children, and my cousin and his wife and 2 children.” 47. Chahira who broke down while giving testimony said, “In the evening beginning from about 5pm, flares were thrown to light up the area. This went on throughout the night. The camp was full of light throughout the night. We did not know what was happening outside. We heard shooting and screaming outside. At about dusk, my sister ran out into the street to see what was happening. She was shot dead by armed militia. When my sister was shot, she shouted for my father. My father came out of the house to see what had happened to my sister. He was also shot and killed. Their bodies were left on the street. Later I found out that those who shot my sister and father were Lebanese Phalangist militia.” 48. In the early hours of the morning, about 16-17 armed soldiers entered her home and shot her husband, brother and cousin dead in front of her and children. She related that militia entered homes and shot at everyone including children and animals. 49. She said, “Along the way to the stadium, I saw my cousin’s daughter who was pregnant lying dead. The murderers had opened her body and taken out her baby and put the baby on her. The child was dead as well. She was lying on the street.” 50. “Along the streets there were a lot of dead bodies. Hundreds of bodies were strewn all over. We climbed a hill to the stadium. At the nearest houses I could see bodies of children. Between the houses, which had been half destroyed, there were bodies of men, and also women and children and animals.” 51. She testified, “In 36 hours, up to 3500 to 5,000 people from Shatila and Sabra had been massacred, There are also people unaccounted for who had disappeared. The Phalangist militia worked together with the Israelis. They were known to be puppets for Israeli forces. Israelis used them to go into our houses, because these soldiers knew the place, and could speak Lebanese. The Israelis were afraid to go in themselves.” 52. She concluded, “What I want is justice to be done and that those who killed my family members and all the people at Shatila and Sabra to be punished for their crimes.” 53. The Chief Prosecutor then called Anne Sunde, a 66-year-old Norwegian who is residing in Belgium. She was working as a volunteer social worker for the Palestinian Red Crescent Society in Beirut in the Sabra and Shatila camps. Her testimony can be found on pages 167 to 193 of the Commission’s Notes of Proceedings (November 2012). A succinct summary of her testimony is as follows: 54. She related, “On 4 June 1982, I visited my friend in Fakhani. While we are chatting in the building, which housed the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) offices, we heard loud noises of planes flying over. We rushed to the shelter in the basement of the building. Then we heard bombing nearby our building. It was loud. The building shook and I was expecting to die under it. It was my first experience of direct violence. One becomes aware of what life is. The bombing seemed eternity.” 55. She said, “After a few days the PRCS set up a hospital in La Houd School, Hamra. Since nobody among the volunteers wanted to do cleaning (janitor), I volunteered. I did this together with Kurdish refugees.” 56. She said, “Finally I decided to go back to Belgium on 15 September 1982 via Damascus. However, since it was the morning after Bachir Gemayel’s (the then President-elect) death, there were no taxis to take me to Damascus. Great nervousness was felt in town. I returned to the PRCS headquarter in Hamra where most of the foreigners were located.” 57. She then proceeded to relate her harrowing experiences of the killings at the Sabra and Shatila Camps. She further related that when she went to the Shatila Camp she saw many dead bodies of adults and children, both male and female, in strange positions. I also saw dead animals. The bodies were already decomposing and bloated in the summer heat. The smell, she said, was unbearable and there were flies all over. 58. She added, “It was a horrible scene and they were digging mass graves to bury the dead.” 59. In their Executive Summary, Findings and Recommendations of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Hearing on Palestine (PWTC: 20-21 November 2012) the Commission officially determined in relevant part as follows on pages 13-15: 60. 6th witness – Ms. Chahira Abouardini The witness, 54 years old, was born in B’albuq, Lebanon. Her parents were born in Palestine, and they moved to Lebanon in 1948 when Israel under the United Nations took their hand in Palestine. Thereafter her parents lived in refugee camps. The witness has lived and grown up these 54 years in the refugee camps (Shatila). She has three children. 61. On May 5, 1982, the Israeli army attacked the refugee camp. The attack lasted 3 months. The witness (together with his parents) managed to escape to Beirut, returning to the camp only after the attack was over. 62. The witness said that on the evening of September 16, 1982, her parents’ home was attacked by the Israeli army. Her 17 year old sister and 65 year old father were both shot as they went out of the house. They both died. 63. At 6 am the next morning, 16 to 17 Israeli soldiers carrying weapons entered the house. They asked the men to go outside the room. The soldiers searched them and seized everything from them – valuables, any watches or anything. And then they ordered them to face the wall. When the men had done that, the soldiers opened fire – killing the witness’s husband, brother and cousin. They all died. 64. After the men were killed, the soldiers herded the women outside. They were deciding who would shoot the women, but finally decided not to do it because there were children with them. The women were then taken (marched at gun-point) to a nearby sports complex. On the way to the place, the witness saw her cousin who was killed. 65. This was what she said in her testimony “Before they went to the sport complex, as they were walking down the street, I saw my cousin who at the time was 20 years old and she was 9 months pregnant. I found her on the side of the road, with her stomach open and the baby was placed over her chest – was taken out of her womb and placed over her body. Of course the child was dead too. My cousin was dead and nude…” 66. “All along the way there were dead bodies everywhere,” the Witness said. “Hundreds of dead bodies …. adults, children, all ages.” 67. Asked by the Prosecutor whether the Israeli soldiers “entering homes (were) killing people all the time,” the witness replied “Yes. We were actually at the first point where they started to kill and they expand it all the way to Sabra…” 68. Asked by the Prosecutor on the number of people killed, the witness said that during that one and half day massacre in Sabra Shatila, between 3,500 to 5,000 people were killed. The exact number is not known, because some bodies were never found. 69. The witness also said that Italian forces had previously signed an agreement to protect the civilians and they were stationed at the camp. However, one day before this massacre started, they all left. Some weeks later, after the massacre was over, the Italians returned. 70. Asked by the Commission Chairman, Musa, whether these Italians were UN peace keepers, whether they were wearing blue berets, the witness said that she could not remember. 71. The witness said that the killing was carried out by the Phalangist militia, who were recruited by the Israelis. “There were known to be the puppets for Israeli forces. Israelis used them to go into our houses, because these soldiers knew the place, and could speak Lebanese.” 72. Asked by Commissioner Denis Halliday whether these Phalangists were Christian militia, the witness said she recognized some of their names as Christian names, but she cannot confirm that all are Christians. 73. The witness said that apart from Ariel Sharon, the “person who was commanding the forces at that time, that attacked Sabra Shatila, was … General Amos Yaron.” …. 74. 8th witness – Ms. Anne K. Sunde The witness, who holds a Norwegian passport, is a resident of Belgium (since 1968). She was voluntary social worker with the Palestinian Red Crescent Society in Beirut when the Shatila Sabra massacre occurred. 75. In her testimony, the witness showed the Commission the geography and terrain of the Shatila Sabra area where the massacre occurred and where the Israeli soldiers were stationed. The witness said that in the Shatila camp, “I saw dead bodies of adults, children, male, female in all kinds of positions. Dead.” Conclusion Wherefore, it is respectfully submitted that the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal must convict the defendant Amos Yaron for War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law; and their related provisions set forth in articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. Professor Francis A. Boyle Associate Prosecutor Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Legal Team (Established by the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission) Done at Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A. on this _______ March 2013 Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net'; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu'; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net'; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com'; 'abass10 at gmail.com'; 'mickalideh at gmail.com'; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net'; 'Karen Aram' >; 'David Swanson' > 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, April 20, 2017 1:35 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'Jay Becker' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Dave Trippel' >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Karen Aram' > Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! The Hard-Core Zionist Legal Whore Dinstein filed a sworn affidavit on behalf of General Yaron in this case. As for Falk, he sabotaged the MacBride Commission Report to make sure that it did not determine that the Sabra and Shatilla Massacre was Genocide despite the fact that the United Nations General Assembly determined that it was Genocide. 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, April 20, 2017 1:30 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram > Subject: RE: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! I have refuted the alleged doctrines of “humanitarian intervention” and its avatar “responsibility to protect” in my books Tackling America’s Toughest Questions (2009) {chapter against humanitarian intervention} as updated by Destroying Libya and World Order (2013) {chapter against R2P}. As for Dinstein, he is a hard-core Zionist Legal Whore who works for the Israeli government. I have been repeatedly up against him. Most egregiously, I represented several women who were next of kin of the 3500+ Palestinian old men, women and children victims of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, suing the Israeli General Amos Yaron who was in charge of it all. Dinstein filed a sworn Affidavit in that case stating that Yaron had diplomatic privileges and immunities as Israel’s military attaché to the United States government despite the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946) and the Nuremberg Principles (1950) to the contrary. Dinstein is a total disgrace and a Hard-Core Zionist Legal Whore! As for the argument that military action can be “illegal” but “legitimate” or “illegal” but “moral” that monstrosity was developed by the Zionist Law Professor Richard Falk. An act of aggression is a Nuremberg Crime against Peace according to the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946) and the Nuremberg Principles (1950). A Nuremberg Crime against Peace can never be “legitimate” or “moral.” Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 12:54 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Estabrook, Carl G >; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Jay Becker >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Dave Trippel >; Arlene Hickory >; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: Query? BILL O'REILLY: SCUMBAG! DITTO FOR NEWTIE & JEANIE! did you see that Congress has now declared that the UN Charter legalizes 3 rather than the traditional 2 types of war? https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/airbase.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 270735 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 130 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Fri Apr 21 16:36:34 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:36:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Who do we BLAME ? Part 42,117 Message-ID: Revealed: The Obama-Yellen conspiracy’s plot to crush the economy! And blame it on Trump ! ! Shocking new warning to investors . . . Liberal “insiders” are conspiring to trigger a devastating market crash to blame on President Trump . . . [FIR Breaking Point 1.jpg] Janet Yellen’s Ugly Plot to Destroy Trump and Crush the Economy (and how you can profit from it big time!) Her name is Janet Yellen and she controls the most powerful financial institution ever created — the Federal Reserve. It is also one of the most secretive. And for the next year, Yellen and her Federal Reserve Board, almost entirely appointed by President Barack Obama, will have almost dictatorial control over the entire U.S. banking system and the entire global financial system. Now, bestselling author James Dale Davidson blows the whistle on Yellen’s plot to stop Trump. In his new book The Breaking Point: Profit From the Coming Money Cataclysm, Davidson reveals why and how the Fed will ratchet rates to create an economic nightmare for Trump. The Breaking Point reveals the total corruption of our free market system. Davidson shows how Obama and his minions rigged government numbers and statistics to create the mirage of a prosperous economy. And he says hidden laws and regulations are trapping you and your wealth in the U.S. At the center of the maelstrom is the biggest money-grabbing hoax ever unleashed . . . the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve. — From the Newsmax web site 4/21/2017 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FIR Breaking Point 1.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 93462 bytes Desc: FIR Breaking Point 1.jpeg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Apr 21 20:44:27 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 20:44:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: International Monsanto Tribunal Calls for Human Rights Over Corporate Rights References: Message-ID: As is well known, so many of the “life scientists” and so much of the “life sciences” on this Campus are bought and paid for by Monsanto. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 3:22 PM To: actiongreens at yahoogroups.com Subject: FW: International Monsanto Tribunal Calls for Human Rights Over Corporate Rights This Tribunal should have ruled that Monsanto is an Organized Criminal Conspiracy under International Law to commit “Crimes against Humanity” in violation of the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946) and the Nuremberg Principles (1950): “…other inhuman acts done against any civilian population”; as well as to commit “Crimes against Humanity” in violation of Article 7 (k) of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court: “Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.” 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) International Monsanto Tribunal Calls for Human Rights Over Corporate Rights 'Most opinion tribunals have had a considerable impact, and it is now accepted that they contribute to the progressive development of international law. – International Monsanto Tribunal Advisory Opinion, The Hague, April 18, 2017' 'The upshot of the judges’ opinion? Monsanto has engaged in practices that have violated the basic human right to a healthy environment, the right to food, the right to health, and the right of scientists to freely conduct indispensable research. The judges also called on international lawmakers to “...... establish the crime of ecocide.”' https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/international-monsanto-tribunal-calls-human-rights-over-corporate-rights I will have a look at this Opinion when I get some free time. It’s the end of the semester here and I am up to my eyeballs in work. As I just told my International Human Rights Law Students in my Lecture on holding Corporations Accountable for Violations of International Law, most of the “life sciences” on this campus are bought and paid for by Monsanto. They even tried to put one of their FDA Flaks on the Law Faculty free of charge to teach in the field of Biology and the Law. I sliced her and diced her at her Faculty Interview and we lost that free “line”, thus endearing me forever to our idiot Dean at that time. Good Riddance to GMOd Rubbish—Monsanto, their Flak and our Idiot Dean! Fab Fab -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 21 23:38:20 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 23:38:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Henwood on Krugman References: <1365974884.280465.1492817900984.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1365974884.280465.1492817900984@mail.yahoo.com> https://lbo-news.com/2017/04/17/job-demographics/ Paul Krugman asks plaintively “why don’t all jobs matter?” To answer, he enlists the help of Slate’s Jamelle Bouie: Finally, it’s hard to escape the sense that manufacturing and especially mining get special consideration because, as Slate’s Jamelle Bouie points out, their workers are a lot more likely to be male and significantly whiter than the work force as a whole…. Laid-off retail workers and local reporters are just as much victims of economic change as laid-off coal miners. The loss of newspaper jobs, a trend of many years, has been very bad news for society as well as reporters—and the damage speaks to all of us in journalism, no matter how marginal. (See here for more on the grim employment picture.) The loss of retail jobs is a phenomenon of the last two months—employment in the sector was down 61,000 in February and March, but it was up 198,000 in the year ending in January. This shrinkage may be a new trend, as online shopping displaces the mall, but we’d need some more data before we can be sure this isn’t just statistical noise.Unlike retail, the loss of manufacturing and mining jobs is a long-standing trend. Manufacturing accounted for 30% of total employment in 1950; that was down to 21% in 1980, and 8% in March 2017. Since 1980, overall employment is up by 55 million jobs—but manufacturing is down by almost 7 million. Over the same period, retail rose by almost 6 million; health care, 16 million; and bars and restaurants, 12 million.Detailed data for the mining sector doesn’t go as far back as manufacturing, but it’s a similar story of relentless decline, though from a much smaller starting point. The entire mining and logging sector was 1.5% of total employment in 1958 (when the numbers begin); that was down to 1.1% in 1980, and 0.4% in March 2017. The sector includes oil and gas, which started losing share in the mid-1980s, with the collapse in oil prices; it went from 0.3% of total employment in 1982 to 0.1% in 2005. Then fracking kicked in, taking the share up a few hundredths of a percentage point over the last decade. Coal mining has long been a tiny sector, accounting for just 0.2% of total employment when the stats begin in 1985 (or 0.18%, to be more precise), to just 0.03% last month. That’s just 50,000 jobs in coal mining, which is about a week’s worth of employment growth at current rates. That’s 120,000 fewer than in 1985, but 170,000 jobs wasn’t all that much even 32 years ago.What about the Krugman/Bouie explanation for why these sectors matter? Yes, mining is very heavily white and especially male. (See table 9 here for the raw data.) Almost 80% of the sector’s workers are white and male, nearly twice their share of the overall workforce. (The culture of mining is also deeply macho.) But there’s another reason coal miners get attention: because of our crazy system of voting, coal mining states like West Virginia are disproportionately important in the electoral map.Manufacturing is another story. Almost 70% of the sector’s workforce is male—though 30% is female, not a trivial share. But it’s not a “white” sector: just over 6% of its workers are black men, compared with their 5% share of the overall workforce. Another 11% of factory employment is accounted for by Latino men, a point above their share of the workforce. Asian men are also overrepresented in manufacturing (4% in the sector, 3% overall). Just ask your average resident of Detroit or Gary whether they feel like the decline of manufacturing is a white issue.There’s another reason for the attention paid to the loss of mining and manufacturing job: pay. In March 2017, average hourly earnings in the service sector were $25.86 (not including fringe benefits). They were $32.54 in mining and logging, 26% higher. Manufacturing paid on average $26.37 an hour, 2% above the service sector average—down from an almost 10% premium in 1980. Average earnings in retail were $18.01 an hour, 30% below the service sector average. And workweeks in retail are short—just over 30 hours, compared to almost 41 in manufacturing. So the average weekly wage in retail is $554; in manufacturing, $1,071, nearly twice as high. Almost 9% of manufacturing workers are unionized, compared with 4% in retail. And 92% of manufacturing workers have access to health insurance benefits, compared with 56% in retail.Yes, mining and manufacturing jobs are often dirty, dull, and dangerous. But there are some good reasons other than bigotry why their loss is widely mourned. The 2008 winner of the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel should know this. Krugman is right that we could do much more to “limit the human damage” when jobs disappear. But it just doesn’t look good when urban elites are so out of touch with life in less favored zones. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Apr 21 23:39:13 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 23:39:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?FW=3A_US_Charges_against_Assange?= =?windows-1252?q?_=91Totally_Bogus=2C=92_Intended_Only_to_Crush_Open_Govt?= =?windows-1252?q?=2E?= 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) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 6:36 PM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: US Charges against Assange ‘Totally Bogus,’ Intended Only to Crush Open Govt. https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201704221052874406-usa-charges-assange-bogus/ US Charges against Assange ‘Totally Bogus,’ Intended Only to Crush Open Govt. Analysts claim that the US government has brought totally bogus charges against WikiLeaks founder and head Julian Assange in a bid to criminalize and terrorize all its internal critics and whistleblowers. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange speaks from the balcony of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London (File) © AP Photo/ Kirsty Wigglesworth Witch Hunt: Reason Behind US's Intention to Target WikiLeaks Founder Assange WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The US government has brought totally bogus charges against WikiLeaks founder and head Julian Assange in a bid to criminalize and terrorize all its internal critics and whistleblowers, analysts told Sputnik. "Well, of course the United States government is trying to criminalize, intimidate and terrorize its critics by manufacturing bogus legal charges against them here," University of Illinois Professor of International Law Professor Francis Boyle said. On Thursday, the US media reported citing unnamed officials the Justice Department is ready to formally file charges against Assange. CNN claimed US authorities have found a way to prosecute Assange for a 2010 leak of confidential federal documents and a recent release of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) secret files. However, Assange and his organization had broken no law, but instead were performing a vital service in seeking to preserve the claimed openness of US democracy and transparency of government, Boyle, who has also lectured in criminal law at the University of Illinois, pointed out. "Assange and WikiLeaks have performed a critical task and an invaluable service to the American people by exposing the nefarious machinations of the United States government and the Democratic Party, inter alia," he said. The principle of openness to expose the secrets and wrongdoings of the government in the media was deeply established in the US legal system, Boyle pointed out. "As Mr. Justice Louis Brandeis of the US Supreme Court once said: sunlight is the best disinfectant!" he said. However, Attorney-General Jeff Sessions and CIA Director Mike Pompeo had made clear they were determined to crush openness of government, especially in the security and espionage agencies, Boyle observed. "That is precisely what Attorney General Sessions and CIA Director Pompeo cannot tolerate here — to be disinfected by the sunlight of WikiLeaks," Boyle added. In this Oct. 4, 2016 file photo, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange participates via video link at a news conference marking the 10th anniversary of the secrecy-spilling group in Berlin. WikiLeaks said on Monday, Oct. 17, 2016, that Assange's internet access has been cut by an unidentified state actor. © AP Photo/ Markus Schreiber White House Comments on Reports of Intention to Charge Assange Independent Institute Center for Peace and Freedom Director Ivan Eland agreed with Boyle’s assessment and noted that the Trump administration had no legal basis to prosecute Boyle as he was not even a US citizen. "Because Assange is not a US citizen, he has even less moral obligation to refrain from publishing leaked documents than American reporters," he pointed out. Eland recalled that there was no evidence that Assange personally broken any US agency or department security or that he had paid or suborned anyone to do so. "If the US government can't keep its information secret and the person did not hack into its computers, but merely published received documents, they should not be prosecuted. Prosecution discourages whistleblowing and journalistic reporting of things the government is too inept to keep secret," Eland stated. In March 2016, WikiLeaks published more than 8,700 classified CIA documents that revealed the agency's hoarding hacking technologies and listed major operating systems vulnerabilities. The day after the release, Assange proposed assistance to technology manufacturers in sharing information to help them fix the vulnerabilities mentioned in the From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Apr 22 11:40:29 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 11:40:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Gorsuch's First Vote Hastens an Arkansas Execution of a Black Man Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 6:33 AM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: Gorsuch's First Vote Hastens an Arkansas Execution of a Black Man In his first vote on the nation's highest court, newly appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch cast the deciding vote in favor of putting Lee to death. Gorsuch says he is Catholic. In fact, Gorsuch worships at the altar of the White Racist Federalist Society-- Hijacking Justice all along the way. 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: Portside moderator [mailto:moderator at PORTSIDE.ORG] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 11:57 PM To: PORTSIDE at LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG Subject: Gorsuch's First Vote Hastens an Arkansas Execution [http://portside.org/sites/default/files/logo_red.png] Gorsuch's First Vote Hastens an Arkansas Execution Nathalie Baptiste April 21, 2017 Mother Jones Ledell Lee received "inadequate representation at every stage of his case." [https://portside.org/sites/default/files/field/image/ledell_lee.jpg] , Benjamin Krain/The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette via AP, After a protracted legal battle, Arkansas carried out its first execution since 2005 using the controversial drug midazolam. Ledell Lee, who was convicted of murder in 1995, died on Thursday night at 11:56 p.m., 12 minutes after receiving the lethal drug cocktail. "Tonight the lawful sentence of a jury which has been upheld by the courts through decades of challenges has been carried out," Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said in a statement. "I pray this lawful execution helps bring closure for the Reese family." Lee's execution was part of Arkansas' plan to put eight men to death in the span of 11 days. The rushed schedule was prompted by concerns that the state's supply of Midazolam was going to expire at the end of the month. But the plan was criticized from a number of different quarters, including by anti-death penalty advocates and even former executioners. Arkansas also suffered a series of legal setbacks. On April 6, one of the inmates received an emergency stay after the Arkansas Parole Board recommended clemency. One week later, Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Wendell Griffen issued a temporary restraining order that blocked six of the executions, and the Arkansas Supreme Court issued an emergency stay blocking the seventh. A few days later on April 17, the state's Supreme Court halted the executions scheduled for that day, but the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower-court ruling allowing Arkansas to move forward with the other executions. On Wednesday, the Arkansas Supreme Court halted the execution of the Stacey Johnson, who was scheduled to be put to death on the same day as Lee. According to the Fair Punishment Project, Ledell Lee received "inadequate representation at every stage of his case." His lawyers did not produce mitigating evidence, such as the extreme abuse he experienced as a child. Nor did they interview all of his siblings or ask his mother to testify at the trial. His post-conviction attorney suffered from substance abuse problems and would ramble incoherently during hearings. Lee's lawyers and anti-capital punishment activists also raised questions about the conflicts of officials involved in his trial. [https://portside.org/sites/default/files/images/helenPrejeanLedellLee.JPG] Throughout the process, Lee has maintained his innocence, arguing the eyewitness testimony was flawed. One of his lawyers has criticized the state for rushing through the execution before DNA testing that might have exonerated Lee could be done. The hours before Lee's execution were filled with appeals, even reaching the US Supreme Court, which issued a temporary stay as they reviewed his legal arguments on Thursday evening before voting 5 to 4 in favor of moving forward with the execution. In his first vote on the nation's highest court, newly appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch cast the deciding vote in favor of putting Lee to death. Nathalie Baptiste is an editorial fellow in Washington, D.C. Follow Nathalie Baptiste. Get the scoop, straight from Mother Jones. VIEW ONLINE PRINT SUBSCRIBE VISIT PORTSIDE.ORG TWITTER FACEBOOK Portside aims to provide material of interest to people on the left that will help them to interpret the world and to change it. Submit via web Submit via email Frequently asked questions Manage subscription Search Portside archives -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 25 00:54:15 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:54:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Just when we thought things couldn't get any worse...... Message-ID: US prepares military response to world-historic famine in sub-Saharan Africa, Arabian Peninsula By Thomas Gaist WSWS.ORG 24 April 2017 Widespread and deepening famine is threatening the lives of tens of millions across large parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Analysts describe the outbreak of mass hunger as completely historically unprecedented and warn that record-breaking levels of malnourishment and starvation are overwhelming the capacity of existing humanitarian infrastructure. Tens of millions people, including 17 million Yemenis, 7 million Nigerians, 3 million Somalis and 1 million South Sudanese, are in imminent danger of dying from lack of adequate nutrition, according to United Nations (UN) estimates. Countries impacted by famine and food shortages include South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Angola, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia and Zimbabwe. In Somalia, where the Trump administration announced the deployment of regular US ground troops for the first time since 1994, the price of a 20-liter can of water increased from 4 to 40 cents during the past few weeks alone. Somalia is experiencing record rates of child malnutrition and faces the die off of 75 percent of its livestock, according to Save the Children. The Yemen war, waged by the United States and Saudi Arabia since April 2015, has transformed one of the most ancient societies in the world into the ground-zero of world famine. Some 20 million Yemenis are now on the verge of starvation. The naval blockade of Yemen’s ports, enforced by American and Saudi ships, is strangling the flow of goods into a country that depends on imports for 90 percent of its food supply. The US-Saudi bombing campaign has relentlessly targeted Yemen’s social infrastructure, completely paralyzing its economy and turning 80 percent of its population into paupers. The approval by Trump of a Navy SEALs raid into Yemen, as his first official military action, has signaled his intention to expand direct US participation in the war. The response of Africa’s national elites to the famine has been intensified social attacks against their own populations. The US-backed governments of Djibouti, Tanzania, Rwanda and Ethiopia have slashed food rations in recent months. The US-backed South Sudanese government is employing starvation as a weapon against ethnic minorities, and has “actively blocked and prevented aid access” to famine-stricken areas, the UN said. In the teeth of a world-historic famine, instead of food deliveries, the White House is organizing expanded war throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Trump has approved “increasing American military pressure” in Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger, Central African Republic, Chad and Somalia, according to Breitbart News, a web site with close ties to the American President. Last week, Trump approved the sale of fighter jets to Nigeria, signaling his intention to escalate the US proxy war in Nigeria. Now in its seventh year, the war has already displaced some 2.5 million, and transformed northern Nigeria into one of the worst famine hotspots on the continent. The American military is deploying “advisors, intelligence, training, and equipment” throughout West Africa, US Africa Command (AFRICOM) commander General Thomas Waldhauser announced in comments March 24. Last week, Waldhauser hosted dozens of African military officers for discussions at the AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. The purpose of the US Africa Command Chiefs of Defense (CHoD) meetings is to recruit “liaison” officers from African governments who will be permanently stationed alongside US commanders in Europe, coordinating joint US-African military operations on the continent. AFRICOM’s military presence in Africa is geared to crush the mass social opposition to Africa’s national governments and militaries that will inevitably arise out of the famine and other manifestations of the deepening economic and social crisis. “On the African continent, when you have, you know, the top 50 poorest countries on the planet. Obviously the migrant problem is a huge issue,” Waldhauser remarked. The American military is “war-gaming procedures to work in a famine-type environment,” the top US Africa General said. Aside from its role in policing the increasingly restive African population, the continuous expansion of AFRICOM’s war operations on the continent is aimed at seizing the continent’s most strategic resources and infrastructure. The huge potential profits to be coined out of the labor-power of Africa’s working class, and the untold trillions in mineral wealth buried in its lands, are greedily sought after by the American and European ruling elites. Africa has been at the center of the military and strategic aggression waged by the Western powers against the entire former colonial world since the end of the USSR. The past two-and-a-half decades of the so-called “post-colonial” era have witnessed a renaissance of colonialism. Thousands of US and European troops and commandos now rampage freely on the continent, establishing proxy armies and organizing the toppling and murder of numerous African leaders considered insufficiently compliant with US imperialism’s line. The alternative between socialism and a new round of imperialist barbarism is posed most starkly on the African continent, the birthplace of the human species. Only a unified mass movement of the entire African working class, leading behind it the oppressed peasantry, can drive the imperialists from the continent and resolve the urgent social problems facing the masses. Such a movement requires the building of sections of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the only genuine socialist leadership in existence, in every country of Africa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 25 00:54:15 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:54:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Just when we thought things couldn't get any worse...... Message-ID: US prepares military response to world-historic famine in sub-Saharan Africa, Arabian Peninsula By Thomas Gaist WSWS.ORG 24 April 2017 Widespread and deepening famine is threatening the lives of tens of millions across large parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Analysts describe the outbreak of mass hunger as completely historically unprecedented and warn that record-breaking levels of malnourishment and starvation are overwhelming the capacity of existing humanitarian infrastructure. Tens of millions people, including 17 million Yemenis, 7 million Nigerians, 3 million Somalis and 1 million South Sudanese, are in imminent danger of dying from lack of adequate nutrition, according to United Nations (UN) estimates. Countries impacted by famine and food shortages include South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Angola, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia and Zimbabwe. In Somalia, where the Trump administration announced the deployment of regular US ground troops for the first time since 1994, the price of a 20-liter can of water increased from 4 to 40 cents during the past few weeks alone. Somalia is experiencing record rates of child malnutrition and faces the die off of 75 percent of its livestock, according to Save the Children. The Yemen war, waged by the United States and Saudi Arabia since April 2015, has transformed one of the most ancient societies in the world into the ground-zero of world famine. Some 20 million Yemenis are now on the verge of starvation. The naval blockade of Yemen’s ports, enforced by American and Saudi ships, is strangling the flow of goods into a country that depends on imports for 90 percent of its food supply. The US-Saudi bombing campaign has relentlessly targeted Yemen’s social infrastructure, completely paralyzing its economy and turning 80 percent of its population into paupers. The approval by Trump of a Navy SEALs raid into Yemen, as his first official military action, has signaled his intention to expand direct US participation in the war. The response of Africa’s national elites to the famine has been intensified social attacks against their own populations. The US-backed governments of Djibouti, Tanzania, Rwanda and Ethiopia have slashed food rations in recent months. The US-backed South Sudanese government is employing starvation as a weapon against ethnic minorities, and has “actively blocked and prevented aid access” to famine-stricken areas, the UN said. In the teeth of a world-historic famine, instead of food deliveries, the White House is organizing expanded war throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Trump has approved “increasing American military pressure” in Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger, Central African Republic, Chad and Somalia, according to Breitbart News, a web site with close ties to the American President. Last week, Trump approved the sale of fighter jets to Nigeria, signaling his intention to escalate the US proxy war in Nigeria. Now in its seventh year, the war has already displaced some 2.5 million, and transformed northern Nigeria into one of the worst famine hotspots on the continent. The American military is deploying “advisors, intelligence, training, and equipment” throughout West Africa, US Africa Command (AFRICOM) commander General Thomas Waldhauser announced in comments March 24. Last week, Waldhauser hosted dozens of African military officers for discussions at the AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. The purpose of the US Africa Command Chiefs of Defense (CHoD) meetings is to recruit “liaison” officers from African governments who will be permanently stationed alongside US commanders in Europe, coordinating joint US-African military operations on the continent. AFRICOM’s military presence in Africa is geared to crush the mass social opposition to Africa’s national governments and militaries that will inevitably arise out of the famine and other manifestations of the deepening economic and social crisis. “On the African continent, when you have, you know, the top 50 poorest countries on the planet. Obviously the migrant problem is a huge issue,” Waldhauser remarked. The American military is “war-gaming procedures to work in a famine-type environment,” the top US Africa General said. Aside from its role in policing the increasingly restive African population, the continuous expansion of AFRICOM’s war operations on the continent is aimed at seizing the continent’s most strategic resources and infrastructure. The huge potential profits to be coined out of the labor-power of Africa’s working class, and the untold trillions in mineral wealth buried in its lands, are greedily sought after by the American and European ruling elites. Africa has been at the center of the military and strategic aggression waged by the Western powers against the entire former colonial world since the end of the USSR. The past two-and-a-half decades of the so-called “post-colonial” era have witnessed a renaissance of colonialism. Thousands of US and European troops and commandos now rampage freely on the continent, establishing proxy armies and organizing the toppling and murder of numerous African leaders considered insufficiently compliant with US imperialism’s line. The alternative between socialism and a new round of imperialist barbarism is posed most starkly on the African continent, the birthplace of the human species. Only a unified mass movement of the entire African working class, leading behind it the oppressed peasantry, can drive the imperialists from the continent and resolve the urgent social problems facing the masses. Such a movement requires the building of sections of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the only genuine socialist leadership in existence, in every country of Africa. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Apr 25 04:16:31 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 04:16:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Chomsky=E2=80=A6?= Message-ID: <424B33CF-806F-4D32-B1BD-ADE52DE75FE0@illinois.edu> Chomsky again. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/40319-noam-chomsky-us-is-the-most-dangerous-country-in-the-world He says a lot of truly alarming things about current dangers, most being obvious to those who keep track of what’s been going on. But his demonization of Assad, in this piece and elsewhere, and of those who recognize that Assad is likely supported by most Syrians at this stage, that he is trying to keep Syria together, is disgusting and dismaying. The criticisms of him on this issue must be getting to him, and, stubborn as he is, he just gets more extreme, even defending possible attacks on the Syrian regime by the US.. —mkb From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Apr 25 11:58:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:58:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Gorsuch Kills 3 Human Beings First Week on the Job: His "Sanctity of Human Life"! Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 6:51 AM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: Gorsuch Kills 3 Human Beings First Week on the Job: His "Sanctity of Human Life"! Way to go Neil! Your very first week on the job and you kill three human beings: Mr. Lee, Mr. Jones and Mr. Williams. That's your "sanctity of human life" for you! After graduating from HLS, Gorsuch went all the way over to Oxford specifically for the purpose of getting a DPHIL with John Finnis, the leading expert on Catholic Natural Law Theory propounding the doctrine of "the sanctity of human life." What complete and utter bull-twaddle and gutter-snipe! Tell that to the 3 of them whom you just killed. RIPs. That's what a Jesuit Education will do for you. Jesuitical Casuistry indeed. Ditto for Scalia. That's what a Harvard Law Education did for both of them. Ditto for HLS Casuistry. How many more will Gorsuch kill before he is done killing "the sanctity of human life." Fab Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 25 13:40:09 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:40:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Chomsky=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: <424B33CF-806F-4D32-B1BD-ADE52DE75FE0@illinois.edu> References: <424B33CF-806F-4D32-B1BD-ADE52DE75FE0@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I agree that Chomsky’s statement: "The left is awful on this. For one thing, a large part of the left is pro-Assad. [In those circles], you can't criticize Assad, but you know he's a monstrous war criminal. And anyone who criticizes Assad is joining the US imperialists. That's just ludicrous. I mean, whatever you think about this event, Assad is certainly responsible for the overwhelming mass of the atrocities. And it's a horror story. So that's part of the left. In fact, that’s about the only visible part of the left.” is ludicrous, and does not sound like Chomsky at all. What happened to the man, who would point out that, “a dictator, a criminal of another nation isn’t the business of the USG or people, it’s the business of the people of that nation.” Chomsky’s assertion that those who are on the left support Assad because we don’t want to say or hear anything negative about him, is just wrong. Many of us on the left don’t believe we should be supporting US propaganda of war by vilifying Assad, as an excuse to support the “rebels” using “ Assad is a monster” to justify US war and killings. When we hear “so called socialists” or leftists making this argument against Assad, it becomes obvious they are joining mainstream media. Especially when they ignore the history of US interventions and interference in Syria over the years dating back to the seventies. It’s exactly the same propaganda used to justify interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. etc. “we have to save the people from their monster of a dictator,” generally one we once supported. Worse monsters and Dictators are currently being supported in other nations now by the US in Africa, Saudi Arabia, etc.,etc. There is concrete evidence that the US government has been supporting the “rebels,” and that the “rebels” are in fact “terrorists." The likelihood of any legitimate rebels from 2011 against the Assad government having survived is highly unlikely. If they did survive they too have become “terrorists”. Slaughtering one’s own people, innocent women and children, killing those of a different religion, murdering journalists, etc.,etc. are not the acts of legitimate rebels. They are the acts of terrorists. There is a fine line between rebellion, uprisings against a government, and out and out terrorism, but most true “rebels” know the difference and are unlikely to cross it. Everything else Chomsky said is “spot on.” Maybe he is being given wrong information by his assistants? On Apr 24, 2017, at 21:16, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: Chomsky again. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/40319-noam-chomsky-us-is-the-most-dangerous-country-in-the-world He says a lot of truly alarming things about current dangers, most being obvious to those who keep track of what’s been going on. But his demonization of Assad, in this piece and elsewhere, and of those who recognize that Assad is likely supported by most Syrians at this stage, that he is trying to keep Syria together, is disgusting and dismaying. The criticisms of him on this issue must be getting to him, and, stubborn as he is, he just gets more extreme, even defending possible attacks on the Syrian regime by the US.. —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 davegreen84 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 25 14:05:14 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Chomsky=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <424B33CF-806F-4D32-B1BD-ADE52DE75FE0@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <706715254.10201568.1493129114580@mail.yahoo.com> Contrary to Chomsky's statement, it's those who question the nature of the "rebels" who are vilified and accused of supporting Assad. It's such attacks that have often provoked accusations of imperialism against those who vilify Assad rather than opposing U.S. intervention. On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 8:40 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: I agree that Chomsky’s statement: "The left is awful on this. For one thing, a large part of the left is pro-Assad. [In those circles], you can't criticize Assad, but you know he's a monstrous war criminal. And anyone who criticizes Assad is joining the US imperialists. That's just ludicrous. I mean, whatever you think about this event, Assad is certainly responsible for the overwhelming mass of the atrocities. And it's a horror story. So that's part of the left. In fact, that’s about the only visible part of the left.” is ludicrous, and does not sound like Chomsky at all.  What happened to the man, who would point out that, “a dictator, a criminal of another nation isn’t the business of the USG or people, it’s the business of the people of that nation.” Chomsky’s assertion that those who are on the left support Assad because we don’t want to say or hear anything negative about him, is just wrong.  Many of us on the left don’t believe we should be supporting US propaganda of war by vilifying Assad, as an excuse to support the “rebels” using “ Assad is a monster” to justify US war and killings. When we hear “so called socialists” or leftists making this argument against Assad, it becomes obvious they are joining mainstream media. Especially when they ignore the history of US interventions and interference in Syria over the years dating back to the seventies.  It’s exactly the same propaganda used to justify interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. etc. “we have to save the people from their monster of a dictator,” generally one we once supported. Worse monsters and Dictators are currently being supported in other nations now by the US in Africa, Saudi Arabia, etc.,etc.  There is concrete evidence that the US government has been supporting the “rebels,” and that the “rebels” are in fact “terrorists." The likelihood of any legitimate rebels from 2011 against the Assad government having survived is highly unlikely. If they did survive they too have become “terrorists”.  Slaughtering one’s own people, innocent women and children, killing those of a different religion, murdering journalists, etc.,etc. are not the acts of legitimate rebels. They are the acts of terrorists. There is a fine line between rebellion, uprisings against a government, and out and out terrorism, but most true “rebels” know the difference and are unlikely to cross it. Everything else Chomsky said is “spot on.” Maybe he is being given wrong information by his assistants? On Apr 24, 2017, at 21:16, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: Chomsky again. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/40319-noam-chomsky-us-is-the-most-dangerous-country-in-the-world He says a lot of truly alarming things about current dangers, most being obvious to those who keep track of what’s been going on. But his demonization of Assad, in this piece and elsewhere, and of those who recognize that Assad is likely supported by most Syrians at this stage, that he is trying to keep Syria together, is disgusting and dismaying. The criticisms of him on this issue must be getting to him, and, stubborn as he is, he just gets more extreme, even defending possible attacks on the Syrian regime by the US.. —mkb _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Apr 25 19:53:29 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:53:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Gorsuch Kills 3 Human Beings First Week on the Job: His "Sanctity of Human Life"! Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 2:48 PM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: PS:Gorsuch Kills 3 Human Beings First Week on the Job: His "Sanctity of Human Life"! And of course the Feddie Five who just killed three men in the past one week and will probably be killing a Fourth on Thursday have all said they are "Catholics": Gorsuch, Kennedy, Alito, Roberts and Thomas. So much for the Catholic Doctrine of the "sanctity of human life." Pure, unadulterated bull-twaddle and gutter-snipe. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 6:51 AM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Gorsuch Kills 3 Human Beings First Week on the Job: His "Sanctity of Human Life"! Way to go Neil! Your very first week on the job and you kill three human beings: Mr. Lee, Mr. Jones and Mr. Williams. That's your "sanctity of human life" for you! After graduating from HLS, Gorsuch went all the way over to Oxford specifically for the purpose of getting a DPHIL with John Finnis, the leading expert on Catholic Natural Law Theory propounding the doctrine of "the sanctity of human life." What complete and utter bull-twaddle and gutter-snipe! Tell that to the 3 of them whom you just killed. RIPs. That's what a Jesuit Education will do for you. Jesuitical Casuistry indeed. Ditto for Scalia. That's what a Harvard Law Education did for both of them. Ditto for HLS Casuistry. How many more will Gorsuch kill before he is done killing "the sanctity of human life." Fab Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 25 23:44:32 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 23:44:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A perspective from a former Foreign Service Officer on Syria Message-ID: [Home] * CONTACT US * LOGIN * DONATE * PRESS CENTER * MY AGENCY * MEMBERS * PUBLICATIONS * OUTREACH * STUDENTS * RESOURCES * AWARDS & HONORS * POLICY * ABOUT AFSA Hippocrates and Hobbes, Assad and ISIS THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL > MAY 2016 > HIPPOCRATES AND HOBBES, ASSAD AND ISIS Speaking Out BY RAYMOND SMITH Many scholars and practitioners view the current international system as the embodiment of Thomas Hobbes’ assessment of the state of nature: anarchic at its core. In such a world, survival is the central value, and enhancing one’s own security relative to others the guiding maxim of behavior. The words “first, do no harm,” although not actually in the Hippocratic oath, are widely considered a legitimate guiding principle for physicians. They rarely appear in the lexicon of statesmen, however, though President Barack Obama’s foreign policy injunction, “don’t do dumb things” (sometimes rendered more earthily), might be considered a variation on the theme. Unlike the physician, the diplomat’s primary concern is not to avoid harm to others, but to himself and his fellow citizens. Fortunately, most international transactions do not occur within a Hobbesian system, because they do not involve the kind of life-or-death decisions that we usually refer to in the international sphere as vital interests. In this commentary, I will use the terms “Hobbesian system” and “Hobbesian rules” as shorthand for, respectively, the state of nature and the human behaviors resulting from it that Hobbes posits in Leviathan. Identifying Vital Interests If vital interests are involved, Hobbesian system rules presumably apply. But what rules apply when the interests involved are not vital? This is an issue that Ted Galen Carpenter recently discussed with regard to U.S. policy toward authoritarian regimes (bit.ly/23IdeBh). Carpenter posits a spectrum of interests ranging from vital to barely relevant, then suggests that U.S. standards for relationships with dictators should grow increasingly strict as interests move down that spectrum. Only on the very rare occasions when genuinely vital U.S. interests are involved should we enter into alliances with regimes that have odious human rights practices. Putting this principle into practice poses some practical problems, however. The first of these involves reaching agreement on where particular interests lie on Carpenter’s spectrum. The second involves deciding just how odious particular regimes are. U.S. policy has generally been less ethical and more pragmatic than Carpenter advises. Washington engages with dictatorships and authoritarian regimes when it believes that significant national interests require it to—and it has defined “significant” to include interests that Carpenter sees as barely peripheral. For instance, the United States supported Hosni Mubarak in Egypt for three decades. It supports even more brutal regimes in Saudi Arabia and in the Persian Gulf states, to name just a few. It seeks to engage the Chinese leadership, not isolate it. It asks all of them nicely—generally behind closed doors—to moderate their policies around the edges, but does not expect any of them to take steps that would threaten their hold on power. The hope, one supposes, is that over time, out of this process of moderation, will emerge constitutional monarchies, à la Great Britain. That faint hope is the ethical underpinning for an engagement policy that narrows the universe of principles to resources and interests. It is a policy that is easy enough to administer in quiet times, because ethical principles take second place to the recognition of power realities. But these priorities are frequently stood on their head when what appears to be a genuine moderate reform movement arises and then begins to be violently repressed by an authoritarian regime, as happened repeatedly during the Arab Spring. In such times, the urge to do good, to uphold ethical principles, may become the dominant influence in policymaking. The same inflated view of U.S. interests that led it to support authoritarian regimes may lead it now to advocate or support their overthrow. The Nature of the Beast This is exactly the point at which a kind of Hippocratic oath for statesmen might be a better guide to policy than the urge to do good. Is the nature of the regime in the respective country a matter of vital interest to the United States, or is it not? My personal view is that the essence of vital national interest is defense of the homeland against armed or economically crippling attack from abroad. A regime that undertakes or advocates such attacks, or harbors and supports those who do, is operating in a Hobbesian system, and should be treated accordingly. Short of such a threat, however, domestic developments in a foreign country will rarely affect American vital national interests. Thus, actions to effect regime change should not be undertaken unless there is reasonable certainty that they will not do more harm than good. There is a certain inherent legitimacy in acting with appropriate force to defend one’s vital interests. There is no inherent legitimacy in using force to overthrow an established government, even a bad one. Before undertaking such an action, three questions need to be answered satisfactorily: (1) How will the action be made legitimate? (2) Are those undertaking it able and willing to bring enough power to bear to achieve the overthrow expeditiously and with limited harm to the general population? (3) What is the probability that the people of the country will be better off, rather than worse off, as a result? Legitimacy in such cases is what I would call “process” legitimacy. The United Nations is the institution that can provide it, and a Security Council resolution the means. An essentially unilateral “coalition of the willing” will not do. Getting such a resolution will generally be difficult, and it should be. The grounds must be weighty enough to overcome the presumption that states do not interfere in the internal affairs of other states. It would be irresponsible to seek such a resolution unless one were certain of being able to bring sufficient power to bear to accomplish the objective without inordinate loss of life among the people affected. A people may be fully justified in overthrowing a corrupt, authoritarian regime, but encouraging them to assume the risks of doing so gives the outside power some responsibility for what follows. The United States never recognized the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but it was responsible enough also to never let them think that it would be able to help them break away. The greatest uncertainty may lie in trying to predict whether the result of regime overthrow will leave the population better off or worse off. But the question cannot be answered if it is not asked, something the United States has often failed to do. There is enough expertise available here and in other countries to address such questions, and to put together a course of action that leads to the reasonable conclusion that the affected country can be left better off. But the question needs to be asked in advance, not during or after the event. And if the answer is not affirmative, the outside powers need to have the integrity to step back, lest they do more harm than good. ISIS and Syria: Paved with Good Intentions In Syria, the Obama administration did the opposite of doing no harm. It declared publicly in 2011 that Assad must go, while greatly underestimating his ability to resist; overestimating the strength, cohesion and morale of the moderate opposition; and failing to appreciate the danger posed by the radical opposition. That opposition, in the form of the so-called Islamic State group (ISIS), has emerged as the genuine threat to fundamental U.S. interests that Assad never was. ISIS has amply demonstrated that it is willing to organize attacks on the U.S. homeland, or at least to harbor or support those who would. America’s ineffectual support for the overthrow of Assad did not create ISIS; but together with its failed democracy-building effort in Iraq, Washington did help create the power vacuum into which ISIS moved. The United States now faces increasingly hard and unpleasant choices in Syria. Its preferred outcomes—defeat of ISIS and removal of Assad—are potentially mutually contradictory and can only be achieved by bringing a lot of force to bear. There is little stomach in the United States for any substantial ground force involvement in this civil war, in no small part because there is little confidence that such involvement would produce a desirable outcome. America’s preferred proxies, the moderate opposition to Assad, are unable or unwilling to fight ISIS, and will be crushed by any likely successor regime in Syria. The Assad regime is willing to fight ISIS, but equally determined to fight the other groups opposing it. In aligning itself with the Kurds in Syria and Iraq, Washington has found a group that is willing to fight ISIS, and capable of doing so effectively—but only in the context of advancing the Kurdish desire for a homeland, if not a state of their own. This desire for self-determination sets up a direct conflict with Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian interest in preserving their territorial integrity. And our provision of military assistance to the Kurds puts the United States on a potential collision course with the vital interests of a NATO ally. In this situation, invoking a moral principle such as “A ruler who barrel-bombs his own people cannot be allowed to stay in power” is not ethical, but rather fatuous and self-indulgent. The Preferred Option Assad’s fate is not a matter of significant U.S. interest. We do not have process legitimacy in attempting to overthrow him. Nor are we willing to bring to bear the necessary force to accomplish the objective. Moreover, the chances that his overthrow would improve the lives of the Syrian people are pretty low. If he can be negotiated out of office, fine; but that should not be a precondition for building an alliance against the real threat. The fate of ISIS, on the other hand, is a matter of vital U.S. interest; as such, Hobbesian rules apply. ISIS gains support and followers through its success in acquiring territory and taking on the attributes of statehood, not by its invocation of an obscurantist interpretation of Islam that most Muslims disavow. The United States cannot “do no harm” by allowing it to continue to exist. On the contrary, its very existence will increase harm. For practical and political reasons, the preferred option is to destroy ISIS as a geographic entity by using air power and local forces on the ground. That option had some success in recent months. If the effort stalls or is reversed, U.S. ground forces may have to be employed. That is not a recommendation made lightly, as successive administrations since the early 1990s have provided case studies in how not to use military power to achieve national objectives. On the other hand, the American military showed in the first Iraq war that, when the country’s political leadership provides the necessary resources and does not allow military success to lead down a slippery slope of ever more grandiose objectives, it can carry out a clearly defined, limited mission and then withdraw. Allowing ISIS to continue to exist with the attributes of statehood would satisfy neither Hippocrates nor Hobbes. Ensuring that it does not won’t solve the problem of international terrorism, but it is a necessary step in the right direction. [http://www.afsa.org/sites/default/files/fsj2016may_so_author.jpg] Raymond Smith served as an FSO with the State Department from 1969 to 1993. His many Foreign Service assignments included tours as political counselor in Moscow and director of the Office of the Former Soviet Union and Eastern European Affairs in State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. A longtime international negotiations consultant, he is the author of Negotiating with the Soviets (1989) and The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats (2011). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Apr 25 23:44:32 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 23:44:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A perspective from a former Foreign Service Officer on Syria Message-ID: [Home] * CONTACT US * LOGIN * DONATE * PRESS CENTER * MY AGENCY * MEMBERS * PUBLICATIONS * OUTREACH * STUDENTS * RESOURCES * AWARDS & HONORS * POLICY * ABOUT AFSA Hippocrates and Hobbes, Assad and ISIS THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL > MAY 2016 > HIPPOCRATES AND HOBBES, ASSAD AND ISIS Speaking Out BY RAYMOND SMITH Many scholars and practitioners view the current international system as the embodiment of Thomas Hobbes’ assessment of the state of nature: anarchic at its core. In such a world, survival is the central value, and enhancing one’s own security relative to others the guiding maxim of behavior. The words “first, do no harm,” although not actually in the Hippocratic oath, are widely considered a legitimate guiding principle for physicians. They rarely appear in the lexicon of statesmen, however, though President Barack Obama’s foreign policy injunction, “don’t do dumb things” (sometimes rendered more earthily), might be considered a variation on the theme. Unlike the physician, the diplomat’s primary concern is not to avoid harm to others, but to himself and his fellow citizens. Fortunately, most international transactions do not occur within a Hobbesian system, because they do not involve the kind of life-or-death decisions that we usually refer to in the international sphere as vital interests. In this commentary, I will use the terms “Hobbesian system” and “Hobbesian rules” as shorthand for, respectively, the state of nature and the human behaviors resulting from it that Hobbes posits in Leviathan. Identifying Vital Interests If vital interests are involved, Hobbesian system rules presumably apply. But what rules apply when the interests involved are not vital? This is an issue that Ted Galen Carpenter recently discussed with regard to U.S. policy toward authoritarian regimes (bit.ly/23IdeBh). Carpenter posits a spectrum of interests ranging from vital to barely relevant, then suggests that U.S. standards for relationships with dictators should grow increasingly strict as interests move down that spectrum. Only on the very rare occasions when genuinely vital U.S. interests are involved should we enter into alliances with regimes that have odious human rights practices. Putting this principle into practice poses some practical problems, however. The first of these involves reaching agreement on where particular interests lie on Carpenter’s spectrum. The second involves deciding just how odious particular regimes are. U.S. policy has generally been less ethical and more pragmatic than Carpenter advises. Washington engages with dictatorships and authoritarian regimes when it believes that significant national interests require it to—and it has defined “significant” to include interests that Carpenter sees as barely peripheral. For instance, the United States supported Hosni Mubarak in Egypt for three decades. It supports even more brutal regimes in Saudi Arabia and in the Persian Gulf states, to name just a few. It seeks to engage the Chinese leadership, not isolate it. It asks all of them nicely—generally behind closed doors—to moderate their policies around the edges, but does not expect any of them to take steps that would threaten their hold on power. The hope, one supposes, is that over time, out of this process of moderation, will emerge constitutional monarchies, à la Great Britain. That faint hope is the ethical underpinning for an engagement policy that narrows the universe of principles to resources and interests. It is a policy that is easy enough to administer in quiet times, because ethical principles take second place to the recognition of power realities. But these priorities are frequently stood on their head when what appears to be a genuine moderate reform movement arises and then begins to be violently repressed by an authoritarian regime, as happened repeatedly during the Arab Spring. In such times, the urge to do good, to uphold ethical principles, may become the dominant influence in policymaking. The same inflated view of U.S. interests that led it to support authoritarian regimes may lead it now to advocate or support their overthrow. The Nature of the Beast This is exactly the point at which a kind of Hippocratic oath for statesmen might be a better guide to policy than the urge to do good. Is the nature of the regime in the respective country a matter of vital interest to the United States, or is it not? My personal view is that the essence of vital national interest is defense of the homeland against armed or economically crippling attack from abroad. A regime that undertakes or advocates such attacks, or harbors and supports those who do, is operating in a Hobbesian system, and should be treated accordingly. Short of such a threat, however, domestic developments in a foreign country will rarely affect American vital national interests. Thus, actions to effect regime change should not be undertaken unless there is reasonable certainty that they will not do more harm than good. There is a certain inherent legitimacy in acting with appropriate force to defend one’s vital interests. There is no inherent legitimacy in using force to overthrow an established government, even a bad one. Before undertaking such an action, three questions need to be answered satisfactorily: (1) How will the action be made legitimate? (2) Are those undertaking it able and willing to bring enough power to bear to achieve the overthrow expeditiously and with limited harm to the general population? (3) What is the probability that the people of the country will be better off, rather than worse off, as a result? Legitimacy in such cases is what I would call “process” legitimacy. The United Nations is the institution that can provide it, and a Security Council resolution the means. An essentially unilateral “coalition of the willing” will not do. Getting such a resolution will generally be difficult, and it should be. The grounds must be weighty enough to overcome the presumption that states do not interfere in the internal affairs of other states. It would be irresponsible to seek such a resolution unless one were certain of being able to bring sufficient power to bear to accomplish the objective without inordinate loss of life among the people affected. A people may be fully justified in overthrowing a corrupt, authoritarian regime, but encouraging them to assume the risks of doing so gives the outside power some responsibility for what follows. The United States never recognized the incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but it was responsible enough also to never let them think that it would be able to help them break away. The greatest uncertainty may lie in trying to predict whether the result of regime overthrow will leave the population better off or worse off. But the question cannot be answered if it is not asked, something the United States has often failed to do. There is enough expertise available here and in other countries to address such questions, and to put together a course of action that leads to the reasonable conclusion that the affected country can be left better off. But the question needs to be asked in advance, not during or after the event. And if the answer is not affirmative, the outside powers need to have the integrity to step back, lest they do more harm than good. ISIS and Syria: Paved with Good Intentions In Syria, the Obama administration did the opposite of doing no harm. It declared publicly in 2011 that Assad must go, while greatly underestimating his ability to resist; overestimating the strength, cohesion and morale of the moderate opposition; and failing to appreciate the danger posed by the radical opposition. That opposition, in the form of the so-called Islamic State group (ISIS), has emerged as the genuine threat to fundamental U.S. interests that Assad never was. ISIS has amply demonstrated that it is willing to organize attacks on the U.S. homeland, or at least to harbor or support those who would. America’s ineffectual support for the overthrow of Assad did not create ISIS; but together with its failed democracy-building effort in Iraq, Washington did help create the power vacuum into which ISIS moved. The United States now faces increasingly hard and unpleasant choices in Syria. Its preferred outcomes—defeat of ISIS and removal of Assad—are potentially mutually contradictory and can only be achieved by bringing a lot of force to bear. There is little stomach in the United States for any substantial ground force involvement in this civil war, in no small part because there is little confidence that such involvement would produce a desirable outcome. America’s preferred proxies, the moderate opposition to Assad, are unable or unwilling to fight ISIS, and will be crushed by any likely successor regime in Syria. The Assad regime is willing to fight ISIS, but equally determined to fight the other groups opposing it. In aligning itself with the Kurds in Syria and Iraq, Washington has found a group that is willing to fight ISIS, and capable of doing so effectively—but only in the context of advancing the Kurdish desire for a homeland, if not a state of their own. This desire for self-determination sets up a direct conflict with Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian interest in preserving their territorial integrity. And our provision of military assistance to the Kurds puts the United States on a potential collision course with the vital interests of a NATO ally. In this situation, invoking a moral principle such as “A ruler who barrel-bombs his own people cannot be allowed to stay in power” is not ethical, but rather fatuous and self-indulgent. The Preferred Option Assad’s fate is not a matter of significant U.S. interest. We do not have process legitimacy in attempting to overthrow him. Nor are we willing to bring to bear the necessary force to accomplish the objective. Moreover, the chances that his overthrow would improve the lives of the Syrian people are pretty low. If he can be negotiated out of office, fine; but that should not be a precondition for building an alliance against the real threat. The fate of ISIS, on the other hand, is a matter of vital U.S. interest; as such, Hobbesian rules apply. ISIS gains support and followers through its success in acquiring territory and taking on the attributes of statehood, not by its invocation of an obscurantist interpretation of Islam that most Muslims disavow. The United States cannot “do no harm” by allowing it to continue to exist. On the contrary, its very existence will increase harm. For practical and political reasons, the preferred option is to destroy ISIS as a geographic entity by using air power and local forces on the ground. That option had some success in recent months. If the effort stalls or is reversed, U.S. ground forces may have to be employed. That is not a recommendation made lightly, as successive administrations since the early 1990s have provided case studies in how not to use military power to achieve national objectives. On the other hand, the American military showed in the first Iraq war that, when the country’s political leadership provides the necessary resources and does not allow military success to lead down a slippery slope of ever more grandiose objectives, it can carry out a clearly defined, limited mission and then withdraw. Allowing ISIS to continue to exist with the attributes of statehood would satisfy neither Hippocrates nor Hobbes. Ensuring that it does not won’t solve the problem of international terrorism, but it is a necessary step in the right direction. [http://www.afsa.org/sites/default/files/fsj2016may_so_author.jpg] Raymond Smith served as an FSO with the State Department from 1969 to 1993. His many Foreign Service assignments included tours as political counselor in Moscow and director of the Office of the Former Soviet Union and Eastern European Affairs in State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. A longtime international negotiations consultant, he is the author of Negotiating with the Soviets (1989) and The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats (2011). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Apr 26 13:28:27 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:28:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trumps latest move Message-ID: Trump summons the Senate to the White House 26 April 2017 In a move without precedent in American history, President Donald Trump has invited the entire Senate to the White House to be briefed at a closed-door meeting on potential military action against North Korea. The event is a clear departure from traditional constitutional norms, with ominous implications. It is not unusual for members of the executive branch, including military and intelligence officials, to brief members of Congress in closed-door sessions. But the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers between three coequal branches of government—executive, legislative and judicial—dictates that the executive present itself before the elected representatives of the people, not the other way around. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought a declaration of War against Japan on December 8, 1941, he delivered a speech to Congress, leading to a congressional declaration of war the same day. Today, 76 years later, it is the Senate that is coming to the White House, to be briefed by the military brass about plans to launch a war that will proceed with or without its authorization. The session will take place Wednesday afternoon in the auditorium of the Eisenhower Office Building, adjacent to the White House, which will be temporarily transformed into a “sensitive compartmented information facility.” The senators will not be allowed to bring phones or have their staffs with them. They will be addressed by high-level military and intelligence officials, including Defense Secretary James Mattis, a former four-star general; General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former head of ExxonMobil, will also be present. While Trump’s presence has not been announced, the Washington Post wrote: “Congressional staffers suggested that the briefing’s proximity to Trump would make it easy for him to ‘drop by’ and perhaps take over the briefing.” Trump’s summoning of the Senate to the White House is of a piece with other moves by the administration to outfit the office of the president with trappings associated with authoritarianism and dictatorial rule. At Trump’s inauguration, White House officials requested that tanks and other armored vehicles parade through Washington. During the inaugural address, a group of soldiers lined up behind the new president, in direct view of the main camera, before apparently being ordered to disperse. This extraordinary and unprecedented intrusion of the military into the swearing in of the incoming president has never been explained. What Wednesday’s White House meeting symbolizes above all is the power of the military over the entire state apparatus. This is the outcome of more than a quarter century of unending war, accompanied by an immense growth in the power and political influence of the military. Today, decisions of the gravest consequence—including military action that could start a world war—are made by a cabal of conspirators in the ruling class and the military high command. There is no longer even a pretense of public debate or congressional oversight and control. The so-called “deep state” operates behind the backs of the people with utter disregard for the deeply felt antiwar sentiment of the working class and youth. Trump’s summoning of the Senate to the White House comes amidst a buildup of military tensions in the Pacific, centered on North Korea. The administration has for weeks threatened to carry out a preemptive strike against the impoverished country, ostensibly to prevent it from building nuclear-armed missiles capable of reaching the United States. The power to make major decisions—like the dropping of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb on Afghanistan earlier this month—has been turned over to military officials. There is no “peace faction” within the ruling establishment. The aggressive and belligerent foreign policy moves by the Trump administration have been welcomed by both Democrats and Republicans. The first two months of the Trump presidency were dominated by a hysterical campaign, led by the Democrats, to portray Trump as a Russian “poodle.” When Trump carried out a cruise missile attack against Syria, Russia’s ally, it was universally acclaimed, with Democrats demanding even more aggressive regime-change operations. Not a single senator has as yet indicated opposition to the closed-door meeting at the White House, let alone announced that he or she will refuse to attend. Unending war and extreme social inequality have fatally undermined bourgeois-democratic forms in the United States. The Trump administration, with its open contempt for democratic rights and its authoritarian methods, is the outcome of a decades-long decay of American democracy. Congress itself is staffed with wealthy and corrupt stooges of corporate interests and the military/intelligence apparatus, and that goes for both parties. The media serves as a conduit for state propaganda. Dissent is denounced as “fake news” and “information warfare” by foreign enemies. The notion that Congress has the responsibility to exercise a check on war powers has disappeared. Beginning with the Korean War in 1950, US presidents have carried out dozens of military interventions without a declaration of war by Congress, as stipulated in the Constitution. The War Powers Act, passed in 1973, requiring congressional authorization for any military action lasting more than 60 days, has repeatedly been breached in practice. It was openly flouted by the Obama administration in its 2011 air war against Libya. Today’s meeting is not an exercise in congressional oversight, but rather a summoning of political representatives of the ruling class to receive their marching orders from the military brass. It is symptomatic of the collapse of democratic forms of rule and the accelerating drive to dictatorship. Andre Damon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Apr 26 13:28:27 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:28:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trumps latest move Message-ID: Trump summons the Senate to the White House 26 April 2017 In a move without precedent in American history, President Donald Trump has invited the entire Senate to the White House to be briefed at a closed-door meeting on potential military action against North Korea. The event is a clear departure from traditional constitutional norms, with ominous implications. It is not unusual for members of the executive branch, including military and intelligence officials, to brief members of Congress in closed-door sessions. But the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers between three coequal branches of government—executive, legislative and judicial—dictates that the executive present itself before the elected representatives of the people, not the other way around. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought a declaration of War against Japan on December 8, 1941, he delivered a speech to Congress, leading to a congressional declaration of war the same day. Today, 76 years later, it is the Senate that is coming to the White House, to be briefed by the military brass about plans to launch a war that will proceed with or without its authorization. The session will take place Wednesday afternoon in the auditorium of the Eisenhower Office Building, adjacent to the White House, which will be temporarily transformed into a “sensitive compartmented information facility.” The senators will not be allowed to bring phones or have their staffs with them. They will be addressed by high-level military and intelligence officials, including Defense Secretary James Mattis, a former four-star general; General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former head of ExxonMobil, will also be present. While Trump’s presence has not been announced, the Washington Post wrote: “Congressional staffers suggested that the briefing’s proximity to Trump would make it easy for him to ‘drop by’ and perhaps take over the briefing.” Trump’s summoning of the Senate to the White House is of a piece with other moves by the administration to outfit the office of the president with trappings associated with authoritarianism and dictatorial rule. At Trump’s inauguration, White House officials requested that tanks and other armored vehicles parade through Washington. During the inaugural address, a group of soldiers lined up behind the new president, in direct view of the main camera, before apparently being ordered to disperse. This extraordinary and unprecedented intrusion of the military into the swearing in of the incoming president has never been explained. What Wednesday’s White House meeting symbolizes above all is the power of the military over the entire state apparatus. This is the outcome of more than a quarter century of unending war, accompanied by an immense growth in the power and political influence of the military. Today, decisions of the gravest consequence—including military action that could start a world war—are made by a cabal of conspirators in the ruling class and the military high command. There is no longer even a pretense of public debate or congressional oversight and control. The so-called “deep state” operates behind the backs of the people with utter disregard for the deeply felt antiwar sentiment of the working class and youth. Trump’s summoning of the Senate to the White House comes amidst a buildup of military tensions in the Pacific, centered on North Korea. The administration has for weeks threatened to carry out a preemptive strike against the impoverished country, ostensibly to prevent it from building nuclear-armed missiles capable of reaching the United States. The power to make major decisions—like the dropping of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb on Afghanistan earlier this month—has been turned over to military officials. There is no “peace faction” within the ruling establishment. The aggressive and belligerent foreign policy moves by the Trump administration have been welcomed by both Democrats and Republicans. The first two months of the Trump presidency were dominated by a hysterical campaign, led by the Democrats, to portray Trump as a Russian “poodle.” When Trump carried out a cruise missile attack against Syria, Russia’s ally, it was universally acclaimed, with Democrats demanding even more aggressive regime-change operations. Not a single senator has as yet indicated opposition to the closed-door meeting at the White House, let alone announced that he or she will refuse to attend. Unending war and extreme social inequality have fatally undermined bourgeois-democratic forms in the United States. The Trump administration, with its open contempt for democratic rights and its authoritarian methods, is the outcome of a decades-long decay of American democracy. Congress itself is staffed with wealthy and corrupt stooges of corporate interests and the military/intelligence apparatus, and that goes for both parties. The media serves as a conduit for state propaganda. Dissent is denounced as “fake news” and “information warfare” by foreign enemies. The notion that Congress has the responsibility to exercise a check on war powers has disappeared. Beginning with the Korean War in 1950, US presidents have carried out dozens of military interventions without a declaration of war by Congress, as stipulated in the Constitution. The War Powers Act, passed in 1973, requiring congressional authorization for any military action lasting more than 60 days, has repeatedly been breached in practice. It was openly flouted by the Obama administration in its 2011 air war against Libya. Today’s meeting is not an exercise in congressional oversight, but rather a summoning of political representatives of the ruling class to receive their marching orders from the military brass. It is symptomatic of the collapse of democratic forms of rule and the accelerating drive to dictatorship. Andre Damon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Apr 26 14:23:58 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:23:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Letter to the Editor: Lessons of World War I for Today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Right now I am seriously worried that Trump is going to launch a criminal and catastrophic war against North Korea that would violate the United Nations Charter, the War Powers Clause of the United States Constitution, Congress's own War Powers Resolution of 1973 and constitute a Nuremberg Crime Against Peace in accordance with the terms of the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), the Nuremberg Principles (1950), and US Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).. The Nuremberg Tribunal categorically rejected the Doctrine of Preventive Warfare when the lawyers for the Major Nazi Leaders tried to use it to justify their Nazi invasion of Norway. For Trump to start a war against North Korea would be a Nazi Act. 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, April 09, 2017 8:26 AM To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Karen Aram ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: FW: Letter to the Editor: Lessons of World War I for Today Importance: High Francis 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, April 09, 2017 8:22 AM To: 'Dan Corkery' > Subject: Letter to the Editor: Lessons of World War I for Today Importance: High In my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press: 1999) I analyzed the history of American Foreign Policy from the Spanish American War of 1898 through the First World War and the establishment of the League of Nations. There was no good reason for the United States of America to have entered that war. All of Our Men were murdered for nothing. The same thing happened two generations later during the Vietnam War. We must cast a jaundiced eye upon all the warmongering coming out of Washington DC and on the mainstream news media today. Otherwise history will repeat itself with yet another generation of American Men and Women murdered for nothing. Francis A. Boyle Professor of 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) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Apr 26 15:50:16 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:50:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available References: <211789498.46179.1493221450717.JavaMail.www-data@mw-press-ws-02.meltwater.com> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:48 AM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: FW: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available FRANCIS BOYLE, (217) 333-7954, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He said today: "This is a dangerous situation because what Trump could be doing here is to lay some bogus Constitutional predicate for war against DPRK [North Korea], claiming that he's consulting Congress. In fact, Trump has no authorization for war against DPRK. There was never a Declaration of War by Congress against DPRK. He is currently in violation of the War Powers Resolution Section 2(c) since he is putting U.S. armed forces 'into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' He would also be violating the United Nations Charter because the Security Council has not authorized the use of military force to deal with the current situation." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Institute for Public Accuracy . [mailto:accuracy at accuracy.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:41 AM To: francis.a.boyle at gmail.com Subject: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available [http://app.meltwaterpress.com/mpress/statistic.html?accessCode=598ff8268b6cec2a491f8e8515a0ea5c19fd5b9f&distributionId=532889&contact=francis.a.boyle at gmail.com] Trump's Korea Threat The New York Times is reporting: "Fearing Korean Nuclear War, Women of 40 Nations Urge Trump to Seek Peace." NAMHEE LEE, namheeleeucla at gmail.com SUZY KIM, suzykim at rci.rutgers.edu CHRISTINE AHN, (310) 482-9333, christineahn at mac.com Lee, Kim and Ahn are among the signers of the statement, released by the group WomanCrossDMZ, which was founded by Ahn. Lee is professor of Asian languages and cultures at UCLA and author of The Making of Minjung: Democracy and the Politics of Representation in South Korea. Kim is associate professor of Korean history at Rutgers University. The letter calls on Trump to: "Negotiate a freeze of North Korea’s nuclear and long-range ballistic program in exchange for a U.S. security guarantee that would include suspending U.S.-South Korea military exercises." The letter states: "Since 1950, the Korean peninsula has been threatened with nuclear weapons, missile tests, and military exercises that have only served to make 75 million Korean people less secure. In the United States and on both sides of the Korean De-Militarized Zone, the absence of a binding peace accord fuels fear and economic deprivation caused by diverting public resources in preparation for war, including deploying the controversial THAAD missile defense system in South Korea. This endless militarization must stop." See from Reuters: "U.S. moves THAAD anti-missile to South Korean site, sparking protests." TIM SHORROCK, [currently in South Korea] timshorrock at gmail.com, @timothys Shorrock recently wrote the piece "In South Korea, War Hysteria Is Seen as an American Problem: The big issue here is the May 9 presidential election, which is expected to bring a progressive to power" for The Nation. Fox News reports: "Full Senate heads to rare classified meeting at the White House on North Korea." FRANCIS BOYLE, (217) 333-7954, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He said today: "This is a dangerous situation because what Trump could be doing here is to lay some bogus Constitutional predicate for war against DPRK [North Korea], claiming that he's consulting Congress. In fact, Trump has no authorization for war against DPRK. There was never a Declaration of War by Congress against DPRK. He is currently in violation of the War Powers Resolution Section 2(c) since he is putting U.S. armed forces 'into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' He would also be violating the United Nations Charter because the Security Council has not authorized the use of military force to deal with the current situation." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 April 26, 2017 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org Disclaimer: This email was sent to francis.a.boyle at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Apr 26 16:32:51 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:32:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Urgent! Stop the Threat of War with N Korea! References: <5900c9c8c967d_1d8572998011150@asgworker-qmb2-13.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: [CODEPINK] [IMG_4570.JPG] Tensions between the Trump administration and the North Korean government have reached a boiling point. In an ominous move, the White House has convened an emergency meeting today, April 26, with 100 Senators where Trump may ramp up the confrontation to new heights. We are outside the White House right now calling for peace and we need you to immediately call your two Senators! Tell them there’s no military solution to the North Korean Crisis! Demand diplomacy! Capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121 We must avoid, at all costs, a direct military confrontation with North Korea. Any military action by the United States, even limited, could instantly kill millions on the Korean peninsula and threaten nuclear and regional war that could draw in Japan, China and Russia. Every president before Trump considered a pre-emptive strike, but they were quickly sobered by the reality that a military option would trigger a counter-reaction from Pyongyang. Presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton Administrations could not justify military action that would instantly kill millions of South Koreans and endanger the 28,500 U.S. soldiers and 230,000 U.S. citizens residing there. Call your two Senators now! Tell them there’s no military solution to the North Korean Crisis! Demand diplomacy! Capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121 CODEPINK has been working for the past two years with Women Cross DMZ, an international women’s group that collaborates with women from both North and South Korea to come up with diplomatic solutions to the crisis. Women Cross DMZ calls for a freeze of North Korea’s nuclear and long-range ballistic missile program in exchange for a U.S. security guarantee that would include suspending U.S.-South Korea military exercises; a binding peace treaty to replace the 1953 Armistice Agreement; and support for citizen diplomacy with liaison offices in Washington DC and Pyongyang to reunite families and heal the legacies of the Korean War. Add your name to the open letter to the Trump administration from Women Cross DMZ! As Christine Ahn, the international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ, said, “President Trump must avoid at all costs a direct military confrontation with North Korea, which has a long history of engaging in brinksmanship. The United States has been successful in defusing past crises by working in partnership with our allies in the region. Today, China calls for restraint, and South Korea is urging a diplomatic solution. President Trump could demonstrate his art of deal making by advancing what will and has only ever worked: diplomacy and engagement.” Share the image at the top of this email on Facebook and Twitter! In peace, Anne, Ariel, Jodie, Mariana, Mark, Medea, Nancy, Paki, Paula, Taylor, and Tighe P.S. Join us this Saturday in DC, LA, or Oakland, CA for the People's Climate March and on May 14th in New York City on Mother's Day to call for an end to war! DISARM, DISARM! [Donate Now] [CODEPINK] This email was sent to karenaram at hotmail.com.To stop receiving emails, click here.Created with NationBuilder [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394039/twitter.png?1431394039] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394022/facebook.png?1431394022] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394028/google.png?1431394028] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394019/youtube.png?1431394019] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394037/rss.png?1431394037] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394038/t.png?1431394038] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394034/pinterest.png?1431394034] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394024/flickr.png?1431394024] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394021/email.png?1431394021] Unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Apr 26 16:32:51 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:32:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Urgent! Stop the Threat of War with N Korea! References: <5900c9c8c967d_1d8572998011150@asgworker-qmb2-13.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: [CODEPINK] [IMG_4570.JPG] Tensions between the Trump administration and the North Korean government have reached a boiling point. In an ominous move, the White House has convened an emergency meeting today, April 26, with 100 Senators where Trump may ramp up the confrontation to new heights. We are outside the White House right now calling for peace and we need you to immediately call your two Senators! Tell them there’s no military solution to the North Korean Crisis! Demand diplomacy! Capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121 We must avoid, at all costs, a direct military confrontation with North Korea. Any military action by the United States, even limited, could instantly kill millions on the Korean peninsula and threaten nuclear and regional war that could draw in Japan, China and Russia. Every president before Trump considered a pre-emptive strike, but they were quickly sobered by the reality that a military option would trigger a counter-reaction from Pyongyang. Presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton Administrations could not justify military action that would instantly kill millions of South Koreans and endanger the 28,500 U.S. soldiers and 230,000 U.S. citizens residing there. Call your two Senators now! Tell them there’s no military solution to the North Korean Crisis! Demand diplomacy! Capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121 CODEPINK has been working for the past two years with Women Cross DMZ, an international women’s group that collaborates with women from both North and South Korea to come up with diplomatic solutions to the crisis. Women Cross DMZ calls for a freeze of North Korea’s nuclear and long-range ballistic missile program in exchange for a U.S. security guarantee that would include suspending U.S.-South Korea military exercises; a binding peace treaty to replace the 1953 Armistice Agreement; and support for citizen diplomacy with liaison offices in Washington DC and Pyongyang to reunite families and heal the legacies of the Korean War. Add your name to the open letter to the Trump administration from Women Cross DMZ! As Christine Ahn, the international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ, said, “President Trump must avoid at all costs a direct military confrontation with North Korea, which has a long history of engaging in brinksmanship. The United States has been successful in defusing past crises by working in partnership with our allies in the region. Today, China calls for restraint, and South Korea is urging a diplomatic solution. President Trump could demonstrate his art of deal making by advancing what will and has only ever worked: diplomacy and engagement.” Share the image at the top of this email on Facebook and Twitter! In peace, Anne, Ariel, Jodie, Mariana, Mark, Medea, Nancy, Paki, Paula, Taylor, and Tighe P.S. Join us this Saturday in DC, LA, or Oakland, CA for the People's Climate March and on May 14th in New York City on Mother's Day to call for an end to war! DISARM, DISARM! [Donate Now] [CODEPINK] This email was sent to karenaram at hotmail.com.To stop receiving emails, click here.Created with NationBuilder [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394039/twitter.png?1431394039] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394022/facebook.png?1431394022] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394028/google.png?1431394028] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394019/youtube.png?1431394019] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394037/rss.png?1431394037] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394038/t.png?1431394038] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394034/pinterest.png?1431394034] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394024/flickr.png?1431394024] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394021/email.png?1431394021] Unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Apr 26 16:38:48 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:38:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available References: <211789498.46179.1493221450717.JavaMail.www-data@mw-press-ws-02.meltwater.com> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:48 AM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: FW: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available FRANCIS BOYLE, (217) 333-7954, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He said today: "This is a dangerous situation because what Trump could be doing here is to lay some bogus Constitutional predicate for war against DPRK [North Korea], claiming that he's consulting Congress. In fact, Trump has no authorization for war against DPRK. There was never a Declaration of War by Congress against DPRK. He is currently in violation of the War Powers Resolution Section 2(c) since he is putting U.S. armed forces 'into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' He would also be violating the United Nations Charter because the Security Council has not authorized the use of military force to deal with the current situation." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Institute for Public Accuracy . [mailto:accuracy at accuracy.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:41 AM To: francis.a.boyle at gmail.com Subject: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available [http://app.meltwaterpress.com/mpress/statistic.html?accessCode=598ff8268b6cec2a491f8e8515a0ea5c19fd5b9f&distributionId=532889&contact=francis.a.boyle at gmail.com] Trump's Korea Threat The New York Times is reporting: "Fearing Korean Nuclear War, Women of 40 Nations Urge Trump to Seek Peace." NAMHEE LEE, namheeleeucla at gmail.com SUZY KIM, suzykim at rci.rutgers.edu CHRISTINE AHN, (310) 482-9333, christineahn at mac.com Lee, Kim and Ahn are among the signers of the statement, released by the group WomanCrossDMZ, which was founded by Ahn. Lee is professor of Asian languages and cultures at UCLA and author of The Making of Minjung: Democracy and the Politics of Representation in South Korea. Kim is associate professor of Korean history at Rutgers University. The letter calls on Trump to: "Negotiate a freeze of North Korea’s nuclear and long-range ballistic program in exchange for a U.S. security guarantee that would include suspending U.S.-South Korea military exercises." The letter states: "Since 1950, the Korean peninsula has been threatened with nuclear weapons, missile tests, and military exercises that have only served to make 75 million Korean people less secure. In the United States and on both sides of the Korean De-Militarized Zone, the absence of a binding peace accord fuels fear and economic deprivation caused by diverting public resources in preparation for war, including deploying the controversial THAAD missile defense system in South Korea. This endless militarization must stop." See from Reuters: "U.S. moves THAAD anti-missile to South Korean site, sparking protests." TIM SHORROCK, [currently in South Korea] timshorrock at gmail.com, @timothys Shorrock recently wrote the piece "In South Korea, War Hysteria Is Seen as an American Problem: The big issue here is the May 9 presidential election, which is expected to bring a progressive to power" for The Nation. Fox News reports: "Full Senate heads to rare classified meeting at the White House on North Korea." FRANCIS BOYLE, (217) 333-7954, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He said today: "This is a dangerous situation because what Trump could be doing here is to lay some bogus Constitutional predicate for war against DPRK [North Korea], claiming that he's consulting Congress. In fact, Trump has no authorization for war against DPRK. There was never a Declaration of War by Congress against DPRK. He is currently in violation of the War Powers Resolution Section 2(c) since he is putting U.S. armed forces 'into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' He would also be violating the United Nations Charter because the Security Council has not authorized the use of military force to deal with the current situation." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 April 26, 2017 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org Disclaimer: This email was sent to francis.a.boyle at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Apr 26 16:38:48 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:38:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available References: <211789498.46179.1493221450717.JavaMail.www-data@mw-press-ws-02.meltwater.com> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:48 AM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: FW: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available FRANCIS BOYLE, (217) 333-7954, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He said today: "This is a dangerous situation because what Trump could be doing here is to lay some bogus Constitutional predicate for war against DPRK [North Korea], claiming that he's consulting Congress. In fact, Trump has no authorization for war against DPRK. There was never a Declaration of War by Congress against DPRK. He is currently in violation of the War Powers Resolution Section 2(c) since he is putting U.S. armed forces 'into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' He would also be violating the United Nations Charter because the Security Council has not authorized the use of military force to deal with the current situation." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Institute for Public Accuracy . [mailto:accuracy at accuracy.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:41 AM To: francis.a.boyle at gmail.com Subject: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available [http://app.meltwaterpress.com/mpress/statistic.html?accessCode=598ff8268b6cec2a491f8e8515a0ea5c19fd5b9f&distributionId=532889&contact=francis.a.boyle at gmail.com] Trump's Korea Threat The New York Times is reporting: "Fearing Korean Nuclear War, Women of 40 Nations Urge Trump to Seek Peace." NAMHEE LEE, namheeleeucla at gmail.com SUZY KIM, suzykim at rci.rutgers.edu CHRISTINE AHN, (310) 482-9333, christineahn at mac.com Lee, Kim and Ahn are among the signers of the statement, released by the group WomanCrossDMZ, which was founded by Ahn. Lee is professor of Asian languages and cultures at UCLA and author of The Making of Minjung: Democracy and the Politics of Representation in South Korea. Kim is associate professor of Korean history at Rutgers University. The letter calls on Trump to: "Negotiate a freeze of North Korea’s nuclear and long-range ballistic program in exchange for a U.S. security guarantee that would include suspending U.S.-South Korea military exercises." The letter states: "Since 1950, the Korean peninsula has been threatened with nuclear weapons, missile tests, and military exercises that have only served to make 75 million Korean people less secure. In the United States and on both sides of the Korean De-Militarized Zone, the absence of a binding peace accord fuels fear and economic deprivation caused by diverting public resources in preparation for war, including deploying the controversial THAAD missile defense system in South Korea. This endless militarization must stop." See from Reuters: "U.S. moves THAAD anti-missile to South Korean site, sparking protests." TIM SHORROCK, [currently in South Korea] timshorrock at gmail.com, @timothys Shorrock recently wrote the piece "In South Korea, War Hysteria Is Seen as an American Problem: The big issue here is the May 9 presidential election, which is expected to bring a progressive to power" for The Nation. Fox News reports: "Full Senate heads to rare classified meeting at the White House on North Korea." FRANCIS BOYLE, (217) 333-7954, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He said today: "This is a dangerous situation because what Trump could be doing here is to lay some bogus Constitutional predicate for war against DPRK [North Korea], claiming that he's consulting Congress. In fact, Trump has no authorization for war against DPRK. There was never a Declaration of War by Congress against DPRK. He is currently in violation of the War Powers Resolution Section 2(c) since he is putting U.S. armed forces 'into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' He would also be violating the United Nations Charter because the Security Council has not authorized the use of military force to deal with the current situation." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 April 26, 2017 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org Disclaimer: This email was sent to francis.a.boyle at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Apr 26 16:40:55 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:40:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available References: <211789498.46179.1493221450717.JavaMail.www-data@mw-press-ws-02.meltwater.com> Message-ID: Right now I am seriously worried that Trump is going to launch a criminal and catastrophic war against North Korea that would violate the United Nations Charter, the War Powers Clause of the United States Constitution, Congress’s own War Powers Resolution of 1973 and constitute a Nuremberg Crime Against Peace in accordance with the terms of the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), the Nuremberg Principles (1950), and US Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).. The Nuremberg Tribunal categorically rejected the Doctrine of Preventive Warfare when the lawyers for the Major Nazi Leaders tried to use it to justify their Nazi invasion of Norway. For Trump to start a war against North Korea would be a Nazi Act. 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, April 26, 2017 11:39 AM To: 'Karen Aram' ; Peace-discuss List ; Peace-discuss AWARE ; ufpj-activist Subject: FW: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available Francis 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, April 26, 2017 10:48 AM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > Subject: FW: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available FRANCIS BOYLE, (217) 333-7954, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He said today: "This is a dangerous situation because what Trump could be doing here is to lay some bogus Constitutional predicate for war against DPRK [North Korea], claiming that he's consulting Congress. In fact, Trump has no authorization for war against DPRK. There was never a Declaration of War by Congress against DPRK. He is currently in violation of the War Powers Resolution Section 2(c) since he is putting U.S. armed forces 'into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' He would also be violating the United Nations Charter because the Security Council has not authorized the use of military force to deal with the current situation." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Institute for Public Accuracy . [mailto:accuracy at accuracy.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:41 AM To: francis.a.boyle at gmail.com Subject: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available [http://app.meltwaterpress.com/mpress/statistic.html?accessCode=598ff8268b6cec2a491f8e8515a0ea5c19fd5b9f&distributionId=532889&contact=francis.a.boyle at gmail.com] Trump's Korea Threat The New York Times is reporting: "Fearing Korean Nuclear War, Women of 40 Nations Urge Trump to Seek Peace." NAMHEE LEE, namheeleeucla at gmail.com SUZY KIM, suzykim at rci.rutgers.edu CHRISTINE AHN, (310) 482-9333, christineahn at mac.com Lee, Kim and Ahn are among the signers of the statement, released by the group WomanCrossDMZ, which was founded by Ahn. Lee is professor of Asian languages and cultures at UCLA and author of The Making of Minjung: Democracy and the Politics of Representation in South Korea. Kim is associate professor of Korean history at Rutgers University. The letter calls on Trump to: "Negotiate a freeze of North Korea’s nuclear and long-range ballistic program in exchange for a U.S. security guarantee that would include suspending U.S.-South Korea military exercises." The letter states: "Since 1950, the Korean peninsula has been threatened with nuclear weapons, missile tests, and military exercises that have only served to make 75 million Korean people less secure. In the United States and on both sides of the Korean De-Militarized Zone, the absence of a binding peace accord fuels fear and economic deprivation caused by diverting public resources in preparation for war, including deploying the controversial THAAD missile defense system in South Korea. This endless militarization must stop." See from Reuters: "U.S. moves THAAD anti-missile to South Korean site, sparking protests." TIM SHORROCK, [currently in South Korea] timshorrock at gmail.com, @timothys Shorrock recently wrote the piece "In South Korea, War Hysteria Is Seen as an American Problem: The big issue here is the May 9 presidential election, which is expected to bring a progressive to power" for The Nation. Fox News reports: "Full Senate heads to rare classified meeting at the White House on North Korea." FRANCIS BOYLE, (217) 333-7954, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He said today: "This is a dangerous situation because what Trump could be doing here is to lay some bogus Constitutional predicate for war against DPRK [North Korea], claiming that he's consulting Congress. In fact, Trump has no authorization for war against DPRK. There was never a Declaration of War by Congress against DPRK. He is currently in violation of the War Powers Resolution Section 2(c) since he is putting U.S. armed forces 'into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' He would also be violating the United Nations Charter because the Security Council has not authorized the use of military force to deal with the current situation." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 April 26, 2017 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org Disclaimer: This email was sent to francis.a.boyle at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Apr 26 16:40:55 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:40:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available References: <211789498.46179.1493221450717.JavaMail.www-data@mw-press-ws-02.meltwater.com> Message-ID: Right now I am seriously worried that Trump is going to launch a criminal and catastrophic war against North Korea that would violate the United Nations Charter, the War Powers Clause of the United States Constitution, Congress’s own War Powers Resolution of 1973 and constitute a Nuremberg Crime Against Peace in accordance with the terms of the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), the Nuremberg Principles (1950), and US Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).. The Nuremberg Tribunal categorically rejected the Doctrine of Preventive Warfare when the lawyers for the Major Nazi Leaders tried to use it to justify their Nazi invasion of Norway. For Trump to start a war against North Korea would be a Nazi Act. 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, April 26, 2017 11:39 AM To: 'Karen Aram' ; Peace-discuss List ; Peace-discuss AWARE ; ufpj-activist Subject: FW: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available Francis 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, April 26, 2017 10:48 AM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > Subject: FW: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available FRANCIS BOYLE, (217) 333-7954, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He said today: "This is a dangerous situation because what Trump could be doing here is to lay some bogus Constitutional predicate for war against DPRK [North Korea], claiming that he's consulting Congress. In fact, Trump has no authorization for war against DPRK. There was never a Declaration of War by Congress against DPRK. He is currently in violation of the War Powers Resolution Section 2(c) since he is putting U.S. armed forces 'into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' He would also be violating the United Nations Charter because the Security Council has not authorized the use of military force to deal with the current situation." Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Institute for Public Accuracy . [mailto:accuracy at accuracy.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:41 AM To: francis.a.boyle at gmail.com Subject: Trump's Korea Threat -- Interviews Available [http://app.meltwaterpress.com/mpress/statistic.html?accessCode=598ff8268b6cec2a491f8e8515a0ea5c19fd5b9f&distributionId=532889&contact=francis.a.boyle at gmail.com] Trump's Korea Threat The New York Times is reporting: "Fearing Korean Nuclear War, Women of 40 Nations Urge Trump to Seek Peace." NAMHEE LEE, namheeleeucla at gmail.com SUZY KIM, suzykim at rci.rutgers.edu CHRISTINE AHN, (310) 482-9333, christineahn at mac.com Lee, Kim and Ahn are among the signers of the statement, released by the group WomanCrossDMZ, which was founded by Ahn. Lee is professor of Asian languages and cultures at UCLA and author of The Making of Minjung: Democracy and the Politics of Representation in South Korea. Kim is associate professor of Korean history at Rutgers University. The letter calls on Trump to: "Negotiate a freeze of North Korea’s nuclear and long-range ballistic program in exchange for a U.S. security guarantee that would include suspending U.S.-South Korea military exercises." The letter states: "Since 1950, the Korean peninsula has been threatened with nuclear weapons, missile tests, and military exercises that have only served to make 75 million Korean people less secure. In the United States and on both sides of the Korean De-Militarized Zone, the absence of a binding peace accord fuels fear and economic deprivation caused by diverting public resources in preparation for war, including deploying the controversial THAAD missile defense system in South Korea. This endless militarization must stop." See from Reuters: "U.S. moves THAAD anti-missile to South Korean site, sparking protests." TIM SHORROCK, [currently in South Korea] timshorrock at gmail.com, @timothys Shorrock recently wrote the piece "In South Korea, War Hysteria Is Seen as an American Problem: The big issue here is the May 9 presidential election, which is expected to bring a progressive to power" for The Nation. Fox News reports: "Full Senate heads to rare classified meeting at the White House on North Korea." FRANCIS BOYLE, (217) 333-7954, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He said today: "This is a dangerous situation because what Trump could be doing here is to lay some bogus Constitutional predicate for war against DPRK [North Korea], claiming that he's consulting Congress. In fact, Trump has no authorization for war against DPRK. There was never a Declaration of War by Congress against DPRK. He is currently in violation of the War Powers Resolution Section 2(c) since he is putting U.S. armed forces 'into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' He would also be violating the United Nations Charter because the Security Council has not authorized the use of military force to deal with the current situation." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 April 26, 2017 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org Disclaimer: This email was sent to francis.a.boyle at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 17:13:28 2017 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:13:28 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Newsmax Survey Message-ID: Help tilt the balance http://www.newsmax.com/Surveys/Results/id/363/ From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Apr 27 00:25:37 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:25:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Counterpunch article Message-ID: APRIL 26, 2017 Empire Abroad, Empire At Home by RICHARD MOSER * * * * Email * * [http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/07/print-sp.png] “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Americans are taught to revel in our power and supremacy. Over 650 major military bases span the whole world. We wage endless wars. American corporations are the most powerful economic organizations in history. The fusion of economic and military power makes our empire unlike any the world has ever seen. We may be “#1” but it is to this great empire that we have lost our souls and our democracy with it.[1] The New Paradigm No great wall separates U.S. foreign policy from domestic policy. The Manhattan Institute is an influential think tank founded in 1978 by William Casey, former head of all U.S. intelligence and Director of the CIA. In a 2006 report “Merging Law Enforcement and Counterterrorism Strategies,” they describe “The New Paradigm:” We know too that globalization is a permanent fact. The international economy is the engine of our nation and the source of our wealth. It means that all the physical and conceptual walls associated with the modern, sovereign state—the walls that divide domestic from international, the police from the military, intelligence from law enforcement, war from peace, and crime from war—are coming down. The institutions and ideas U.S. elites used to project “full spectrum dominance” onto the global stage have eventually become part of the political order in the U.S. The “full spectrum” includes us. It is empire — most of all — that dooms democracy and constitutional republics. As corporations have an insatiable drive for profit, empires have an insatiable drive for power. And that makes imperial actors hostile to the limits on authority, checks and balances, separation of powers and basic rights that the U.S. republic at least aspired to. As the institutions of representative democracy become weaker and weaker — devoted only to serving the corporate power and global empire — the need for social control of the people becomes greater and greater. Targeting Dissent in the USA The “McCarthyism” of the 1950s was the first modern wave of coordinated social control. Truman stoked the fear and hatred of communism to serve foreign policy, but soon, in the hands of the FBI and unscrupulous politicians, it was turned against domestic dissent. The establishment decided that some ideas were so dangerous that American citizens did not have the right or capacity to think through them for themselves. The government would do the thinking for us.[2] Dissent was equated with treason, and it was not until the hard fought battles of the civil rights movement that dissent was once again seen as legitimate. It’s worth remembering that Martin Luther King was widely accused of being a communist. Starting in the mid-50s, the FBI’s COINTELPRO program attacked dissenters. While the civil rights and black power movements were the primary targets of violent repression, almost all social movements were surveilled and disrupted. Today, protestors face escalating penalties, police violence, surveillance, and intimidation. Particularly since Trump’s election there have been a host of proposed laws that aim to criminalize first amendment rights of free speech and assembly. Nixon turned to the “War on Drugs” to create the domestic equivalent of war and suppress the political movements. The War on Drugs — waged by Democrats and Republicans alike — went after hippies, the young and the black community as a way of penalizing the populations on which the movements depended. Now we know the outcome of the War on Drugs. Over the past few decades the American people have created a vast militarized penal system that is now the most powerful institutionalized racism in the US. And like the forms of institutionalized racism that preceded it, the penal system functions as an effective form of social control. Discriminatory and militarized policing, on-the-spot executions, slave-like prison labor, mass incarceration, school-to-prison pipeline, restriction of trial by jury, lengthy and mandatory sentencing, predatory fine, fee and debt traps, and its gigantic sweep and size constitutes nothing short of a preemptive war against the most potentially rebellious parts of the population: the young, people of color, the poor.[3] Mandatory sentencing laws passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton shifted the power from judges to prosecutors. By tilting power away from the judiciary and toward the executive, a highly “efficient” system of incarceration took shape. Police often get military training appropriate to an occupation force, training that emphasizing weapons rather than conflict resolution. The “oil cops” at Standing Rock were employees of a private firm with ties to Blackwater, the corporation that provided the mercenaries used by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. The use of facial recognition software, the recording and monitoring of electronic and phone communications and the commercialization of internet browsing data — all without consent or indictments — are part of the most sophisticated system of electronic surveillance ever created. Mass surveillance is a profound attack on the First Amendment. Knowing big brother is always listening chills free speech, dissent and free association. The penal system chipped away other key provisions of the Bill of Rights including the protection from unwarranted search and seizure, the right to a trial, and the most fundamental rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. With 2 million behind bars, a million of which slave away for big corporations and the military, the penal system is the main example of how the empire’s increasing reliance on force and violence to solve political problems turned inward toward the American people. But, as intimidating and brutal as the penal system is — it also a last resort. The use of force is evidence that the empire is losing control over the hearts and minds of increasing numbers of its subjects. “Defense” on the Homefront The line between empire abroad and empire at home was further eroded by provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The 1990 NDAA, passed by Congress and signed by President and former director of the CIA George Bush, allowed for the transfer of military weapons to domestic police forces accelerating the militarization of the penal system. President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA which extended the rules of war worldwide — in effect making the US. homeland a theatre of war — by allowing indefinite detention without trial or justification, in violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right of Habeas Corpus. The NDAA also included provisions that allowed the “US government to broadcast American produced foreign propaganda in the U.S.” And that is a lot of propaganda. In 2009, $580 million was spend in Iraq and Afghanistan on the information war. Another $500 million was spent by the Pentagon to produce fake Al-Qaeda videos. The NDAA essentially legalized the propaganda efforts of the CIA that were revealed as far back as 1975. The first amendment is precise and sweeping: ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the people from the power of government not to protect government from the people. In the last weeks of his term, Obama signed off on a bi-partisan effort to amend the 2016 NDAA and establish a “counter-propaganda” program, once again placing government in a position to determine what is propaganda and what is not. In a free country, that is the job of the people. The chilling logic behind Obama’s record prosecution of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act and the Russian-baiting unleashed by the Clinton machine was taken to it’s extreme conclusion when Trump’s CIA director Mike Pompeo targeted Wikileaks as “a non-state, hostile intelligence service,” in a direct threat to free speech, free press and public access to information. Yet, in the last days of his term Obama insured that the 17 secret police forces would be able to freely share raw data and information gathered on millions of American citizens. They can know all about us but we cannot know about them. If the elites trusted the old forms of social order and enculturation— the media, educational system, family, military, church, or even the Constitution itself — to maintain order, would they need to create a system of mass surveillance, incarceration, and propaganda? What a strange moment we live in! The revolutionary vision of the Declaration of Independence, the checks on tyranny that structure the U.S. Constitution and the limits on government power listed in the Bill of Rights — though they be flawed and two and a half centuries old — are far more advanced than the form of government we now have. There is no democratic representation in the U.S. today The U.S. empire and the corporate power have done what the old British empire could not. Only massive and disruptive social movements can unmask the abuses of power to truly test the limits of our rights. The most important question: how do we organize the social movements necessary to restore democracy? Notes. 1/ See the work of The American Empire Project, “Empire, long considered an offense against America’s democratic heritage, now threatens to define the relationship between our country and the rest of the world. The American Empire Project publishes books that question this development, examine the origins of U.S. imperial aspirations, analyze their ramifications at home and abroad, and discuss alternatives to this dangerous trend.” Also see Andrew Bacevich’s many articles and books such as The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War. 2/ Ellen Schrecker, Many Are The Crimes: McCarthyism in America 3/ https://befreedom.co/2017/03/04/organize-the-white-working-class/ Join the debate on Facebook Richard Moser writes at befreedom.co where this article first appeared. More articles by:RICHARD MOSER -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Apr 27 00:25:37 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:25:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Counterpunch article Message-ID: APRIL 26, 2017 Empire Abroad, Empire At Home by RICHARD MOSER * * * * Email * * [http://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/07/print-sp.png] “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Americans are taught to revel in our power and supremacy. Over 650 major military bases span the whole world. We wage endless wars. American corporations are the most powerful economic organizations in history. The fusion of economic and military power makes our empire unlike any the world has ever seen. We may be “#1” but it is to this great empire that we have lost our souls and our democracy with it.[1] The New Paradigm No great wall separates U.S. foreign policy from domestic policy. The Manhattan Institute is an influential think tank founded in 1978 by William Casey, former head of all U.S. intelligence and Director of the CIA. In a 2006 report “Merging Law Enforcement and Counterterrorism Strategies,” they describe “The New Paradigm:” We know too that globalization is a permanent fact. The international economy is the engine of our nation and the source of our wealth. It means that all the physical and conceptual walls associated with the modern, sovereign state—the walls that divide domestic from international, the police from the military, intelligence from law enforcement, war from peace, and crime from war—are coming down. The institutions and ideas U.S. elites used to project “full spectrum dominance” onto the global stage have eventually become part of the political order in the U.S. The “full spectrum” includes us. It is empire — most of all — that dooms democracy and constitutional republics. As corporations have an insatiable drive for profit, empires have an insatiable drive for power. And that makes imperial actors hostile to the limits on authority, checks and balances, separation of powers and basic rights that the U.S. republic at least aspired to. As the institutions of representative democracy become weaker and weaker — devoted only to serving the corporate power and global empire — the need for social control of the people becomes greater and greater. Targeting Dissent in the USA The “McCarthyism” of the 1950s was the first modern wave of coordinated social control. Truman stoked the fear and hatred of communism to serve foreign policy, but soon, in the hands of the FBI and unscrupulous politicians, it was turned against domestic dissent. The establishment decided that some ideas were so dangerous that American citizens did not have the right or capacity to think through them for themselves. The government would do the thinking for us.[2] Dissent was equated with treason, and it was not until the hard fought battles of the civil rights movement that dissent was once again seen as legitimate. It’s worth remembering that Martin Luther King was widely accused of being a communist. Starting in the mid-50s, the FBI’s COINTELPRO program attacked dissenters. While the civil rights and black power movements were the primary targets of violent repression, almost all social movements were surveilled and disrupted. Today, protestors face escalating penalties, police violence, surveillance, and intimidation. Particularly since Trump’s election there have been a host of proposed laws that aim to criminalize first amendment rights of free speech and assembly. Nixon turned to the “War on Drugs” to create the domestic equivalent of war and suppress the political movements. The War on Drugs — waged by Democrats and Republicans alike — went after hippies, the young and the black community as a way of penalizing the populations on which the movements depended. Now we know the outcome of the War on Drugs. Over the past few decades the American people have created a vast militarized penal system that is now the most powerful institutionalized racism in the US. And like the forms of institutionalized racism that preceded it, the penal system functions as an effective form of social control. Discriminatory and militarized policing, on-the-spot executions, slave-like prison labor, mass incarceration, school-to-prison pipeline, restriction of trial by jury, lengthy and mandatory sentencing, predatory fine, fee and debt traps, and its gigantic sweep and size constitutes nothing short of a preemptive war against the most potentially rebellious parts of the population: the young, people of color, the poor.[3] Mandatory sentencing laws passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton shifted the power from judges to prosecutors. By tilting power away from the judiciary and toward the executive, a highly “efficient” system of incarceration took shape. Police often get military training appropriate to an occupation force, training that emphasizing weapons rather than conflict resolution. The “oil cops” at Standing Rock were employees of a private firm with ties to Blackwater, the corporation that provided the mercenaries used by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. The use of facial recognition software, the recording and monitoring of electronic and phone communications and the commercialization of internet browsing data — all without consent or indictments — are part of the most sophisticated system of electronic surveillance ever created. Mass surveillance is a profound attack on the First Amendment. Knowing big brother is always listening chills free speech, dissent and free association. The penal system chipped away other key provisions of the Bill of Rights including the protection from unwarranted search and seizure, the right to a trial, and the most fundamental rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. With 2 million behind bars, a million of which slave away for big corporations and the military, the penal system is the main example of how the empire’s increasing reliance on force and violence to solve political problems turned inward toward the American people. But, as intimidating and brutal as the penal system is — it also a last resort. The use of force is evidence that the empire is losing control over the hearts and minds of increasing numbers of its subjects. “Defense” on the Homefront The line between empire abroad and empire at home was further eroded by provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The 1990 NDAA, passed by Congress and signed by President and former director of the CIA George Bush, allowed for the transfer of military weapons to domestic police forces accelerating the militarization of the penal system. President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA which extended the rules of war worldwide — in effect making the US. homeland a theatre of war — by allowing indefinite detention without trial or justification, in violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right of Habeas Corpus. The NDAA also included provisions that allowed the “US government to broadcast American produced foreign propaganda in the U.S.” And that is a lot of propaganda. In 2009, $580 million was spend in Iraq and Afghanistan on the information war. Another $500 million was spent by the Pentagon to produce fake Al-Qaeda videos. The NDAA essentially legalized the propaganda efforts of the CIA that were revealed as far back as 1975. The first amendment is precise and sweeping: ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the people from the power of government not to protect government from the people. In the last weeks of his term, Obama signed off on a bi-partisan effort to amend the 2016 NDAA and establish a “counter-propaganda” program, once again placing government in a position to determine what is propaganda and what is not. In a free country, that is the job of the people. The chilling logic behind Obama’s record prosecution of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act and the Russian-baiting unleashed by the Clinton machine was taken to it’s extreme conclusion when Trump’s CIA director Mike Pompeo targeted Wikileaks as “a non-state, hostile intelligence service,” in a direct threat to free speech, free press and public access to information. Yet, in the last days of his term Obama insured that the 17 secret police forces would be able to freely share raw data and information gathered on millions of American citizens. They can know all about us but we cannot know about them. If the elites trusted the old forms of social order and enculturation— the media, educational system, family, military, church, or even the Constitution itself — to maintain order, would they need to create a system of mass surveillance, incarceration, and propaganda? What a strange moment we live in! The revolutionary vision of the Declaration of Independence, the checks on tyranny that structure the U.S. Constitution and the limits on government power listed in the Bill of Rights — though they be flawed and two and a half centuries old — are far more advanced than the form of government we now have. There is no democratic representation in the U.S. today The U.S. empire and the corporate power have done what the old British empire could not. Only massive and disruptive social movements can unmask the abuses of power to truly test the limits of our rights. The most important question: how do we organize the social movements necessary to restore democracy? Notes. 1/ See the work of The American Empire Project, “Empire, long considered an offense against America’s democratic heritage, now threatens to define the relationship between our country and the rest of the world. The American Empire Project publishes books that question this development, examine the origins of U.S. imperial aspirations, analyze their ramifications at home and abroad, and discuss alternatives to this dangerous trend.” Also see Andrew Bacevich’s many articles and books such as The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War. 2/ Ellen Schrecker, Many Are The Crimes: McCarthyism in America 3/ https://befreedom.co/2017/03/04/organize-the-white-working-class/ Join the debate on Facebook Richard Moser writes at befreedom.co where this article first appeared. More articles by:RICHARD MOSER -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 27 13:48:05 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:48:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky Economics talk References: <1785953169.12518449.1493300885242.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1785953169.12518449.1493300885242@mail.yahoo.com> Addressing economic issues, globally, with historical perspectives, nothing new but different from his usual recent talking points. Noam Chomsky speaks at Crotty Hall | | | | | | | | | | | Noam Chomsky speaks at Crotty Hall | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cge at shout.net Thu Apr 27 15:24:59 2017 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:24:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fb conversation In-Reply-To: References: <5880c407a1db5_222964d980682c3@asgworker-qmb2-1.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: [Chris Knight] 100 down... only 1360 days left to go. [Carl G. Estabrook] Then we can get back to a president who's a warmonger and corporate globalizer in the Obama-Clinton mode? That's in the interest of the 1%, if no one else. And the 1% now seem to have taught Trump their ways: the economy has been turned over to the bankers (Cohn and Mnuchin) and the war over to the generals (Mattis and McMaster). "They make a desert, and call it peace." [Chris Knight] I doubt that the 1% have taught him anything. I admire your conviction that he was a viable alternative to corporate capitalism and the military industrial behemoth, but I don't see that. To me he appears to simply be an insecure overbearing ignoramus. He appears to bend to whomsoever is pleasant to him. To imply that he had some grand plan, which has now been thrwarted, seems incorrect to me. I regard him as an inexperienced, spoiled racist, who has no idea of what he is doing. "They make tomato sauce, and call it a vegetable" [Carl G. Estabrook] The 1% (via their agents, the Obama-Clinton Democrats) have cozened or compelled him into adopting their neoliberal and neoconservative policies - which he attacked in the campaign. His character flaws - the disingenuous concern of the political establishment - are not the issue: the criminal policies of his administration, at home and abroad, are. We should be demanding a cessation of the wars and the 'trade pacts' - both of which serve the interests of the 1%, and are against those of the majority, at home and abroad. [Chris Knight] He made lots of wild assertions during his campaign, most of which he has since apparently forgotten. To cherry pick the ones which would show him as a viable alternative to the status quo, and then assert that he has been co-opted by the establishment, is to paint him in a very rosy light. And although I agree that the criminal policies of his administration are a very serious issue, I do not agree that it is OK to ignore his personality traits, which are not simply played up as a diversionary tactic, but instead are harped upon because they are real, reactionary and disgusting. [Carl G. Estabrook] US policy is more important than his personal reformation. [Chris Knight] And empowering racists, sexists, homophobes and science deniers can therefore be overlooked? [Carl G. Estabrook] No, if it's a matter of government policy, not just trying to prevent people from thinking (or saying) the wrong things. [Carl G. Estabrook] Instead of deploring Trump's enormities (or his miniscularities), we should be demanding ~ no war: bring US troops and (weapons) home; ~ no climate catastrophe: suppress carbon emissions; ~ no immiseration: a universal basic income; and ~ no untreated illness: Medicare for all. Instead, good liberals are demanding an Obama-Clinton restoration, which would secure none of these things. ### From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Apr 27 19:55:36 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:55:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fb conversation In-Reply-To: References: <5880c407a1db5_222964d980682c3@asgworker-qmb2-1.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: All good points Carl, do you think this Chris guy got it? Doubtful, I don’t know him but so many people think like him. “If only, we had someone other than Trump, if only we had a Democrat, all would be right with the world.” Well, tell that to the millions now dead, homeless, and starving in Libya, Somalia, Yemen etc.,etc. > On Apr 27, 2017, at 08:24, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > [Chris Knight] 100 down... only 1360 days left to go. > > [Carl G. Estabrook] Then we can get back to a president who's a warmonger and corporate globalizer in the Obama-Clinton mode? > That's in the interest of the 1%, if no one else. > > And the 1% now seem to have taught Trump their ways: the economy has been turned over to the bankers (Cohn and Mnuchin) and the war over to the generals (Mattis and McMaster). > > "They make a desert, and call it peace." > > [Chris Knight] I doubt that the 1% have taught him anything. I admire your conviction that he was a viable alternative to corporate capitalism and the military industrial behemoth, but I don't see that. To me he appears to simply be an insecure overbearing ignoramus. He appears to bend to whomsoever is pleasant to him. To imply that he had some grand plan, which has now been thrwarted, seems incorrect to me. I regard him as an inexperienced, spoiled racist, who has no idea of what he is doing. > > "They make tomato sauce, and call it a vegetable" > > [Carl G. Estabrook] The 1% (via their agents, the Obama-Clinton Democrats) have cozened or compelled him into adopting their neoliberal and neoconservative policies - which he attacked in the campaign. > > His character flaws - the disingenuous concern of the political establishment - are not the issue: the criminal policies of his administration, at home and abroad, are. > > We should be demanding a cessation of the wars and the 'trade pacts' - both of which serve the interests of the 1%, and are against those of the majority, at home and abroad. > > [Chris Knight] He made lots of wild assertions during his campaign, most of which he has since apparently forgotten. To cherry pick the ones which would show him as a viable alternative to the status quo, and then assert that he has been co-opted by the establishment, is to paint him in a very rosy light. And although I agree that the criminal policies of his administration are a very serious issue, I do not agree that it is OK to ignore his personality traits, which are not simply played up as a diversionary tactic, but instead are harped upon because they are real, reactionary and disgusting. > > [Carl G. Estabrook] US policy is more important than his personal reformation. > > [Chris Knight] And empowering racists, sexists, homophobes and science deniers can therefore be overlooked? > > [Carl G. Estabrook] No, if it's a matter of government policy, not just trying to prevent people from thinking (or saying) the wrong things. > > [Carl G. Estabrook] Instead of deploring Trump's enormities (or his miniscularities), we should be demanding > > ~ no war: bring US troops and (weapons) home; > ~ no climate catastrophe: suppress carbon emissions; > ~ no immiseration: a universal basic income; and > ~ no untreated illness: Medicare for all. > > Instead, good liberals are demanding an Obama-Clinton restoration, which would secure none of these things. > > ### > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Apr 28 01:18:56 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:18:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: South Korean Protesters Think THAAD System Aimed at Russia, China, Not DPRK 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) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 8:16 PM To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' Subject: South Korean Protesters Think THAAD System Aimed at Russia, China, Not DPRK https://sputniknews.com/asia/201704271053048277-south-koreans-thaad-russia-china/ University of Illinois International Law Professor Francis Boyle told Sputnik he was deeply concerned about the danger of war breaking out on the Korean Peninsula. "Right now, I am seriously worried that Trump is going to launch a criminal and catastrophic war against North Korea," he said. Such a conflict would violate the UN Charter, the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution and Congress's 1973 War Powers Resolution, Boyle added. From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 01:31:33 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:31:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: South Korean Protesters Think THAAD System Aimed at Russia, China, Not DPRK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It’s aimed at N. Korea and China, China is the major target, primarily for surveillance purposes. The US uses N. Korea as an excuse to surround, and spy on China. It’s also aimed at the tip or a small portion of Russia. South Korean’s know that they will suffer the consequences of any action military taken towards anyone whether N.Korea or China. > On Apr 27, 2017, at 18:18, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 8:16 PM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > Subject: South Korean Protesters Think THAAD System Aimed at Russia, China, Not DPRK > > https://sputniknews.com/asia/201704271053048277-south-koreans-thaad-russia-china/ > University of Illinois International Law Professor Francis Boyle told Sputnik he was deeply concerned about the danger of war breaking out on the Korean Peninsula. > > "Right now, I am seriously worried that Trump is going to launch a criminal and catastrophic war against North Korea," he said. > > Such a conflict would violate the UN Charter, the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution and Congress's 1973 War Powers Resolution, Boyle added. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 01:50:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:50:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] War preparations Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » White House briefing signals escalating war preparations against North Korea By Mike Head 27 April 2017 The unprecedented bussing of the entire Senate to the White House to be briefed by military and intelligence officials on possible military action against North Korea was one of a number of events yesterday pointing to planning for a potentially catastrophic war. As the WSWS noted in yesterday’s Perspective, the Trump administration’s summoning of the senators was not an exercise in congressional oversight but the opposite: the political representatives of the ruling class received their marching orders, and talking points, from the military brass. Speaking to journalists after the meeting, participants denied that any specific military line of attack was discussed. By every indication, however, the executive and its military-intelligence officials informed the senators they would be told after the event, if and when the administration launched a military assault. There were no reports of any protest against being summoned by the White House in this manner, let alone any boycott of the gathering. Rather, the response was one of bipartisan backing for the escalating war planning, laced with calls for tougher action against China, supposedly to pressure Beijing to compel Pyongyang to abandon its missile and nuclear programs. As scheduled, the Senate was briefed at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House by Defense Secretary James Mattis, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence reportedly greeted the senators on arrival and then left. Before the meeting, Mattis, Coats and Tillerson issued a joint statement that pronounced Pyongyang’s pursuit of nuclear weapons “an urgent national security threat and top foreign policy priority.” They declared: “Past efforts have failed to halt North Korea’s unlawful weapons programs and nuclear and ballistic missile tests.” The statement claimed Trump’s approach aimed to pursue “diplomatic measures” with allies and partners to “convince the regime to de-escalate,” but concluded on a threatening note: “However, we remain prepared to defend ourselves and our allies.” Various comments by senators after the briefing ranged from support for US military action against North Korea to pushing for a harder stance against China. There was no dissent from the incessant propaganda aimed at whipping up fears of a future North Korean nuclear attack. Senator Ted Cruz told Fox News: “It is of course the hope that military action does not prove necessary, but if there is a clear and imminent threat to the United States, our military needs to be prepared to act.” John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said one should not rule out a preemptive strike. One unnamed Republican senator complained they were given “very few details about what has changed.” He said the basic gist of the briefing was: “We’ve reached a point where things are getting pretty dire and getting to the point where we’ve got to get more aggressive.” Some senators, notably Democrats, called for harsher sanctions against China. Democratic Senator Ed Markey said he had not seen evidence that China was doing enough. Chris Coons, a Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, exemplified the underlying bipartisanship. He said Trump was developing a “diplomatic strategy that strikes me as clear-eyed and well proportioned to the threat.” Earlier in the day, US Pacific Command chief Admiral Harry Harris, who would lead any attack on the Korean Peninsula, gave an indication of the Pentagon’s message. Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, he asserted that denuclearisation by North Korea—the goal outlined publicly by the White House—is no longer a realistic option. Harris said he had no confidence that North Korea would refrain from “something precipitous” should it succeed in miniaturising a nuclear weapon to mount on a ballistic missile. He said the US had “a lot of preemptive options,” but declined to provide specifics. The admiral advocated greater shows of military force, including overflying the Korean Peninsula with nuclear-capable B-1 and B-52 bombers. This would be on top of the current visits and exercises by two US destroyers, the guided-missile submarine USS Michigan and the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike. Harris acknowledged that possible reprisals stemming from a strike against North Korea would place at risk the lives of millions of Koreans and Japanese, as well as the 28,500 US troops in South Korea. But he argued this danger was outweighed by the prospect of “a lot more Koreans and Japanese and Americans dying if North Korea achieves its nuclear aims.” In another indication of war planning, Harris urged Congress to add ballistic-missile interceptors to installations in Alaska and California, and to “study” placing interceptors in Hawaii while immediately bolstering defensive radars there. Harris took aim at China, saying it had substantial leverage against North Korea. He labeled as “preposterous” China’s alleged pressure on South Korean companies to stall the placement of a US Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile battery in South Korea. The US claims the THAAD facility is a purely defensive weapon to intercept incoming missiles. In reality, its radar capacity is designed to probe deep into China and the system’s underlying purpose is to block any attempt by North Korea or China to respond to a US first-strike nuclear attack. Defying protests by China, as well as hundreds of local residents, US personnel yesterday began to install the THAAD equipment at a former golf course in Seongju. It was an earlier-than-expected move, effectively preempting South Korea’s presidential election on May 9. Television footage showed military trailers carrying large units, including what appeared to be launch canisters, on to the site. Protesters hurled water bottles at the vehicles, despite the efforts of thousands of police to block them. Baek-Gwang-soon, 73, who has lived in Seongju all her life, told the Guardian she was “speechless with anger.” She explained: “This is a quiet place, where we welcome outsiders with open arms. Now it’s being ruined by the arrival of American weapons that have turned us into a North Korean target.” The THAAD deployment provoked further alarm bells in Beijing. Yesterday’s editorial in the state-run Global Times declared: “It is infuriating that the US and South Korea have stabbed China in the back at a critical time when China and the US are cooperating to prevent North Korea from carrying out a new nuclear or missile test.” At the same time an Op-Ed in the People’s Daily, the official organ of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, continued to plead for an accommodation with Washington. Citing this month’s meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the commentary held out the hope that such “high-level dialogues” should “help dispel the old idea that the two sides are destined for war.” In reality, yesterday’s developments demonstrate an escalating confrontation, driven by Washington’s determination to assert unchallenged hegemony over the Asia-Pacific region, at China’s expense. WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 01:50:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:50:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] War preparations Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » White House briefing signals escalating war preparations against North Korea By Mike Head 27 April 2017 The unprecedented bussing of the entire Senate to the White House to be briefed by military and intelligence officials on possible military action against North Korea was one of a number of events yesterday pointing to planning for a potentially catastrophic war. As the WSWS noted in yesterday’s Perspective, the Trump administration’s summoning of the senators was not an exercise in congressional oversight but the opposite: the political representatives of the ruling class received their marching orders, and talking points, from the military brass. Speaking to journalists after the meeting, participants denied that any specific military line of attack was discussed. By every indication, however, the executive and its military-intelligence officials informed the senators they would be told after the event, if and when the administration launched a military assault. There were no reports of any protest against being summoned by the White House in this manner, let alone any boycott of the gathering. Rather, the response was one of bipartisan backing for the escalating war planning, laced with calls for tougher action against China, supposedly to pressure Beijing to compel Pyongyang to abandon its missile and nuclear programs. As scheduled, the Senate was briefed at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House by Defense Secretary James Mattis, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence reportedly greeted the senators on arrival and then left. Before the meeting, Mattis, Coats and Tillerson issued a joint statement that pronounced Pyongyang’s pursuit of nuclear weapons “an urgent national security threat and top foreign policy priority.” They declared: “Past efforts have failed to halt North Korea’s unlawful weapons programs and nuclear and ballistic missile tests.” The statement claimed Trump’s approach aimed to pursue “diplomatic measures” with allies and partners to “convince the regime to de-escalate,” but concluded on a threatening note: “However, we remain prepared to defend ourselves and our allies.” Various comments by senators after the briefing ranged from support for US military action against North Korea to pushing for a harder stance against China. There was no dissent from the incessant propaganda aimed at whipping up fears of a future North Korean nuclear attack. Senator Ted Cruz told Fox News: “It is of course the hope that military action does not prove necessary, but if there is a clear and imminent threat to the United States, our military needs to be prepared to act.” John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said one should not rule out a preemptive strike. One unnamed Republican senator complained they were given “very few details about what has changed.” He said the basic gist of the briefing was: “We’ve reached a point where things are getting pretty dire and getting to the point where we’ve got to get more aggressive.” Some senators, notably Democrats, called for harsher sanctions against China. Democratic Senator Ed Markey said he had not seen evidence that China was doing enough. Chris Coons, a Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, exemplified the underlying bipartisanship. He said Trump was developing a “diplomatic strategy that strikes me as clear-eyed and well proportioned to the threat.” Earlier in the day, US Pacific Command chief Admiral Harry Harris, who would lead any attack on the Korean Peninsula, gave an indication of the Pentagon’s message. Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, he asserted that denuclearisation by North Korea—the goal outlined publicly by the White House—is no longer a realistic option. Harris said he had no confidence that North Korea would refrain from “something precipitous” should it succeed in miniaturising a nuclear weapon to mount on a ballistic missile. He said the US had “a lot of preemptive options,” but declined to provide specifics. The admiral advocated greater shows of military force, including overflying the Korean Peninsula with nuclear-capable B-1 and B-52 bombers. This would be on top of the current visits and exercises by two US destroyers, the guided-missile submarine USS Michigan and the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike. Harris acknowledged that possible reprisals stemming from a strike against North Korea would place at risk the lives of millions of Koreans and Japanese, as well as the 28,500 US troops in South Korea. But he argued this danger was outweighed by the prospect of “a lot more Koreans and Japanese and Americans dying if North Korea achieves its nuclear aims.” In another indication of war planning, Harris urged Congress to add ballistic-missile interceptors to installations in Alaska and California, and to “study” placing interceptors in Hawaii while immediately bolstering defensive radars there. Harris took aim at China, saying it had substantial leverage against North Korea. He labeled as “preposterous” China’s alleged pressure on South Korean companies to stall the placement of a US Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile battery in South Korea. The US claims the THAAD facility is a purely defensive weapon to intercept incoming missiles. In reality, its radar capacity is designed to probe deep into China and the system’s underlying purpose is to block any attempt by North Korea or China to respond to a US first-strike nuclear attack. Defying protests by China, as well as hundreds of local residents, US personnel yesterday began to install the THAAD equipment at a former golf course in Seongju. It was an earlier-than-expected move, effectively preempting South Korea’s presidential election on May 9. Television footage showed military trailers carrying large units, including what appeared to be launch canisters, on to the site. Protesters hurled water bottles at the vehicles, despite the efforts of thousands of police to block them. Baek-Gwang-soon, 73, who has lived in Seongju all her life, told the Guardian she was “speechless with anger.” She explained: “This is a quiet place, where we welcome outsiders with open arms. Now it’s being ruined by the arrival of American weapons that have turned us into a North Korean target.” The THAAD deployment provoked further alarm bells in Beijing. Yesterday’s editorial in the state-run Global Times declared: “It is infuriating that the US and South Korea have stabbed China in the back at a critical time when China and the US are cooperating to prevent North Korea from carrying out a new nuclear or missile test.” At the same time an Op-Ed in the People’s Daily, the official organ of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, continued to plead for an accommodation with Washington. Citing this month’s meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the commentary held out the hope that such “high-level dialogues” should “help dispel the old idea that the two sides are destined for war.” In reality, yesterday’s developments demonstrate an escalating confrontation, driven by Washington’s determination to assert unchallenged hegemony over the Asia-Pacific region, at China’s expense. WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 13:27:34 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 13:27:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] More on N. Korea Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Trump threatens “major conflict” with North Korea By Mike Head 28 April 2017 US President Donald Trump last night warned there was “absolutely” the chance of a “major, major conflict” with North Korea, while claiming that he would prefer a diplomatic outcome to Washington’s demand for North Korea to shut down its nuclear and missile programs. “We’d love to solve things diplomatically, but it’s very difficult,” Trump told Reuters in an Oval Office interview ahead of his 100th day in office on Saturday. Trump said he believed Chinese President Xi Jinping was “trying very hard” to rein in North Korea because “he certainly doesn’t want to see turmoil and death.” Trump is seeking to prepare public opinion for a potentially catastrophic military confrontation, portraying the US as doing all it can to avoid war. At the same time, he is intensifying his demands on China, whose alleged failure to contain North Korea could provide a pretext for US military action. In reality, through a combination of aggressive military exercises and crippling economic sanctions, Washington is deliberately ratcheting up the pressure on the unstable North Korean regime. According to reports, former US President Jimmy Carter has effectively been instructed by the White House and Pentagon not to try and open up channels of communication with North Korea, as he has in the past. The Financial Times reported today: “The plea to Mr Carter signalled concern that the former president could complicate US policy towards Pyongyang; he has forced previous administrations to change tack, including in 1994 when Bill Clinton had been considering launching a military strike against North Korea.” Contrary to corporate media claims that the threat of imminent war has receded, following this week’s unprecedented summoning of the Senate to the White House for a military-intelligence briefing on the Korean crisis, the risks created by the Trump administration’s provocative actions are mounting. Numerous US warships, joined by South Korean and Japanese vessels, are carrying out large-scale exercises in waters near the Korean Peninsula. Recently released images showed US and South Korean forces conducting massive live-fire drills close to the demilitarised zone between the North and South. Targets painted on a hillside were obliterated with fighter jets, tanks and attack helicopters. Officials in Washington and Seoul insist their war games are defensive in nature, but such exercises are now based on an aggressive operational plan, OPLAN 5015, agreed to between the US and South Korea in late 2015. OPLAN includes pre-emptive strikes on North Korea in the event of a war, as well as decapitation raids to assassinate its top leaders. Pyongyang has denounced the current exercises as rehearsals for invasion. Clearly, there is an acute possibility that the war games could spark military clashes, even by mistake or miscalculation, that could start a potential nuclear war on the doorstep of China and Russia, both of which have borders with North Korea. Evidently fearing attack, North Korea yesterday released a propaganda video depicting simulated assaults on the United States, showing the White House as a target, followed by an aircraft carrier exploding into flames. The accompanying caption translates into English to read: “When the enemy takes the first step toward provocation and invasion.” This propaganda is both ludicrous and reactionary. Kim Jung-un’s regime lacks any capacity to mount such attacks—its missiles and nuclear weapons remain primitive—and it would be annihilated by US forces if it attempted to launch any kind of attack. Such videos only play into the hands of Washington, giving it a pretext to conduct a supposed “preemptive” war, while dividing North Korean workers from their fellow workers in America and internationally. To intensify the pressure on Pyongyang, South Korea’s interim government yesterday said it had agreed with Washington on “swift punitive measures” against North Korea in the event of further North Korean nuclear or missile tests. The measures, including a new UN Security Council resolution, would be “unbearable for the North,” the South’s presidential office said after its national security adviser, Kim Kwan-jin, held a phone call with his US counterpart, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster. On Friday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will chair a special UN Security Council meeting. Tillerson will be “very vocal” about nations enforcing new sanctions on North Korea, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. The measures will seek to starve North Korea of any remaining foreign income, adding to the damaging impact of the existing sanctions being enforced by the US and its allies. Among the measures being proposed are bans on North Korea’s trade of fishing rights and on North Korean workers being employed overseas. Washington has also threatened new sanctions against Chinese finance houses allegedly doing business in North Korea. This is despite evidence that China’s own measures against Pyongyang, including the suspension of coal purchases—the North’s previous biggest revenue earner—are already having a severe effect. North Korean exports to China, its main market, fell 35 percent month-on-month in March, down to just $US114.56 million, according to Chinese customs data. The Trump administration’s focus on China, accompanied by demands that Beijing take action to stop North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs, aims to destabilise not just North Korea but China as well. Washington has continued to insist that China must do more, despite the Beijing leadership protesting that it has little control over Pyongyang and appealing for a partnership with the US to resolve the crisis via dialogue. For all Beijing’s efforts to appease Washington, the Pentagon this week installed a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-missile battery in South Korea, defying protests by both China and Russia. Far from being a defensive weapon, the THAAD facility can conduct surveillance deep into China and Russia. Its purpose is to prevent any retaliation in the event of a US first-strike nuclear attack. Facing intense public opposition in South Korea to the THAAD deployment, the US brought forward the installation to preempt the outcome of the May 9 presidential election to replace the impeached Park Geun-hye. The Pentagon’s belligerence was underscored when Admiral Harry Harris, commander of the US Pacific Command, told a US Congressional hearing this week that the THAAD system would be operational within days. Harris declared the battery would destroy any missile aimed at US forces. “If it flies, it will die,” Harris said. China’s Foreign Ministry expressed “grave concern.” It said the THAAD deployment broke the strategic balance in the region and ratcheted up the tension on the Korean Peninsula. China urged the US and South Korea to withdraw the equipment, and warned that China would take necessary actions “to safeguard its own interests.” Yesterday, China announced it would conduct live-fire drills and test new weapons to counter the THAAD system. A military spokesperson said the exercises would simulate counter-attack scenarios, including launching preemptive strikes to knock out the THAAD using anti-radiation, surface-to-surface or cruise missiles. In Moscow, China and Russia conducted their third joint anti-missile press conference, saying the THAAD deployment aimed to weaken their strategic capability and the two countries would take further action to safeguard their security interests. “Unilaterally strengthening an anti-missile system is a move to achieve absolute military advantage, which would escalate tensions, trigger regional confrontation or even spark an arms race,” China’s Central Military Commission spokesman Cai Jun said. Further fuelling the escalating tensions and uncertainty, the Rand Corporation, a Pentagon-linked think tank, this week released a report pointing to likely North Korean regime-change operations by the US. Citing senior officials who have defected, the report asserted that wealthy North Korean elites increasingly regarded Kim Jong-un as weak and ineffective. The report advocated steps to reach out to these elites in order to facilitate the unification of Korea along capitalist lines. Such a regime-change intervention would seek to establish a pro-US state on China’s border, as Washington sought to do during the 1950–53 Korean War, as part of a wider drive to assert unchallenged US hegemony over the Asia-Pacific region. WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 13:27:34 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 13:27:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] More on N. Korea Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Trump threatens “major conflict” with North Korea By Mike Head 28 April 2017 US President Donald Trump last night warned there was “absolutely” the chance of a “major, major conflict” with North Korea, while claiming that he would prefer a diplomatic outcome to Washington’s demand for North Korea to shut down its nuclear and missile programs. “We’d love to solve things diplomatically, but it’s very difficult,” Trump told Reuters in an Oval Office interview ahead of his 100th day in office on Saturday. Trump said he believed Chinese President Xi Jinping was “trying very hard” to rein in North Korea because “he certainly doesn’t want to see turmoil and death.” Trump is seeking to prepare public opinion for a potentially catastrophic military confrontation, portraying the US as doing all it can to avoid war. At the same time, he is intensifying his demands on China, whose alleged failure to contain North Korea could provide a pretext for US military action. In reality, through a combination of aggressive military exercises and crippling economic sanctions, Washington is deliberately ratcheting up the pressure on the unstable North Korean regime. According to reports, former US President Jimmy Carter has effectively been instructed by the White House and Pentagon not to try and open up channels of communication with North Korea, as he has in the past. The Financial Times reported today: “The plea to Mr Carter signalled concern that the former president could complicate US policy towards Pyongyang; he has forced previous administrations to change tack, including in 1994 when Bill Clinton had been considering launching a military strike against North Korea.” Contrary to corporate media claims that the threat of imminent war has receded, following this week’s unprecedented summoning of the Senate to the White House for a military-intelligence briefing on the Korean crisis, the risks created by the Trump administration’s provocative actions are mounting. Numerous US warships, joined by South Korean and Japanese vessels, are carrying out large-scale exercises in waters near the Korean Peninsula. Recently released images showed US and South Korean forces conducting massive live-fire drills close to the demilitarised zone between the North and South. Targets painted on a hillside were obliterated with fighter jets, tanks and attack helicopters. Officials in Washington and Seoul insist their war games are defensive in nature, but such exercises are now based on an aggressive operational plan, OPLAN 5015, agreed to between the US and South Korea in late 2015. OPLAN includes pre-emptive strikes on North Korea in the event of a war, as well as decapitation raids to assassinate its top leaders. Pyongyang has denounced the current exercises as rehearsals for invasion. Clearly, there is an acute possibility that the war games could spark military clashes, even by mistake or miscalculation, that could start a potential nuclear war on the doorstep of China and Russia, both of which have borders with North Korea. Evidently fearing attack, North Korea yesterday released a propaganda video depicting simulated assaults on the United States, showing the White House as a target, followed by an aircraft carrier exploding into flames. The accompanying caption translates into English to read: “When the enemy takes the first step toward provocation and invasion.” This propaganda is both ludicrous and reactionary. Kim Jung-un’s regime lacks any capacity to mount such attacks—its missiles and nuclear weapons remain primitive—and it would be annihilated by US forces if it attempted to launch any kind of attack. Such videos only play into the hands of Washington, giving it a pretext to conduct a supposed “preemptive” war, while dividing North Korean workers from their fellow workers in America and internationally. To intensify the pressure on Pyongyang, South Korea’s interim government yesterday said it had agreed with Washington on “swift punitive measures” against North Korea in the event of further North Korean nuclear or missile tests. The measures, including a new UN Security Council resolution, would be “unbearable for the North,” the South’s presidential office said after its national security adviser, Kim Kwan-jin, held a phone call with his US counterpart, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster. On Friday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will chair a special UN Security Council meeting. Tillerson will be “very vocal” about nations enforcing new sanctions on North Korea, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. The measures will seek to starve North Korea of any remaining foreign income, adding to the damaging impact of the existing sanctions being enforced by the US and its allies. Among the measures being proposed are bans on North Korea’s trade of fishing rights and on North Korean workers being employed overseas. Washington has also threatened new sanctions against Chinese finance houses allegedly doing business in North Korea. This is despite evidence that China’s own measures against Pyongyang, including the suspension of coal purchases—the North’s previous biggest revenue earner—are already having a severe effect. North Korean exports to China, its main market, fell 35 percent month-on-month in March, down to just $US114.56 million, according to Chinese customs data. The Trump administration’s focus on China, accompanied by demands that Beijing take action to stop North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs, aims to destabilise not just North Korea but China as well. Washington has continued to insist that China must do more, despite the Beijing leadership protesting that it has little control over Pyongyang and appealing for a partnership with the US to resolve the crisis via dialogue. For all Beijing’s efforts to appease Washington, the Pentagon this week installed a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-missile battery in South Korea, defying protests by both China and Russia. Far from being a defensive weapon, the THAAD facility can conduct surveillance deep into China and Russia. Its purpose is to prevent any retaliation in the event of a US first-strike nuclear attack. Facing intense public opposition in South Korea to the THAAD deployment, the US brought forward the installation to preempt the outcome of the May 9 presidential election to replace the impeached Park Geun-hye. The Pentagon’s belligerence was underscored when Admiral Harry Harris, commander of the US Pacific Command, told a US Congressional hearing this week that the THAAD system would be operational within days. Harris declared the battery would destroy any missile aimed at US forces. “If it flies, it will die,” Harris said. China’s Foreign Ministry expressed “grave concern.” It said the THAAD deployment broke the strategic balance in the region and ratcheted up the tension on the Korean Peninsula. China urged the US and South Korea to withdraw the equipment, and warned that China would take necessary actions “to safeguard its own interests.” Yesterday, China announced it would conduct live-fire drills and test new weapons to counter the THAAD system. A military spokesperson said the exercises would simulate counter-attack scenarios, including launching preemptive strikes to knock out the THAAD using anti-radiation, surface-to-surface or cruise missiles. In Moscow, China and Russia conducted their third joint anti-missile press conference, saying the THAAD deployment aimed to weaken their strategic capability and the two countries would take further action to safeguard their security interests. “Unilaterally strengthening an anti-missile system is a move to achieve absolute military advantage, which would escalate tensions, trigger regional confrontation or even spark an arms race,” China’s Central Military Commission spokesman Cai Jun said. Further fuelling the escalating tensions and uncertainty, the Rand Corporation, a Pentagon-linked think tank, this week released a report pointing to likely North Korean regime-change operations by the US. Citing senior officials who have defected, the report asserted that wealthy North Korean elites increasingly regarded Kim Jong-un as weak and ineffective. The report advocated steps to reach out to these elites in order to facilitate the unification of Korea along capitalist lines. Such a regime-change intervention would seek to establish a pro-US state on China’s border, as Washington sought to do during the 1950–53 Korean War, as part of a wider drive to assert unchallenged US hegemony over the Asia-Pacific region. WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 14:37:18 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:37:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Best "Crosstalk" ever focusing on, not just N. Korea, but US war policy in general. Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/386416-north-korea-absent-diplomacy/#.WQNJ-T15hUw.facebook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 14:37:18 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:37:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Best "Crosstalk" ever focusing on, not just N. Korea, but US war policy in general. Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/386416-north-korea-absent-diplomacy/#.WQNJ-T15hUw.facebook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Apr 28 14:57:11 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:57:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: South Korean Protesters Think THAAD System Aimed at Russia, China, Not DPRK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah, this is all part of Obama's Pivot Against China now being continued and escalated by Trump. 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: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 8:32 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: South Korean Protesters Think THAAD System Aimed at Russia, China, Not DPRK It’s aimed at N. Korea and China, China is the major target, primarily for surveillance purposes. The US uses N. Korea as an excuse to surround, and spy on China. It’s also aimed at the tip or a small portion of Russia. South Korean’s know that they will suffer the consequences of any action military taken towards anyone whether N.Korea or China. > On Apr 27, 2017, at 18:18, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 8:16 PM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > Subject: South Korean Protesters Think THAAD System Aimed at Russia, > China, Not DPRK > > https://sputniknews.com/asia/201704271053048277-south-koreans-thaad-ru > ssia-china/ University of Illinois International Law Professor Francis > Boyle told Sputnik he was deeply concerned about the danger of war breaking out on the Korean Peninsula. > > "Right now, I am seriously worried that Trump is going to launch a criminal and catastrophic war against North Korea," he said. > > Such a conflict would violate the UN Charter, the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution and Congress's 1973 War Powers Resolution, Boyle added. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Apr 28 16:11:58 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] People's Climate March (2pm Sat) in Grace Church, Springfield & Prospect In-Reply-To: <32588a24-7f78-0d29-94f5-1c68de34883f@gmail.com> References: <32588a24-7f78-0d29-94f5-1c68de34883f@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0e1ab8b7-ee7e-cc4e-0e93-d6239e7f6452@gmail.com> Hope you've been hearing about the People's Climate March happening tomorrow, April 29th, around the country. Some people are going from here to Washington DC for a big march there, but there are many sister marches around the country, including here in Champaign. The C-U People's Climate March *location **has changed *due to weather: 2-4pm Saturday, April 29th *Grace Lutheran Church* *313 S. Prospect (corner of Springfield and Prospect), Champaign* A bunch of groups are tabling, with the idea that we hope to connect the importance of addressing climate change with a suite of connected efforts. So the People's Climate Platform, alongside planks about investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency, also includes demands for a $15 minimum wage, as well as things like: Ensure that in the New Energy and Economic Future, investments are targeted to create pathways for low-income people and people of color to access good jobs and improve the lives of communities of color, indigenous peoples, low-income people, small farmers, women, and workers. and Provide a Just Transition for communities and workers negatively impacted by the shift to a New Energy and Economic Future that includes targeted economic opportunity and provides stable income, health care, and education. Groups tabling include Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch, Prairie Rivers Network, Eco-Justice Collaborative, the Prairie Greens, PDA, U of I Students for Environmental ConcernS, Demand Universal Healthcare, UU Church of Urbana-Champaign, and others. And among the speakers, along with representatives of some of the above groups, will be State Sen. Scott Bennett, State Rep. Carol Ammons, and two high school students from a youth environmental group called iMatter, who write that > We have created a report card that evaluates the cities’ > environmental progress in comparison to where scientists say that > we need to be. The students will present this report card to both > the Champaign and Urbana City Council in early May as well as put > forward a Climate Inheritance Resolution that they will ask the > city to sign and petition signatures in support that they have > collected at their schools. We may go marching along the Springfield/Prospect sidewalk afterward. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 16:31:47 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:31:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] CNN Breaking News Message-ID: CNN BREAKING NEWS: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called on the world community Friday to drastically increase pressure on North Korea, warning that failure to do so could be “catastrophic” and that the US is prepared to take military action against the rogue regime if necessary. “All options for responding to future provocations must remain on the table,” Tillerson said. “Diplomatic and financial leverage or power will be backed up by willingness to counteract North Korean aggression with military action, if necessary.” Tillerson, speaking at a special US-hosted UN meeting to address the challenge, called on member countries to take three immediate steps, singling out China as he did so and warning that countries that don’t comply may face consequences. He urged nations to fully enforce existing sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, suspend or downgrade diplomatic relations with the already isolated country and increase its financial isolation by targeting countries and individuals that support its nuclear and ballistic missile program. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 16:31:47 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:31:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] CNN Breaking News Message-ID: CNN BREAKING NEWS: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called on the world community Friday to drastically increase pressure on North Korea, warning that failure to do so could be “catastrophic” and that the US is prepared to take military action against the rogue regime if necessary. “All options for responding to future provocations must remain on the table,” Tillerson said. “Diplomatic and financial leverage or power will be backed up by willingness to counteract North Korean aggression with military action, if necessary.” Tillerson, speaking at a special US-hosted UN meeting to address the challenge, called on member countries to take three immediate steps, singling out China as he did so and warning that countries that don’t comply may face consequences. He urged nations to fully enforce existing sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, suspend or downgrade diplomatic relations with the already isolated country and increase its financial isolation by targeting countries and individuals that support its nuclear and ballistic missile program. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Apr 28 18:28:10 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 18:28:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: South Korean Protesters Think THAAD System Aimed at Russia, China, Not DPRK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, but the “plan” predates Obama. Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about the plan in his 1997 “The Grand Chessboard”. It goes back to the turn of the century, with both the Korean, and the Vietnam war being “all about China.” Control of Russia is a part of the plan as well, with Nato on the borders of Russia, all through the Balkans, etc. We don’t really need the resources but we want to control the resources of the Middle East and North Africa. Now, its oil, but soon it will be water. The Trump Administration is awful, in respect to their domestic policies as well as their foreign policy. Though every President who does the bidding of those within the “Deep State” as they are now referred, is as egregious as his predecessor, only some are more obvious than others. And, Hillary would have done the same as Trump, only more diplomatically, just as she and Obama did with Libya, and Honduras. The war and starvation of the Yemeni’s were under the Obama administration. > On Apr 28, 2017, at 07:57, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, this is all part of Obama's Pivot Against China now being continued and escalated by Trump. 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: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 8:32 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay Becker ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Dave Trippel ; Arlene Hickory ; David Swanson ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: South Korean Protesters Think THAAD System Aimed at Russia, China, Not DPRK > > It’s aimed at N. Korea and China, China is the major target, primarily for surveillance purposes. The US uses N. Korea as an excuse to surround, and spy on China. It’s also aimed at the tip or a small portion of Russia. South Korean’s know that they will suffer the consequences of any action military taken towards anyone whether N.Korea or China. > > >> On Apr 27, 2017, at 18:18, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Boyle, Francis A >> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 8:16 PM >> To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' >> Subject: South Korean Protesters Think THAAD System Aimed at Russia, >> China, Not DPRK >> >> https://sputniknews.com/asia/201704271053048277-south-koreans-thaad-ru >> ssia-china/ University of Illinois International Law Professor Francis >> Boyle told Sputnik he was deeply concerned about the danger of war breaking out on the Korean Peninsula. >> >> "Right now, I am seriously worried that Trump is going to launch a criminal and catastrophic war against North Korea," he said. >> >> Such a conflict would violate the UN Charter, the War Powers Clause of the US Constitution and Congress's 1973 War Powers Resolution, Boyle added. >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From susanroseparenti at gmail.com Fri Apr 28 22:54:37 2017 From: susanroseparenti at gmail.com (Susan Parenti) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:54:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] take a minute to see new film by prompting theater (performance troupe of adults with disabilities and abilities) References: Message-ID: <88BF99C0-0C31-42FD-B3A7-D7F9F48F4768@gmail.com> Hi friends—this is from Brian Hagy, direction of Prompting Theater. The film is really funny! If you click on it you’ll help them win a contest and get the film shown in Hollywood! > (from Brian Hagy) in the meanwhile, if you get a moment, could u help out the prompting theater by going to the following links and watching the movie. it's the same movie at both links. we made this film last weekend in about 2 days. the film is for a film competition we've entered. the film that gets the most views and shares by Thursday May 11 will win the publicity award. part of the award includes having the movie show in Hollywood!!!!! The reason I ask you to go to both links is because then we get credit for both views (on youtube and facebook, same film, but each is separate, so counts as separate views). You can also share it with others so that they can watch it and also share it, and so on (helping to increase our views!) > > thank Susan!!!! > > > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/disabilityfilmchallenge/videos/2129847477241533/?hc_location=ufi > > > Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-Oe1HtVmpg&spfreload=5 > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Susan Parenti > wrote: >> >> Hello friends— >> This Saturday 3pm at the Park House will be a concert of live music, with an open rehearsal of one of the newest pieces, a Quartet, by the inimitable Ya’aqov Ziso. What does Ziso's music sound like? >> >> Admission is free, though a donation of a few pesos would not be turned down. Some refreshments. Good company. Wow. >> >> Please come—and scroll down to the bottom of this email to see the dashing poster image! >> warmly >> Susan >> >> Raise our voices against the tanks, funded by banks! >>> >>> Saturday, April 29, >>> 3 PM - 5 PM >>> Park House, 122 W. Franklin St., Urbana >>> >>> Felix Del Tredici (Montreal) bass trombone >>> >>> Recital >>> >>> ● Luciano Berio -- Gute Nacht (1986) >>> ● Alvin Lucier - Wind Shadows, for trombone and closely​ ​tuned oscillators (1994) >>> ● Iannis Xenakis - Keren, for solo trombone (1986) >>> ● Sandeep Bhagwati - Three Miyagi Haikus, foropen instrumentation (2011) >>> ● Franco Donatoni -​ ​Scaglie, for trombone (1992) >>> ● Hans Werner Henze - Epitaph (1979) >>> >>> Open Rehearsal of: >>> >>> ● Ya’aqov Ziso - Quartet, viola, bass clarinet, bass trombone, tabla (2017) >>> >>> Felix Del Tredici (Montreal) bass trombone >>> Eric Mandat (Carbondale), bass clarinet >>> Julius Adams (Urbana) viola >>> Mark Enslin (Urbana) tabla >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Apr 29 01:40:17 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 01:40:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Responding to your message In-Reply-To: <2C9ED7420AEE428A8928B7B6970AFFAA@senate.ussenate.us> References: <2C9ED7420AEE428A8928B7B6970AFFAA@senate.ussenate.us> Message-ID: Lies and propaganda. It’s been proven that the gas attacks could not have come from the Syrian government. We were told the same lies in 2013, since proven wrong. See: Professor Tom Postal of MIT’s analysis of the recent gas attacks, and Seymour Hersh article in relation to that of 2013. Please do not contact me again, unless you are prepared to do the research and withdraw your statement below, to everyone whom you have sent it. On Apr 28, 2017, at 15:01, Senator Tammy Duckworth > wrote: Dear Neighbor, Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about the conflict in Syria. I appreciate you taking the time to make me aware of your thoughts on this important matter. I am deeply disturbed by reports of an April 2017 chemical weapons attack in Syria targeting innocent civilians. The cruise missile strike launched by our Armed Forces against a Syrian airbase sent a clear and measured message to Bashar al-Assad that his horrific, unacceptable and illegal use of chemical weapons against his own people, including innocent children, will not go unanswered by the United States of America. While our Armed Forces effectively carried out their orders with utmost professionalism, the United States now finds itself with heightened tensions between our nation and adversaries like Russia and Iran. We as a nation must begin an in-depth discussion on behalf of our men and women in uniform regarding our role in this conflict. Now that we find ourselves in this position, it is my duty as your Senator—and as a combat Veteran—to raise several fundamental issues. For example, is our nation's goal to prevent future war crimes against the Syrian people or to remove Assad from power? In addition, the American people deserve to know the legal justification for this missile strike. More than a decade has passed since Congress passed an Authorization for Use of Military Force, and we owe it to the American people and our troops serving in harms way to develop, debate and pass a new authorization. All of us were appalled to see Syrian children and civilians dying as a result of Assad’s use of chemical weapons. We should not forget that this Administration made it harder for the victims of Assad’s barbarity to escape their suffering by slamming our doors on those fleeing this humanitarian crisis. After weeks of sending dangerously mixed signals on Syria, the President owes it to our troops who are now in greater danger to clearly and unequivocally outline the long-term strategic end state he is seeking to achieve in Syria and the region. He owes it to the American people to answer each of these questions and he must ensure they have a voice, through their representatives in Congress, in any further use of force in carrying out his strategy. Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. If you would like more information on my work in the Senate, please visit my website at www.duckworth.senate.gov. You can find upcoming events in the state, sign up for my newsletter, access my voting record and see what I am doing to address today’s most important issues. I hope that you will continue to share your views and opinions with me and let me know whenever I may be of assistance to you. Sincerely, [https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/Customers/SenDuckworth/Duckworth.png] The Honorable Tammy Duckworth United States Senator Subscribe to our enewsletter Please do not reply to this email. The mailbox is unattended. To share your thoughts please visit my webpage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Apr 29 01:40:17 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 01:40:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Responding to your message In-Reply-To: <2C9ED7420AEE428A8928B7B6970AFFAA@senate.ussenate.us> References: <2C9ED7420AEE428A8928B7B6970AFFAA@senate.ussenate.us> Message-ID: Lies and propaganda. It’s been proven that the gas attacks could not have come from the Syrian government. We were told the same lies in 2013, since proven wrong. See: Professor Tom Postal of MIT’s analysis of the recent gas attacks, and Seymour Hersh article in relation to that of 2013. Please do not contact me again, unless you are prepared to do the research and withdraw your statement below, to everyone whom you have sent it. On Apr 28, 2017, at 15:01, Senator Tammy Duckworth > wrote: Dear Neighbor, Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about the conflict in Syria. I appreciate you taking the time to make me aware of your thoughts on this important matter. I am deeply disturbed by reports of an April 2017 chemical weapons attack in Syria targeting innocent civilians. The cruise missile strike launched by our Armed Forces against a Syrian airbase sent a clear and measured message to Bashar al-Assad that his horrific, unacceptable and illegal use of chemical weapons against his own people, including innocent children, will not go unanswered by the United States of America. While our Armed Forces effectively carried out their orders with utmost professionalism, the United States now finds itself with heightened tensions between our nation and adversaries like Russia and Iran. We as a nation must begin an in-depth discussion on behalf of our men and women in uniform regarding our role in this conflict. Now that we find ourselves in this position, it is my duty as your Senator—and as a combat Veteran—to raise several fundamental issues. For example, is our nation's goal to prevent future war crimes against the Syrian people or to remove Assad from power? In addition, the American people deserve to know the legal justification for this missile strike. More than a decade has passed since Congress passed an Authorization for Use of Military Force, and we owe it to the American people and our troops serving in harms way to develop, debate and pass a new authorization. All of us were appalled to see Syrian children and civilians dying as a result of Assad’s use of chemical weapons. We should not forget that this Administration made it harder for the victims of Assad’s barbarity to escape their suffering by slamming our doors on those fleeing this humanitarian crisis. After weeks of sending dangerously mixed signals on Syria, the President owes it to our troops who are now in greater danger to clearly and unequivocally outline the long-term strategic end state he is seeking to achieve in Syria and the region. He owes it to the American people to answer each of these questions and he must ensure they have a voice, through their representatives in Congress, in any further use of force in carrying out his strategy. Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. If you would like more information on my work in the Senate, please visit my website at www.duckworth.senate.gov. You can find upcoming events in the state, sign up for my newsletter, access my voting record and see what I am doing to address today’s most important issues. I hope that you will continue to share your views and opinions with me and let me know whenever I may be of assistance to you. Sincerely, [https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/Customers/SenDuckworth/Duckworth.png] The Honorable Tammy Duckworth United States Senator Subscribe to our enewsletter Please do not reply to this email. The mailbox is unattended. To share your thoughts please visit my webpage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Apr 30 13:28:28 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:28:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Response to NYT Book Review on Owen Fiss & Yale Law School Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 8:24 AM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Response to NYT Book Review on Owen Fiss & Yale Law School Killing Kids at Yale Law School Early January 1977 Just out of Harvard Law Looking for a job Landing at Yale Law 26 years old 2 hour faculty presentation In faculty lounge To my right Dean Harry Wellington Arrayed left and right Across the room Yale Law Faculty all Most distinguished crowd Sitting in the back Directly opposite Clear line of sight Glaring right at me Gene Rostow Ex Yale Law Dean Of the infamous Rostow brothers Who gave us Vietnam War criminal of the first rank 3 million exterminated Vietnamese Murdered 58,000 men of my generation Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids! Did you kill today! Went through my mind Gene was there to make sure I was never hired Had checked me out With his Harvard Law buddies Where my views were well known On everything Including Vietnam Especially the Palestinians For one hour Gene and I battled back and forth Blow for blow Shot for shot I stood my ground And matched him Rostow was just a bully Having grown up On the Irish Southside of Chicago I know how to deal with bullies Then Gene made a fatal mistake A wan smile came across my face I got you now! You sunova-bitch! You spent the last hour Trying to beat me up But now I have you Exactly where I want you I am going to destroy you! And I did! Made a complete, total and absolute fool Out of Gene In front of the entire Yale Law Faculty Many of whom he had hired Gene's Kids Gene's face turned beet red I stunned him into silence for the next hour! It was so bad Leon Lipson Broke out laughing In the Back of the Faculty Lounge Priceless! A little payback for Vietnam! Well worth the job Hey! Hey! Rostow say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fasting forward to today Ex Yale Law Dean Harold Killer Koh Rejoins the Faculty After serving a stint As Obama's War Consigliere Droner-in-Chief For the Harvard Law Commander-in-Chief Justifying Obama's war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity Drones, murders, assassinations Violations of the Constitution Exterminating 50,000 Libyans With the bat of his eye Hey! Hey! Harold say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Killer Koh Is a worthy successor To Gene Rostow Yale Law's Resident Dean War Criminals Hey! Hey! Yale Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! John Yoo too! Killer Koh's pooh! 9. Diss-Ode to Harold Killer Koh 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 "gooks" too Obama's War Consigliere Gene and his "kids" for LBJ Some things never change for Dems And their Elite Law School Whores Today At Harvard Law School too Where Killers Obama and Koh First dropped their pooh Along with "Judge" Davey Barron too Obama's Droner-in-Chief Destined for a Cell in The Hague Right next to his student John Yoo A Chip off of Harold's Old Block Cold-blooded Killers and War Criminals too Killer Koh disteaching "human rights" at N.Y.U. Supported by his gang of Dem law prof thugs Beating up on the N.Y.U. law students few With the courage, integrity, and principles to say Never again! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cge at shout.net Sun Apr 30 15:37:03 2017 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:37:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Political talks last night In-Reply-To: References: <5880c407a1db5_222964d980682c3@asgworker-qmb2-1.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: Samantha Bee was worse than Hasan Minhaj last night, and new Obama-Clinton-warmongering convert Donald Trump was better than both. We're back to the 1960s, when warmongering Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon were heroes to many Americans. --CGE From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Apr 30 15:39:07 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:39:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Response to NYT Book Review on Owen Fiss & Yale Law School Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 8:24 AM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Response to NYT Book Review on Owen Fiss & Yale Law School Killing Kids at Yale Law School Early January 1977 Just out of Harvard Law Looking for a job Landing at Yale Law 26 years old 2 hour faculty presentation In faculty lounge To my right Dean Harry Wellington Arrayed left and right Across the room Yale Law Faculty all Most distinguished crowd Sitting in the back Directly opposite Clear line of sight Glaring right at me Gene Rostow Ex Yale Law Dean Of the infamous Rostow brothers Who gave us Vietnam War criminal of the first rank 3 million exterminated Vietnamese Murdered 58,000 men of my generation Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids! Did you kill today! Went through my mind Gene was there to make sure I was never hired Had checked me out With his Harvard Law buddies Where my views were well known On everything Including Vietnam Especially the Palestinians For one hour Gene and I battled back and forth Blow for blow Shot for shot I stood my ground And matched him Rostow was just a bully Having grown up On the Irish Southside of Chicago I know how to deal with bullies Then Gene made a fatal mistake A wan smile came across my face I got you now! You sunova-bitch! You spent the last hour Trying to beat me up But now I have you Exactly where I want you I am going to destroy you! And I did! Made a complete, total and absolute fool Out of Gene In front of the entire Yale Law Faculty Many of whom he had hired Gene's Kids Gene's face turned beet red I stunned him into silence for the next hour! It was so bad Leon Lipson Broke out laughing In the Back of the Faculty Lounge Priceless! A little payback for Vietnam! Well worth the job Hey! Hey! Rostow say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fasting forward to today Ex Yale Law Dean Harold Killer Koh Rejoins the Faculty After serving a stint As Obama's War Consigliere Droner-in-Chief For the Harvard Law Commander-in-Chief Justifying Obama's war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity Drones, murders, assassinations Violations of the Constitution Exterminating 50,000 Libyans With the bat of his eye Hey! Hey! Harold say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Killer Koh Is a worthy successor To Gene Rostow Yale Law's Resident Dean War Criminals Hey! Hey! Yale Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! John Yoo too! Killer Koh's pooh! 9. Diss-Ode to Harold Killer Koh 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 "gooks" too Obama's War Consigliere Gene and his "kids" for LBJ Some things never change for Dems And their Elite Law School Whores Today At Harvard Law School too Where Killers Obama and Koh First dropped their pooh Along with "Judge" Davey Barron too Obama's Droner-in-Chief Destined for a Cell in The Hague Right next to his student John Yoo A Chip off of Harold's Old Block Cold-blooded Killers and War Criminals too Killer Koh disteaching "human rights" at N.Y.U. Supported by his gang of Dem law prof thugs Beating up on the N.Y.U. law students few With the courage, integrity, and principles to say Never again! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 30 15:49:24 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:49:24 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Political talks last night In-Reply-To: References: <5880c407a1db5_222964d980682c3@asgworker-qmb2-1.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: <1502129953.891384.1493567364209@mail.yahoo.com> I hadn't heard of the Indian fellow, but when I googled him it shows a tweet of how much Ava DuVernay, director of the movie about MLK and 13, loved his performance. My guess is that we'll be seeing clips on Amy Goodman. This is a parody of "progressives" at least. On Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:37 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: Samantha Bee was worse than Hasan Minhaj last night, and new Obama-Clinton-warmongering convert Donald Trump was better than both. We're back to the 1960s, when warmongering Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon were heroes to many Americans. --CGE _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 30 16:20:56 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:20:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Comments from Climate March, etc. References: <670509766.904813.1493569256659.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <670509766.904813.1493569256659@mail.yahoo.com> >From Paul Wood's N-G summary: "State Rep. Carol Ammons, D-Urbana, who has formed a committee to explore taking on Davis in the next election, also blasted Trump." "State Sen. Scott Bennett, D-Champaign, summed up much of the conversation when he said that politicians should not be deciding issues dealing with the environment based on information from lobbyists and special interests.It "shouldn't be politicians, it should be scientists" who are the leading force in deciding climate issues, he said." I would suggest that both of these comments were misdirected and self-serving. I would also suggest that the organizers should not have allowed this to become an opportunity for political self-promotion by Democratic Party operatives. A politically honest event would have been a panel with all parties represented, under the conditions that they propose a serious program that they plan to advocate within their party and in their party's campaigns. I would suggest that Bennett's comments regarding scientists and politicians is an evasion of an evasion. I would suggest that the goal of the organizers should have been to enlist the attendees in a movement to promote specific approaches to addressing climate change at fundamental political and economic levels, in a committed fashion that would involve a coalition of groups, including antiwar. Perhaps this aspect of the event was unreported by Paul Wood.  I would suggest that a constructive Green Party position is being suggested by Gar Alperovitz; it includes both environmental and economic perspectives: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-policy-weapon-climate-activists-need/ Transcripts are not yet posted for the videos below, but should be within days: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=18959 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=18960 Respectfully, David Green -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Apr 30 18:39:54 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:39:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Political talks last night In-Reply-To: <1502129953.891384.1493567364209@mail.yahoo.com> References: <5880c407a1db5_222964d980682c3@asgworker-qmb2-1.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> <1502129953.891384.1493567364209@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <37764726-7621-448A-AEDA-B0223615A23E@illinois.edu> Minhaj: "We gotta address the elephant that's not the in room. The leader of our country is not here.... that's because he's all the way in Moscow." "He tweets at 3 AM... sober. Who is tweeting at 3 AM sober? Donald Trump, because it's 10 AM in Russia. Those are business hours!" Bee: "Probably the Russian ambassador is here. He turns up everywhere." "Donald Trump is, of course, celebrating his hundredth day in office by trying to win Pennsylvania with a small rally that no one in this room was forced to cover. That assignment went to the reporter that must’ve fucked his boss’s wife." "We are living in a Golden Age of journalism. Unfortunately, that’s partly due to a golden president who’s rumored to enjoy golden showers.” In faux-flashbacks, Bee cracked jokes through era-appropriate camera filters. "Every day, we're learning more details about the Iran-Contra scandal," she said, dressed like Madonna in an '80s moment. "This story has more wrinkles than the president's nut sack." > On Apr 30, 2017, at 10:49 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I hadn't heard of the Indian fellow, but when I googled him it shows a tweet of how much Ava DuVernay, director of the movie about MLK and 13, loved his performance. My guess is that we'll be seeing clips on Amy Goodman. This is a parody of "progressives" at least. > > > On Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:37 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > > Samantha Bee was worse than Hasan Minhaj last night, and new > Obama-Clinton-warmongering convert Donald Trump was better than both. > > We're back to the 1960s, when warmongering Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon were > heroes to many Americans. > > --CGE > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: