From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 1 00:59:58 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 00:59:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fighting back in the Bay Area to protect Immigrants Message-ID: #iceoutofca #not1more #sanctuaryforall #dueprocess -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 1 01:01:43 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 01:01:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Teachers in W. Virginia fighting back, not going back. Message-ID: [https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p80x80/10513440_378391915656150_1484191777187240240_n.jpg?oh=229ec460f975338e2febc9a4e371f597&oe=5B176DD6] Socialist Alternative Seattle shared Left Voice's video. 46 mins · Striking West Virginia teachers are still out on strike demanding that their union push the state to tax Big Oil for pay increases not only for teachers, but also educators and support staff. This is a real militant labor movement that refuses to be sold out by business unionism! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 1 01:38:28 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 01:38:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why are we fighting in Syria? Message-ID: [Image may contain: 7 people, people smiling, meme and text] Danica Niketic Yesterday at 6:55am · #Syria Israeli decades long international law defying occupation of Golan reveals the blatant hypocrisy of the “West” in general and Uncle Sam in particular - no sanctions were imposed, while when Russia re-unified with Crimea upon the results of the referendum in March 2014 everyone knows what followed : https://www.mondialisation.ca/the-israeli-occupied-…/5521207 •••• Just looking at the faces on the genie energy board, we see how the racket works: one guy controls the media, another the policy, another funds the project, another prints and distributes the money, another organizes the coup, ... https://genieoilgas.com/about-us/strategic-advisory-board/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/drilling-for-oil-in-th…/5532455 James Woolsey thinks meddling is hilarious https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lvd8Vw42jWU https://medium.com/…/ex-cia-director-thinks-us-hypocrisy-ab… Dr Jaafari's remarks after a sham UNSC https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gkTxzg_cMcM https://gowans.wordpress.com/…/the-revolutionary-dist…/amp/… http://www.eurasiafuture.com/…/internet-helping-syria-win-…/ Corbett Report How Big Oil Conquered the World https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/ Bonus:http://www.mintpressnews.com/john-pilger-the-white-helme…/…/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 1 12:21:29 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:21:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ben Norton reporting on the bill to end the catastrophic US war in Yemen Message-ID: February 28, 2018 Sanders Introduces Bill to End Catastrophic US War in Yemen Three years of U.S.-Saudi war has turned Yemen into the worst humanitarian crisis on Earth. Senators Bernie Sanders and Mike Lee introduced a bipartisan bill to end the U.S. role in the war - Ben Norton reports. ________________________________ Full Episode US Politics [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/sanders0228yemen-thumb.jpg] Sanders Introduces Bill to End Catastrophic US War in Yemen [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/bsanders0228resolution-thumb.jpg] Sanders, Lee and Murphy Introduce Yemen War Powers Resolution [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/dnielsen0227dems-thumb.jpg] California Dems Reject Sen. Feinstein, Open Path for Progressive Candidate [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/lgreenberg0223cpac-thumb.jpg] At CPAC, A Fractured and Chaotic Conservative Movement [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/bfletcher0226unions-thumb.jpg] The End of Public Sector Unions? [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/pbennis0226embassy-thumb.jpg] Privatizing US Foreign Policy [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/fwu0222chinesestudents-thumb.jpg] A New Witch Hunt? FBI Calls Chinese Students a Threat [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/woods0221usattorneys-thumb.jpg] Prosecutors of Dirty Cops On Defending Citizens From Rogue Law Enforcement [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/bnorton0223woolsey-thumb.jpg] Former CIA Director Admits to US Foreign Meddling, Laughs About It [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/jsipher0221russiapt2-thumb.jpg] Let's Talk About US Meddling, Too (2/2) [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/jsipher0221russia-thumb.jpg] Russian Espionage, or Clickbait? (1/2) [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/print0221graham-thumb.jpg] How Billy Graham Evangelized for American Empire [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/mblumenthal0219russiapt2-thumb.jpg] Can Trump's Neocons Exploit Russiagate? (2/2) [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/vprashad0219russia-thumb.jpg] Is Russia a Threat? [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/mblumenthal0219russiapt1-thumb.jpg] Why is a Russian Troll Farm Being Compared to 9/11? [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/lwilkerson0219munich-thumb.jpg] Wilkerson: The Trump-Netanyahu Iran Plan Means War [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/shorn0216china-thumb.jpg] A New 'Cancer Alley' for Appalachia [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/jfeffer0216russiagate-thumb.jpg] Do Russiagate Skeptics Go Too Far? [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/bharper0216pipeline-thumb.jpg] Potomac Pipeline Would Be 'Another Contradiction' From Larry Hogan [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/dneiwert0216florida-thumb.jpg] Guns, Toxic Masculinity, and the Alt-Right [Share to Facebook] [Share to Twitter] [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/webml_share.png] [http://therealnews.com/t2/images/donate_btn.png] Finally, News that brings out Facts usually concealed or edited out for Nielsen Ratings-Bravo! - Rev. David Log in and tell us why you support TRNN ________________________________ biography Ben Norton is a producer and reporter for The Real News. His work focuses primarily on U.S. foreign policy, the Middle East, media criticism, and movements for economic and social justice. Ben Norton was previously a staff writer at Salon and AlterNet. You can find him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton. ________________________________ transcript [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/sanders0228yemen-240.jpg]BEN NORTON: Senators have introduced bipartisan legislation that seeks to end the United States' role in the devastating Saudi war in Yemen, which has created the largest humanitarian catastrophe on the planet. The campaign behind the bill is being led by Vermont's progressive independent Senator Bernie Sanders. He introduced the legislation at the press conference on Wednesday, February 28. BERNIE SANDERS: For far too long, Congress, under Democratic and Republican administrations, has abdicated its constitutional role in authorizing war. The time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority. BEN NORTON: The bill cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which gives Congress oversight over wars waged by the Executive Branch. Senator Sanders' office stressed that the legislation is historic, as it “will force the first-ever vote in the Senate to withdraw U.S. armed forces from an unauthorized war.” BERNIE SANDERS: We believe that, as Congress has not declared war or authorized military force in this conflict, the United States' involvement in Yemen is unconstitutional and unauthorized, and U.S. military support of the Saudi coalition must end. BEN NORTON: Since March 2015, the United States has helped Saudi Arabia wage a relentless bombing campaign and enforce a crippling blockade of Yemen. In an effort to beat back Yemen's Houthi rebels, Washington has sold the Saudi monarchy billions of dollars in weapons, which have been used to indiscriminately attack civilian areas in the country, the poorest in the Middle East. The U.S. has played a direct role in the war, refueling Saudi warplanes, providing military intelligence, helping to enforce the blockade, and even placing American military officials inside the Saudi command and control center. This war has unleashed the world's biggest humanitarian crisis, fueling the preventable deaths of tens of thousands of Yemenis, pushing millions more to the brink of famine, and producing the worst cholera outbreak in recorded history. BERNIE SANDERS: Many Americans are unaware that the people of Yemen are suffering today in a devastating civil war with Saudi Arabia and their allies on one side and Houthi rebels on the other. In November of this year, the United Nations emergency relief coordinator said that Yemen was on the brink of “the largest famine the world has seen for many decades.” So far at least 10,000 civilians have died and over 40,000 have been wounded in the war. And 3 million people have been displaced. Many Americans are also not aware that U.S. forces have been actively involved in support of the sorties in this war, providing intelligence and aerial refueling of planes whose bombs have killed thousands of people and made this crisis far worse. BEN NORTON: The legislation is being co-sponsored by Utah's conservative Republican Senator Mike Lee. Both Sanders and Lee emphasized the bipartisan nature of the bill. MIKE LEE: Importantly, this legislation is neither liberal nor conservative; it's neither Democratic nor Republican. This is an American principle, a constitutional principle. BEN NORTON: Sanders pointed out that this catastrophic U.S.-backed war began under a Democratic president, Barack Obama, and has only accelerated under Republican Donald Trump. He likewise noted that the House of Representatives has taken bipartisan action against U.S. involvement. BERNIE SANDERS: This is not a partisan issue. Support for the Saudi intervention in Yemen began under a Democratic president and has continued under a Republican president. Senator Lee is a conservative Republican; I am a progressive independent who caucuses with the Democrats. In November of last year, the House of Representatives, with a strong bipartisan vote, voted overwhelmingly for a non-binding resolution stating that U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war is unauthorized. Only 30 members of the House voted against that resolution. And that is what we are saying today: we are in agreement with the vast majority of the Democrats and Republicans in the House. BEN NORTON: The legislation has already received support in Hollywood. Actor Mark Ruffalo released a video urging Americans to support the bill. MARK RUFFALO: I believe that when the American people are presented with the facts, we will act to stop our tax dollars from being used to starve and bomb innocent Yemenis. Please call 1-833-STOP-WAR to urge your senator to vote for the Sanders-Lee resolution to end the unauthorized U.S. war in Yemen. We can stop the bombing and let food and medicine into Yemen so that millions may live. BEN NORTON: Although the joint U.S.-Saudi war has produced the worst humanitarian disaster on Earth, the conflict has received little attention in the U.S. corporate media. Professor Vijay Prashad commented on this hypocrisy in a previous interview with The Real News, and likened U.S.-Saudi policy to U.S.-Israel policy. VIJAY PRASHAD: Given all this it's remarkable that the press has basically stayed away. There's been very little coverage of what's been happening. Saudi Arabia is a very important ally of the United States. It is in fact as important an ally as Israel is in the region. The behavior of the United States toward Saudi Arabia in this conflict against Yemen is eerily like the behavior of the United States towards Israel when Israel bombs Gaza. Saudi Arabia has one of the highest per capita incomes in the Arab world. Not the highest. That belongs, I think, to Qatar. But one of the highest. And Yemen is certainly the poorest of all the Arab countries. And so it's facing asymmetrical bombardment. Whatever the rebels are doing is not being done from the air. The Saudis command the air and they're bombing the whole country. In the same way, the violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians in Gaza is utterly asymmetrical. The Israelis command the air, and all that can happen from Gaza is some minor rocket attacks into Israel. It's comparatively nothing. BEN NORTON: Peace activists have campaigned for nearly three years to end the U.S.-Saudi war on Yemen. Experts have stressed that, if the US were to withdraw its support for the war, Saudi Arabia would be unable to continue waging it. This new bill in the Senate could make history by finally bringing this apocalyptic war to an end. Senator Sanders concluded his press conference condemning the state of endless U.S. war. BERNIE SANDERS: I believe that we have become far too comfortable with the United States engaging in military interventions all over the world. We have now been in Afghanistan for 17 years, the longest war in American history. Our troops are now in Syria, under what I believe are questionable authorities, and the administration has indicated that it may broaden that mission even more. The time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its constitutional role in determining when and where our country goes to war. BEN NORTON: Reporting for The Real News, I'm Ben Norton. ________________________________ ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 1 13:54:48 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 13:54:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Please call your Senator to vote to support Sanders-Lee resolution to end the US war in Yemen. Message-ID: Please call 1-833-STOP-WAR to urge your senator to vote for the Sanders-Lee resolution to end the unauthorized U.S. war in Yemen. We can stop the bombing and let food and medicine into Yemen so that millions may live. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 1 14:00:58 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:00:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: REMINDER: Thursdays Program on behalf of SJP References: <80620617-77AE-42B0-A0AB-4518B1E51841@hotmail.com> Message-ID: [http://calendars.illinois.edu/eventImage/3094/33301244/large.png?rn=0228T065024] Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians Event Type Lecture Topics human rights, international, palestine, social justice Sponsor Students for Justice in Palestine Date Mar 1, 2018 6:00 pm Views 29 Originating Calendar Asian American Studies Come hear from University of Illinois College of Law professor Francis Boyle as he speaks to the grave injustice that is the treatment of the Palestinian people both within the West Bank and Gaza, as well as within Israel proper. His areas of expertise include Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Jurisprudence, and U.S. Foreign Affairs. You wouldn’t want to miss this opportunity to hear from a man whose served as counsel to the Palestinian Authority and various other countries in the International Criminal Court. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 2 02:56:53 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 02:56:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: UN's Call for Torture at Guantanamo Bay to Cease Lacks Power - Analysts - Sputnik International 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: Thursday, March 01, 2018 8:56 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: UN's Call for Torture at Guantanamo Bay to Cease Lacks Power - Analysts - Sputnik International https://sputniknews.com/us/201803021062139709-usa-un-guantanamo-international-law/ WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - A United Nations human rights group's condemnation of the continued US illegal detention and torture of Ammar al-Baluchi has no mandatory power, but will aid the efforts of US lawyers to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention center, analysts told Sputnik. The United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) has released its opinions reached at a meeting in November on the illegal detention and torture of Baluchi. "The Working Group considers that ... the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. al Baluchi immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, such as appropriate physical and psychological rehabilitation," the WGAD assessment said. US Unlikely to Heed Latest UN Human Rights Call The US government was unlikely to pay any attention to the conclusion of the UN human rights working group, University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle cautioned. "I doubt very seriously this opinion will make any difference to the US 'Department of War' [Department of Defense] and the Trump administration," Boyle said. [A hooded demonstrator is seen at a protest calling for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in front of the White House on May 18, 2013 in Washington, DC.] (c) AFP 2018/ Mandel Ngan 'Guantanamo Be Closed': Anti-War Groups to Hold Massive Rallies in US However, the UN body's statement would still have political significance for the ongoing struggle by human rights activists within the United States to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, Boyle pointed out. "It will be of use to American lawyers in their continuing attempt to dismantle the Gitmo Concentration Camp and the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts," he said. Not only was the detention and torture of Baluchi illegal, but it was only part of a long process of actions by successive US administrations that had ignored international law since President George W. Bush first approved the base's use as a detention facility in January 2002, Boyle recalled. "By operating its Guantanamo concentration camp the United States government has always been in gross violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including therein its Kangaroo Courts. Violation of the Geneva Conventions is a war crime," he said. War crimes had been committed at Guantanamo Bay on an ongoing and systematic basis, Boyle pointed out. [This photo reviewed by the US military and made during an escorted visit shows a US naval medic explaining the feeding chair procedures at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, April 9, 2014.] (c) AFP 2018/ Mladen Antonov UN Warnings Over Human Rights Violations at Gitmo Remain Disregarded - Analysts "In the case of Guantanamo and its Kangaroo Courts, where the war crimes have been both widespread and systematic, this constitutes a crime against humanity under international criminal law," Boyle said. By operating the Guantanamo facility as it had over the past 17 years, the US government had also contravened two major international legal commitments it had signed, Boyle also observed. "By means of its Gitmo concentration camp and Kangaroo Courts, the US has grossly violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, both of which [it] is a contracting party to," Boyle said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 78571 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 64148 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 2 12:58:57 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 12:58:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: A link for you 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, March 02, 2018 6:56 AM To: Killeacle Subject: A link for you You should read this! http://foxillinois.com/news/local/u-of-i-professor-works-for-over-a-decade-to-end-unofficial -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 2 15:14:19 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 15:14:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Day-Long Non-Violent Direct Action Training at UUCUC on March 10 In-Reply-To: <12B3F7CD-DD0C-4E88-A7E6-E2CFB10E8451@ecojusticecollaborative.org> References: <12B3F7CD-DD0C-4E88-A7E6-E2CFB10E8451@ecojusticecollaborative.org> Message-ID: With all due respect, these days we should be talking about Civil Resistance—not “civil disobedience”, for the reasons explained below. Fab. Light at the End of the Tunnel By Professor Francis A. Boyle Peace Teach-In University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign September 23, 2017 © Copyright 2017 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this paper the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. After September 11, 2001 the people of the world witnessed successive governments in the United States that have demonstrated little respect for fundamental considerations of international law, human rights, and the United States Constitution. Instead, the world has watched a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international and domestic legal orders by gangs of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign affairs and American domestic policy. Even more seriously, in many instances specific components of the U.S. government’s foreign policies constitute ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and United States domestic law, and in particular the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950), as well as the Pentagon’s own U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 on The Law of Land Warfare, which applies to the President himself as Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Depending on the substantive issues involved, these international and domestic crimes typically include but are not limited to the Nuremberg offences of “crimes against peace”—e.g., Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, and their longstanding threatened war of aggression against Iran. Their criminal responsibility also concerns crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare: torture, enforced disappearances, assassinations, murders, kidnappings, extraordinary renditions, “shock and awe,” depleted uranium, white phosphorous, cluster bombs, drone strikes, etc. Furthermore, various officials of the United States government have committed numerous inchoate crimes incidental to these substantive offences that under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) are international crimes in their own right: planning, and preparation, solicitation, incitement, conspiracy, complicity, attempt, aiding and abetting, etc. Of course the terrible irony of today’s situation is that seven decades ago at Nuremberg the U.S. government participated in the prosecution, punishment, and execution of Nazi government officials for committing some of the same types of heinous international crimes that these officials of the United States government currently inflict upon Peoples of Color all over the world. To be sure, I personally oppose the imposition of capital punishment upon any human being for any reason no matter how monstrous their crimes, whether they be Saddam Hussein, Bush Junior, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump. According to basic principles of international criminal law set forth in paragraph 501 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, all high level civilian officials and military officers in the U.S. government who either knew or should have known that soldiers or civilians under their control (such as the C.I.A. or mercenary contractors), committed or were about to commit international crimes and failed to take the measures necessary to stop them, or to punish them, or both, are likewise personally responsible for the commission of international crimes. This category of officialdom who actually knew or should have known of the commission of these international crimes under their jurisdiction and failed to do anything about them include at the very top of America’s criminal chain-of-command the President, the Vice-President, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence, the C.I.A. Director, National Security Advisor and the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff along with the appropriate Regional Commanders-in-Chiefs, especially for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and now U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). These U.S. government officials and their immediate subordinates are responsible for the commission of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as specified by the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as by U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 of 1956. Today in international legal terms, the United States government itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, because of its formulation and undertaking of serial wars of aggression, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the former Nazi regime in Germany. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of civil resistance designed to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to “defense” and “counter-terrorism.” They are the terrorists! They terrorize the entire world! For that very reason, large numbers of American citizens have decided to act on their own cognizance by means of civil resistance in order to demand that U.S. government officials adhere to basic principles of international law, of U.S. domestic law, and of the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of foreign affairs and military operations. Mistakenly, however, such actions have been defined to constitute classic instances of "civil disobedience" as historically practiced in the United States. And the conventional status quo admonition by the U.S. power elite and its sycophantic news media for those who knowingly engage in “civil disobedience” has always been that they must meekly accept their punishment for having performed a prima facie breach of the positive laws as a demonstration of their good faith and moral commitment. Nothing could be further from the truth! Today’s civil resisters are the sheriffs! The U.S. government officials are the outlaws! Here I would like to suggest a different way of thinking about civil resistance activities that are specifically designed to thwart, prevent, or impede ongoing criminal activity by officials of the U.S. government under well‑recognized principles of international and U.S. domestic law. Such civil resistance activities represent the last constitutional avenue open to the American people to preserve their democratic form of government with its historical commitment to the rule of law and human rights. Civil resistance is the last hope Americans have to prevent the U.S. government from moving even farther down the paths of lawless violence in Africa, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, military interventionism into Latin America, and nuclear confrontation with Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, and China. Such measures of "civil resistance" must not be confused with, and indeed must be carefully distinguished from, acts of "civil disobedience" as traditionally defined. In today’s civil resistance cases, what we witness are American citizens attempting to prevent the ongoing commission of international and domestic crimes under well-recognized principles of international law and U.S. domestic law. This is a phenomenon essentially different from the classic civil disobedience cases of the 1950s and 1960s where incredibly courageous African Americans and their supporters were conscientiously violating domestic laws for the express purpose of changing them. By contrast, today’s civil resisters are acting for the express purpose of upholding the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, human rights, and international law. Applying the term “civil disobedience” to such civil resistors mistakenly presumes their guilt and thus perversely exonerates the U.S. government criminals. Civil resistors disobeyed nothing, but to the contrary obeyed international law and the United States Constitution. By contrast, U.S. government officials grossly violated fundamental principles of international law as well as U.S. criminal law and thus committed international crimes and U.S. domestic crimes as well as impeachable violations of the United States Constitution. The civil resistors are the sheriffs enforcing international law, U.S. criminal law and the U.S. Constitution against the criminals working for the U.S. government! Today the American people must reaffirm their commitment to the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles by holding their government officials fully accountable under international law and U.S. domestic law for the commission of such grievous international and domestic crimes. They must not permit any aspect of their foreign affairs and defense policies to be conducted by acknowledged “war criminals” according to the U.S. government’s own official definition of that term as set forth in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), the U.S. War Crimes Act, the Geneva Conventions, and the Hague Regulations, inter alia. The American people must insist upon the impeachment, dismissal, resignation, indictment, conviction, and long-term incarceration of all U.S. government officials guilty of such heinous international and domestic crimes. If not so restrained by civil resistance, the U.S. government could very well precipitate a Third World War. That is precisely what American civil resisters are doing today! The future of American foreign policy and the peace of the world lie in the hands of American citizens—not the bureaucrats, legislators, judges, lobbyists, think-tankers, professors, and self-styled experts who inhibit Washington, D.C., New York City, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Hyde Park/Chicago, Illinois. Civil resistance is the way to go! This is our Nuremberg Moment now! Thank you. Francis 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 Pam Richart via Peace Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 8:59 AM To: Peace Subject: [Peace] Day-Long Non-Violent Direct Action Training at UUCUC on March 10 If you want to learn more about non-violent direct action as a powerful force for change … and are ready to put your values into action, this is a great opportunity! Saturday, March 10 Non-Violent Direct Action Training at UUCUC Throughout history non-violent direct action has played a recurring and vital role in shining a light on injustice and bringing about social change. On Saturday, March 10, members of the Social Action Committee of UUCUC will host a day-long training in the principles, philosophy and practice of non-violent direct action.This training will help prepare us to participate in six weeks of "direct action and nonviolent civil disobedience" at our state capitol associated with Reverend Barber’s Poor People’s Campaign. These actions begin on Mother’s Day, May 13, and continue through June 21. But this training also has much broader, universal applications. Led by Jerica Arents, noted activist and educator in peace, justice and conflict studies, this interactive training will provide basic knowledge and skills to better understand, support, and/or actively engage in non-violent direct action as part of social change. We invite you to join us! Registration is required, but no one will be turned away for financial reasons. Call Lan Richart at 773-556-3417 for more information. Date: Saturday, March 10, 2018 Time: 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM Location: Unitarian Universalist Church of Urbana-Champaign (Fellowship Hall) Cost: $20 (includes lunch, snacks and training materials) Register: https://uucuc.brownpapertickets.com/ Meet the Trainer: Jerica Arents is a professor in the Peace, Justice, Conflict Studies Program at DePaul University. Her ongoing interests focus on social movements and activism with interests in peacemaking in Afghanistan and the effects of the NATO-led occupation on ordinary Afghans. She collaborates with the Afghan Peace Volunteers in Kabul, where they have created the first multi-ethnic community of youth committed to nonviolent action. She also serves as an organizer with Witness Against Torture, a campaign to close the prison at Guantánamo and end U.S.-sponsored torture worldwide. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D3B206.D6439EA0] Pamela Richart Eco-Justice Collaborative 919 West University Avenue Champaign, Illinois 61821 773.556.3418 prichart at ecojusticecollaborative.org www.ecojusticecollaborative.org "Today we are faced with a challenge that calls for a shift in our thinking, so that humanity stops threatening its life-support system. We are called to assist the Earth to heal her wounds and in the process heal our own – indeed, to embrace the whole creation in all its diversity, beauty and wonder. This will happen if we see the need to revive our sense of belonging to a larger family of life, with which we have shared our evolutionary process." -2004 Nobel Peace Laureate, Wangari Maathai -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RJI" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rji+unsubscribe at uucuc.org. To post to this group, send email to rji at uucuc.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/uucuc.org/d/msgid/rji/4782290F-CFE8-41B9-B20D-4EF361BC8311%40ecojusticecollaborative.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 150153 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 2 15:38:46 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 15:38:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Saturday, January 21, 2017 6:12 PM Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Subject: Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law Dr. Francis Boyle’s landmark book tells you how to run your own legal defense of civil resistance actions. This book is a must for any person who has taken part in a civil resistance action, or who has contemplated doing so. See how this defense can not ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Fri Mar 2 15:45:25 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 09:45:25 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WORLD LABOR HOUR - Sat. March 3rd In-Reply-To: <003801d3b23d$584ac280$08e04780$@comcast.net> References: <003801d3b23d$584ac280$08e04780$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <005401d3b23d$7ee28540$7ca78fc0$@comcast.net> WORLD LABOR HOUR Saturday March 3rd 11 AM - 1 PM Central Time 104.5 FM and webcast LIVE worldwide at ; www.wrfu.net UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS GRADUATE EMPLOYEES UNION STRIKE - Saturday will be day 6 of the University of Illinois Graduate Employees Union strike in Urbana-Champaign IL.. This is already the longest strike in the University's history and the University's administration seems emboldened to bust the Union by the current political climate of Trump in the White House, Republican Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, and the JANUS U.S. Supreme Court Case. The outcome of this strike will be precedent setting not just for Graduate Student Workers across the country but all public sector Unions nation wide. Gus Wood, World Labor Hour host and GEO ( Graduate Employees Union ) Co-President will give a full report of the events that have occurred this last week. ALSO - An update of the West Virginia Teachers strike WRFU 104.5 FM - Radio Free Urbana - Listener supported corporate free community radio. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Fri Mar 2 16:26:58 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:26:58 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WORLD LABOR HOUR - Sat. March 3rd References: <003801d3b23d$584ac280$08e04780$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <010401d3b243$4a35a920$dea0fb60$@comcast.net> WORLD LABOR HOUR Saturday March 3rd 11 AM - 1 PM Central Time 104.5 FM and webcast LIVE worldwide at ; www.wrfu.net UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS GRADUATE EMPLOYEES UNION STRIKE - Saturday will be day 6 of the University of Illinois Graduate Employees Union strike in Urbana-Champaign IL.. This is already the longest strike in the University's history and the University's administration seems emboldened to bust the Union by the current political climate of Trump in the White House, Republican Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, and the JANUS U.S. Supreme Court Case. The outcome of this strike will be precedent setting not just for Graduate Student Workers across the country but all public sector Unions nation wide. Gus Wood, World Labor Hour host and GEO ( Graduate Employees Union ) Co-President will give a full report of the events that have occurred this last week. ALSO - An update of the West Virginia Teachers strike WRFU 104.5 FM - Radio Free Urbana - Listener supported corporate free community radio. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Fri Mar 2 21:25:45 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 15:25:45 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The Graduate Employees Union ( GEO ) NEEDS your help ! Message-ID: <021901d3b26d$072bd990$15838cb0$@comcast.net> What the Graduate Employees Union ( GEO ) NEEDS for the next three to four years is less than 1/4 of 1 % of the University of Illinois's 3.5 BILLION dollar endowment. Call the Provost and DEMAND that they agree to the GEO proposed contract. Tell Provost Andreas Cangellaris to settle a fair contract! The administration at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign wants to be able to hire TAs and GAs without having to fully compensate them. Proposals, actions and mediation have all failed because the administration does not value supporting high-quality teaching and research. Telephone the Provost at ; 217-333-6677 and at 217-244-3580 and Demand Provost Andreas Cangellaris settle a fair contract. If you have not already done so, PLEASE donate to the GEO's strike fund. You can donate with credit card at their website at ; www.uigeo.org OR, You can mail a check to ; GEO , 809 S. 5th St. McKinley foundation, Champaign, IL 61820 Please make your check payable to " Graduate Employees Organization Lastly please spread the word and encourage support. The University seems emboldened to break the Union by ; the Trump administration, Republican Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner and the soon to be decided JANUS supreme court case. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 2 21:27:46 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 21:27:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?FW=3A_A_new_=93left=94_appeal_fo?= =?windows-1252?q?r_imperialist_intervention_in_Syria?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Achcar is on there. Just another Imperialist Warmonger. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Al-Awda-News at yahoogroups.com [mailto:Al-Awda-News at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ali Mallah alimallah at hotmail.com [Al-Awda-News] Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 3:25 PM To: United 4 Peace & Justice ; Al-Awda Group Subject: [AL-AWDA-News] WS: A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/02/letr-m02.html [https://www.wsws.org/img/open-graph-icon.png] A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria www.wsws.org The “open letter” was clearly addressed to Washington and its allies, demanding the escalation of their use of armed force against the war-ravaged country. A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria By Bill Van Auken 2 March 2018 On February 27, the New York Review of Books published an open letter signed by some 200 people, many of them identifying themselves as activists, academics, writers and journalists. Originally titled “Stop pretending that you can’t do anything to save Syrians,” the headline was subsequently changed to “The World Must Act Now on Syria.” The letter was published with no introduction. Who wrote the text of the letter, who changed its title, how the signatures were gathered and indeed all other information about the document is left in the dark. Its purpose, however, is crystal clear. Issued in the midst of a massive war propaganda campaign in the Western media over the Russian and Syrian government assault on the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, one of the last strongholds of the Islamist militias backed by Washington and its regional allies, the letter constitutes an open appeal to the US and the other imperialist powers to launch a full-scale military intervention. Like the media propaganda campaign of which it is an integral part, the “open letter” constitutes a thoroughly one-sided, false and deeply hypocritical portrayal of the Syrian developments. It protests solely “the crimes that the Assad regime has committed against Syrians, aided by local and foreign militias, by Iranian strategic and financial aid, by Russian airpower and mercenaries.” Noticeably absent from its concerns are the crimes carried out by US and the other imperialist powers in Syria, not to mention the broader region. The authors of the open letter and its signatories were not motivated to make any such appeal as US airstrikes and artillery bombardments razed the cities of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria to the ground, burying tens of thousands of their inhabitants in the rubble. Just days after the issuance of the letter, it was reported that the Pentagon had deployed another 600 special forces troops, backed by armor, to the strategically vital area of El Tanf on the Iraqi border. Far from protesting such an intervention, those who drafted the open letter want more—much more—of the same. Chiding the imperialist governments, the letter declares: “Those with the power to act have been generous with expressions of sympathy but have offered nothing beyond the wish that this war on civilians—which they grotesquely call a ‘civil war’—would end. They call on ‘all parties’ to show restraint, even though one side alone has a virtual monopoly on violence.” The imperialists have “offered nothing”? The Assad government maintains a “monopoly on violence”? Who do they think they are kidding? The CIA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the other reactionary Sunni oil sheikdoms poured tens of thousands of tons of arms and ammunition and billions of dollars into Syria to arm Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias that carried out a reign of terror across Syria. Tens of thousands of foreign fighters were funneled into the country and paid to serve as proxy ground forces in the US-orchestrated war for regime change aimed at toppling the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Somewhere between 130,000 and 170,000 government troops and militia members supporting the Assad regime have been killed fighting these CIA-backed forces. The letter writes off the United Nations as “ineffectual,” adding, “While there are no longer any illusions about the role of the Security Council, every member state has nevertheless adopted and pledged to uphold the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine...” “For the agony of the people of Syria to come to an end, it must be forcibly stopped,” the document continues, adding that there “are myriad geopolitical reasons why this is an imperative, but none as immediate and important as the sanctity of life and the exercise of free will.” The message is clear: world imperialism must take action! Military intervention is required. The “myriad geopolitical reasons” for such action go unstated, but are nonetheless clear to anyone familiar with the complex struggle in Syria. US imperialism sees both Russia’s and Iran’s influence in the country as an obstacle to its own bloody and protracted struggle for hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East, a struggle that has left literally millions of victims in its wake. With their talk about the “sanctity of life,” the authors of the letter not only mock these victims, but offer their services in providing window dressing for Washington’s bloody operations. The signatories to this reactionary document represent a disparate and dubious group that includes no small number of direct imperialist agents, emigre “assets” of one or another Western intelligence agency and, no doubt, some roped in on false pretenses and by means of a hollow appeal to “human rights” sentiments. Among those signing the document are individuals who have a long and direct experience in imperialism’s operations in the region. One such person is Burhan Ghalioun, the former head of the Syrian National Council, who served as a conduit for the money and arms poured into the Syrian Islamist militias by the CIA and the reactionary Sunni monarchies. There are others, such as Moncef Marzouki, the former Tunisian president who played a key role in strangling the revolutionary uprising of the working class in that country and aligning Tunisia with the reactionary wars that Washington and its European allies have waged in Libya and Syria.. Also putting his name on the list was Saad Bin Tefla, a former Kuwaiti government minister and media tycoon. Joining such figures—and no doubt playing the key role in fashioning the letter’s phony human rights rhetoric, which echoes the propaganda used to justify every major imperialist intervention from the Balkans to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and beyond—is a collection of of self-described “socialists” and “leftists”. These include Gilbert Achcar, a professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London and the principal spokesman on the Middle East for the Pabloite United Secretariat and its website International Viewpoint. Having backed the imperialist interventions in both Libya and Syria, Achcar has gone beyond mere propagandizing for war, meeting with Syrian National Council (SNC) officials, a collection of US and French intelligence assets, to advise them on the best strategy to bring about direct imperialist intervention. Also among the signatories is Eric Ruder, a prominent member of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in the US and writer for its publication Socialist Worker. Like Achcar and International Viewpoint, the ISO has supported the imperialist intervention in Syria from its outset, providing reporting and analysis that are, in all essentials, indistinguishable from State Department propaganda. Dan La Botz, co-editor of New Politics and a leading member of Solidarity who recently joined the Democratic Socialists of America, also signed the letter. Like the ISO, New Politics has its roots in the political tendency founded by Max Shachtman, who broke with the Trotskyist movement in 1940 and later became a champion of US imperialist intervention in Korea and Vietnam. Also signing the letter is Michael Karadjis, a member of the Australian pseudo-left organization, Socialist Alliance, with a long and filthy record of promoting imperialist interventions around the world in the name of “human rights,” from Kosovo to Timor, Libya and Syria. On Syria, he has authored pieces justifying a Syrian “rebel” commander eating the organs from the body of a slain soldier as only “minor cannibalism” and praising both the 2015 Turkish shoot-down of a Russian warplane and the Trump administration’s firing of 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase last April. None of these pseudo-left signatories, who invoke the brutality of the government of Bashar al-Assad to promote imperialist intervention in Syria, have anything to do with genuine socialism or Marxism. Assad’s regime, like those throughout the oppressed former colonial countries of the Middle East, is ultimately an expression of the incapacity of the national bourgeoisie to carry through either a genuine struggle against imperialism or a restructuring of the old colonial forms of rule along democratic lines. As Leon Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution established, that task can be accomplished only by the working class through the revolutionary overthrow of these regimes as part of the global struggle for socialism. It cannot—as these pseudo-lefts would have it—be contracted out to imperialism and its Islamist proxies. Achcar gives their game away in a recent interview with International Viewpoint. Pointing to the Pentagon’s use of the Syrian Kurdish militia as its principal proxy ground force, he dismisses “anti-imperialism”—which he placed in quotes—as a perspective that “does not fit the situation” in Syria, where “the United States supports ... a progressive force in its fight against a reactionary enemy.” All of these pseudo-left elements are aligning their politics directly with those of US imperialism and in particular with those sections of the US military and intelligence apparatus that are demanding a more aggressive confrontation with Russia. Not only are they functioning as direct accessories to the crimes committed against the masses of Syria, but they are helping to pave the way to world war. __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: Ali Mallah > ________________________________ ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ ================================================================ Onward, United and Stronger. Until Return! ================================================================ Support Al-Awda, a Great Organization and Cause! Become a Member Today: http://al-awda.org/membership.html Join Palestinian Refugees Right to Return - Al-Awda Cause on Facebook http://www.causes.com/causes/1752-palestinian-refugees-right-to-return-al-awda LIKE US on facebook https://www.facebook.com/AlAwdaPRRC Twitter: @alawdaprrc ================================================================ Unless indicated otherwise, all statements posted represent the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition. ================================================================ Visit Your Group [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 22:33:11 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:33:11 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?QSBuZXcg4oCcbGVmdOKAnSBhcHBlYWwgZm9y?= =?utf-8?q?_imperialist_intervention_in_Syria?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/420335-us-media-syria-ghouta/ > On Mar 2, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Achcar is on there. Just another Imperialist Warmonger. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Al-Awda-News at yahoogroups.com [mailto:Al-Awda-News at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ali Mallah alimallah at hotmail.com [Al-Awda-News] > Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 3:25 PM > To: United 4 Peace & Justice ; Al-Awda Group > Subject: [AL-AWDA-News] WS: A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria > > > http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/02/letr-m02.html > > A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria > www.wsws.org > The “open letter” was clearly addressed to Washington and its allies, demanding the escalation of their use of armed force against the war-ravaged country. > > > A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria > By Bill Van Auken > 2 March 2018 > > On February 27, the New York Review of Books published an open letter signed by some 200 people, many of them identifying themselves as activists, academics, writers and journalists. Originally titled “Stop pretending that you can’t do anything to save Syrians,” the headline was subsequently changed to “The World Must Act Now on Syria.” > > The letter was published with no introduction. Who wrote the text of the letter, who changed its title, how the signatures were gathered and indeed all other information about the document is left in the dark. > > > > Its purpose, however, is crystal clear. Issued in the midst of a massive war propaganda campaign in the Western media over the Russian and Syrian government assault on the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, one of the last strongholds of the Islamist militias backed by Washington and its regional allies, the letter constitutes an open appeal to the US and the other imperialist powers to launch a full-scale military intervention. > > > > Like the media propaganda campaign of which it is an integral part, the “open letter” constitutes a thoroughly one-sided, false and deeply hypocritical portrayal of the Syrian developments. > > > > It protests solely “the crimes that the Assad regime has committed against Syrians, aided by local and foreign militias, by Iranian strategic and financial aid, by Russian airpower and mercenaries.” > > > > Noticeably absent from its concerns are the crimes carried out by US and the other imperialist powers in Syria, not to mention the broader region. The authors of the open letter and its signatories were not motivated to make any such appeal as US airstrikes and artillery bombardments razed the cities of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria to the ground, burying tens of thousands of their inhabitants in the rubble. > > > > Just days after the issuance of the letter, it was reported that the Pentagon had deployed another 600 special forces troops, backed by armor, to the strategically vital area of El Tanf on the Iraqi border. Far from protesting such an intervention, those who drafted the open letter want more—much more—of the same. > > > > Chiding the imperialist governments, the letter declares: “Those with the power to act have been generous with expressions of sympathy but have offered nothing beyond the wish that this war on civilians—which they grotesquely call a ‘civil war’—would end. They call on ‘all parties’ to show restraint, even though one side alone has a virtual monopoly on violence.” > > > > The imperialists have “offered nothing”? The Assad government maintains a “monopoly on violence”? Who do they think they are kidding? The CIA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the other reactionary Sunni oil sheikdoms poured tens of thousands of tons of arms and ammunition and billions of dollars into Syria to arm Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias that carried out a reign of terror across Syria. Tens of thousands of foreign fighters were funneled into the country and paid to serve as proxy ground forces in the US-orchestrated war for regime change aimed at toppling the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Somewhere between 130,000 and 170,000 government troops and militia members supporting the Assad regime have been killed fighting these CIA-backed forces. > > > > The letter writes off the United Nations as “ineffectual,” adding, “While there are no longer any illusions about the role of the Security Council, every member state has nevertheless adopted and pledged to uphold the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine...” > > > > “For the agony of the people of Syria to come to an end, it must be forcibly stopped,” the document continues, adding that there “are myriad geopolitical reasons why this is an imperative, but none as immediate and important as the sanctity of life and the exercise of free will.” > > > > The message is clear: world imperialism must take action! Military intervention is required. The “myriad geopolitical reasons” for such action go unstated, but are nonetheless clear to anyone familiar with the complex struggle in Syria. US imperialism sees both Russia’s and Iran’s influence in the country as an obstacle to its own bloody and protracted struggle for hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East, a struggle that has left literally millions of victims in its wake. With their talk about the “sanctity of life,” the authors of the letter not only mock these victims, but offer their services in providing window dressing for Washington’s bloody operations. > > > > The signatories to this reactionary document represent a disparate and dubious group that includes no small number of direct imperialist agents, emigre “assets” of one or another Western intelligence agency and, no doubt, some roped in on false pretenses and by means of a hollow appeal to “human rights” sentiments. > > > > Among those signing the document are individuals who have a long and direct experience in imperialism’s operations in the region. One such person is Burhan Ghalioun, the former head of the Syrian National Council, who served as a conduit for the money and arms poured into the Syrian Islamist militias by the CIA and the reactionary Sunni monarchies. > > > > There are others, such as Moncef Marzouki, the former Tunisian president who played a key role in strangling the revolutionary uprising of the working class in that country and aligning Tunisia with the reactionary wars that Washington and its European allies have waged in Libya and Syria.. > > > > Also putting his name on the list was Saad Bin Tefla, a former Kuwaiti government minister and media tycoon. > > Joining such figures—and no doubt playing the key role in fashioning the letter’s phony human rights rhetoric, which echoes the propaganda used to justify every major imperialist intervention from the Balkans to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and beyond—is a collection of of self-described “socialists” and “leftists”. > > > > These include Gilbert Achcar, a professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London and the principal spokesman on the Middle East for the Pabloite United Secretariat and its website International Viewpoint. Having backed the imperialist interventions in both Libya and Syria, Achcar has gone beyond mere propagandizing for war, meeting with Syrian National Council (SNC) officials, a collection of US and French intelligence assets, to advise them on the best strategy to bring about direct imperialist intervention. > > > > Also among the signatories is Eric Ruder, a prominent member of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in the US and writer for its publicationSocialist Worker. Like Achcar and International Viewpoint, the ISO has supported the imperialist intervention in Syria from its outset, providing reporting and analysis that are, in all essentials, indistinguishable from State Department propaganda. > > > > Dan La Botz, co-editor of New Politics and a leading member of Solidarity who recently joined the Democratic Socialists of America, also signed the letter. Like the ISO, New Politics has its roots in the political tendency founded by Max Shachtman, who broke with the Trotskyist movement in 1940 and later became a champion of US imperialist intervention in Korea and Vietnam. > > > > Also signing the letter is Michael Karadjis, a member of the Australian pseudo-left organization, Socialist Alliance, with a long and filthy record of promoting imperialist interventions around the world in the name of “human rights,” from Kosovo to Timor, Libya and Syria. On Syria, he has authored pieces justifying a Syrian “rebel” commander eating the organs from the body of a slain soldier as only “minor cannibalism” and praising both the 2015 Turkish shoot-down of a Russian warplane and the Trump administration’s firing of 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase last April. > > > > None of these pseudo-left signatories, who invoke the brutality of the government of Bashar al-Assad to promote imperialist intervention in Syria, have anything to do with genuine socialism or Marxism. Assad’s regime, like those throughout the oppressed former colonial countries of the Middle East, is ultimately an expression of the incapacity of the national bourgeoisie to carry through either a genuine struggle against imperialism or a restructuring of the old colonial forms of rule along democratic lines. > > > > As Leon Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution established, that task can be accomplished only by the working class through the revolutionary overthrow of these regimes as part of the global struggle for socialism. It cannot—as these pseudo-lefts would have it—be contracted out to imperialism and its Islamist proxies. > > > > Achcar gives their game away in a recent interview with International Viewpoint. Pointing to the Pentagon’s use of the Syrian Kurdish militia as its principal proxy ground force, he dismisses “anti-imperialism”—which he placed in quotes—as a perspective that “does not fit the situation” in Syria, where “the United States supports ... a progressive force in its fight against a reactionary enemy.” > > > > All of these pseudo-left elements are aligning their politics directly with those of US imperialism and in particular with those sections of the US military and intelligence apparatus that are demanding a more aggressive confrontation with Russia. Not only are they functioning as direct accessories to the crimes committed against the masses of Syria, but they are helping to pave the way to world war. > > > __._,_.___ > Posted by: Ali Mallah > > Have you tried the highest rated email app? > With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. > ================================================================ > Onward, United and Stronger. Until Return! > ================================================================ > Support Al-Awda, a Great Organization and Cause! > Become a Member Today: http://al-awda.org/membership.html > > Join Palestinian Refugees Right to Return - Al-Awda Cause on Facebook http://www.causes.com/causes/1752-palestinian-refugees-right-to-return-al-awda > > LIKE US on facebook https://www.facebook.com/AlAwdaPRRC > > Twitter: @alawdaprrc > ================================================================ > Unless indicated otherwise, all statements posted represent the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition. > ================================================================ > VISIT YOUR GROUP > > • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use > > > . > > > __,_._,___ > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 2 22:43:46 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 22:43:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?QSBuZXcg4oCcbGVmdOKAnSBhcHBlYWwgZm9y?= =?utf-8?q?_imperialist_intervention_in_Syria?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Also on the list is Koskienemmi, a law professor behind me at HLS in the LLM/SJD Program and part of their Critical Legal Studies Program. They specialize in trashing me and others who take international law and international human rights law seriously.Just another Imperialist Warmonger. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 4:33 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria https://www.rt.com/op-ed/420335-us-media-syria-ghouta/ > On Mar 2, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Achcar is on there. Just another Imperialist Warmonger. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Al-Awda-News at yahoogroups.com > [mailto:Al-Awda-News at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ali Mallah > alimallah at hotmail.com [Al-Awda-News] > Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 3:25 PM > To: United 4 Peace & Justice ; > Al-Awda Group > Subject: [AL-AWDA-News] WS: A new “left” appeal for imperialist > intervention in Syria > > > http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/02/letr-m02.html > > A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria www.wsws.org > The “open letter” was clearly addressed to Washington and its allies, demanding the escalation of their use of armed force against the war-ravaged country. > > > A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria By Bill Van > Auken > 2 March 2018 > > On February 27, the New York Review of Books published an open letter signed by some 200 people, many of them identifying themselves as activists, academics, writers and journalists. Originally titled “Stop pretending that you can’t do anything to save Syrians,” the headline was subsequently changed to “The World Must Act Now on Syria.” > > The letter was published with no introduction. Who wrote the text of the letter, who changed its title, how the signatures were gathered and indeed all other information about the document is left in the dark. > > > > Its purpose, however, is crystal clear. Issued in the midst of a massive war propaganda campaign in the Western media over the Russian and Syrian government assault on the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, one of the last strongholds of the Islamist militias backed by Washington and its regional allies, the letter constitutes an open appeal to the US and the other imperialist powers to launch a full-scale military intervention. > > > > Like the media propaganda campaign of which it is an integral part, the “open letter” constitutes a thoroughly one-sided, false and deeply hypocritical portrayal of the Syrian developments. > > > > It protests solely “the crimes that the Assad regime has committed against Syrians, aided by local and foreign militias, by Iranian strategic and financial aid, by Russian airpower and mercenaries.” > > > > Noticeably absent from its concerns are the crimes carried out by US and the other imperialist powers in Syria, not to mention the broader region. The authors of the open letter and its signatories were not motivated to make any such appeal as US airstrikes and artillery bombardments razed the cities of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria to the ground, burying tens of thousands of their inhabitants in the rubble. > > > > Just days after the issuance of the letter, it was reported that the Pentagon had deployed another 600 special forces troops, backed by armor, to the strategically vital area of El Tanf on the Iraqi border. Far from protesting such an intervention, those who drafted the open letter want more—much more—of the same. > > > > Chiding the imperialist governments, the letter declares: “Those with the power to act have been generous with expressions of sympathy but have offered nothing beyond the wish that this war on civilians—which they grotesquely call a ‘civil war’—would end. They call on ‘all parties’ to show restraint, even though one side alone has a virtual monopoly on violence.” > > > > The imperialists have “offered nothing”? The Assad government maintains a “monopoly on violence”? Who do they think they are kidding? The CIA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the other reactionary Sunni oil sheikdoms poured tens of thousands of tons of arms and ammunition and billions of dollars into Syria to arm Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias that carried out a reign of terror across Syria. Tens of thousands of foreign fighters were funneled into the country and paid to serve as proxy ground forces in the US-orchestrated war for regime change aimed at toppling the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Somewhere between 130,000 and 170,000 government troops and militia members supporting the Assad regime have been killed fighting these CIA-backed forces. > > > > The letter writes off the United Nations as “ineffectual,” adding, “While there are no longer any illusions about the role of the Security Council, every member state has nevertheless adopted and pledged to uphold the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine...” > > > > “For the agony of the people of Syria to come to an end, it must be forcibly stopped,” the document continues, adding that there “are myriad geopolitical reasons why this is an imperative, but none as immediate and important as the sanctity of life and the exercise of free will.” > > > > The message is clear: world imperialism must take action! Military intervention is required. The “myriad geopolitical reasons” for such action go unstated, but are nonetheless clear to anyone familiar with the complex struggle in Syria. US imperialism sees both Russia’s and Iran’s influence in the country as an obstacle to its own bloody and protracted struggle for hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East, a struggle that has left literally millions of victims in its wake. With their talk about the “sanctity of life,” the authors of the letter not only mock these victims, but offer their services in providing window dressing for Washington’s bloody operations. > > > > The signatories to this reactionary document represent a disparate and dubious group that includes no small number of direct imperialist agents, emigre “assets” of one or another Western intelligence agency and, no doubt, some roped in on false pretenses and by means of a hollow appeal to “human rights” sentiments. > > > > Among those signing the document are individuals who have a long and direct experience in imperialism’s operations in the region. One such person is Burhan Ghalioun, the former head of the Syrian National Council, who served as a conduit for the money and arms poured into the Syrian Islamist militias by the CIA and the reactionary Sunni monarchies. > > > > There are others, such as Moncef Marzouki, the former Tunisian president who played a key role in strangling the revolutionary uprising of the working class in that country and aligning Tunisia with the reactionary wars that Washington and its European allies have waged in Libya and Syria.. > > > > Also putting his name on the list was Saad Bin Tefla, a former Kuwaiti government minister and media tycoon. > > Joining such figures—and no doubt playing the key role in fashioning the letter’s phony human rights rhetoric, which echoes the propaganda used to justify every major imperialist intervention from the Balkans to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and beyond—is a collection of of self-described “socialists” and “leftists”. > > > > These include Gilbert Achcar, a professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London and the principal spokesman on the Middle East for the Pabloite United Secretariat and its website International Viewpoint. Having backed the imperialist interventions in both Libya and Syria, Achcar has gone beyond mere propagandizing for war, meeting with Syrian National Council (SNC) officials, a collection of US and French intelligence assets, to advise them on the best strategy to bring about direct imperialist intervention. > > > > Also among the signatories is Eric Ruder, a prominent member of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in the US and writer for its publicationSocialist Worker. Like Achcar and International Viewpoint, the ISO has supported the imperialist intervention in Syria from its outset, providing reporting and analysis that are, in all essentials, indistinguishable from State Department propaganda. > > > > Dan La Botz, co-editor of New Politics and a leading member of Solidarity who recently joined the Democratic Socialists of America, also signed the letter. Like the ISO, New Politics has its roots in the political tendency founded by Max Shachtman, who broke with the Trotskyist movement in 1940 and later became a champion of US imperialist intervention in Korea and Vietnam. > > > > Also signing the letter is Michael Karadjis, a member of the Australian pseudo-left organization, Socialist Alliance, with a long and filthy record of promoting imperialist interventions around the world in the name of “human rights,” from Kosovo to Timor, Libya and Syria. On Syria, he has authored pieces justifying a Syrian “rebel” commander eating the organs from the body of a slain soldier as only “minor cannibalism” and praising both the 2015 Turkish shoot-down of a Russian warplane and the Trump administration’s firing of 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase last April. > > > > None of these pseudo-left signatories, who invoke the brutality of the government of Bashar al-Assad to promote imperialist intervention in Syria, have anything to do with genuine socialism or Marxism. Assad’s regime, like those throughout the oppressed former colonial countries of the Middle East, is ultimately an expression of the incapacity of the national bourgeoisie to carry through either a genuine struggle against imperialism or a restructuring of the old colonial forms of rule along democratic lines. > > > > As Leon Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution established, that task can be accomplished only by the working class through the revolutionary overthrow of these regimes as part of the global struggle for socialism. It cannot—as these pseudo-lefts would have it—be contracted out to imperialism and its Islamist proxies. > > > > Achcar gives their game away in a recent interview with International Viewpoint. Pointing to the Pentagon’s use of the Syrian Kurdish militia as its principal proxy ground force, he dismisses “anti-imperialism”—which he placed in quotes—as a perspective that “does not fit the situation” in Syria, where “the United States supports ... a progressive force in its fight against a reactionary enemy.” > > > > All of these pseudo-left elements are aligning their politics directly with those of US imperialism and in particular with those sections of the US military and intelligence apparatus that are demanding a more aggressive confrontation with Russia. Not only are they functioning as direct accessories to the crimes committed against the masses of Syria, but they are helping to pave the way to world war. > > > __._,_.___ > Posted by: Ali Mallah > > Have you tried the highest rated email app? > With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. > ================================================================ > Onward, United and Stronger. Until Return! > ================================================================ > Support Al-Awda, a Great Organization and Cause! > Become a Member Today: http://al-awda.org/membership.html > > Join Palestinian Refugees Right to Return - Al-Awda Cause on Facebook > http://www.causes.com/causes/1752-palestinian-refugees-right-to-return > -al-awda > > LIKE US on facebook https://www.facebook.com/AlAwdaPRRC > > Twitter: @alawdaprrc > ================================================================ > Unless indicated otherwise, all statements posted represent the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition. > ================================================================ > VISIT YOUR GROUP > > • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use > > > . > > > __,_._,___ > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From brussel at illinois.edu Sat Mar 3 01:41:10 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 01:41:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fear and nuclear radiation Message-ID: I append part of an informative article from this source: https://thebulletin.org/how-unlucky-lucky-dragon-birthed-era-nuclear-fear11546 Those worried about the effects of Fukushima should be interested. The Japanese word for fear is kyoufu. Ironically, while the modern world’s kyoufu of radiation essentially began with the Lucky Dragon incident and Kuboyama’s death, another Japanese experience—the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—has taught us that radiation is nowhere near as dangerous as we have come to assume. A total of 86,600 hibakusha have been followed with regular medical examinations for 71 years and compared to 23,000 Japanese who were not exposed to radiation. It stuns most people to learn this (it sure stunned me), but the overall increased radiation-induced cancer death rate among atomic bomb survivors—thousands of whom instantly received high doses of radiation from the bombs themselves, then experienced extended exposure to fallout in their air, water, and food—is less than one percent. “Atomic bomb disease” has killed a total of only 586 of those 86,600 survivors. At lower but still substantial doses –doses far higher than those caused to the public by the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl in 1986 or Fukushima in 2011—radiation has caused no change in disease rates compared to the normal rates among the control population. The children of the hibakusha have also been followed and studied, and show no multi-generational genetic damage passed down from their parents, though children born to pregnant women among the hibakusha did suffer a higher rate of birth defects. (The 70-plus year-long study of the atomic bomb survivors continues, conducted by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima.) Based on this hard-won knowledge, experts can say with confidence that the increased lifetime cancer mortality rate from Chernobyl will be just 3 to 4 percent above normal cancer death rates for the affected population, according to a 2006 World Health Organization study. The Fukushima nuclear accident is unlikely to raise the rate of any disease associated with radiation above normal. The doses to which people were exposed at Fukushima were nothing near those experienced by the hibakusha closest to the blast in 1945, and nothing like the intense doses received by the crew of the Lucky Dragon. But though the information from health experts is reassuring, fear of radiation from Fukushima persists. It persists in the tens of thousands of people evacuated as a precaution when no one knew what was going to happen, who now won’t move back even though radiation doses are low enough in most areas to allow them to safely do so. Families and entire communities have been decimated. Rates of unemployment, alcoholism, depression, and stress-related illnesses are elevated compared to other areas of Japan. As was sadly true for the hibakusha before them, some children from Fukushima prefecture are shunned and stigmatized when they travel. The fear persists across Japan, where sales of agricultural products from the Fukushima prefecture are lagging, echoing past fears of contaminated tuna from the Lucky Dragon, even though we now know that the actual risk from the infinitesimal doses around Fukushima is practically zero. It persists with the hundreds of billions of yen being spent to collect water running through the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant site. The water picks up a radioactive molecule called tritium, which the world’s top experts all agree causes such a low dose to anyone exposed that it poses no threat to human health. (Some of the red and green exit lights in theaters, designed to stay on when the power fails, are filled with tritium.) Japanese authorities will probably release all that tritium-tainted water into the ocean. Though this would pose no threat to the environment, the very idea is facing fierce resistance, fed by excessive fear of anything connected to the word “radiation.” Finally, kyoufu of radiation persists across Japan and elsewhere in the form of opposition to nuclear energy. Nuclear power produces neither greenhouse gasses, which contribute to climate change, nor particulate pollution, which sickens or kills tens of millions of people around the world every year. Having shut down its nuclear power fleet because of fear of radiation following Fukushima, Japan is now burning more fossil fuels to produce electricity, contributing to short- and long-term health threats that are vastly greater than those posed by radiation. (So is Germany, and so are several US states.) Due to fear of radiation, some Japanese don’t want to allow TEPCO, the electric company, to restart their Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear complex, where millions have been spent upgrading safety since Fukushima. Without revenue from that plant, TEPCO has to continue to borrow Japanese taxpayer money to pay for the clean-up at Fukushima, a multibillion-dollar effort to capture radioactive material that experts agree poses no threat to public or environmental health. The fact that deep nuclear fear has persisted for so long, despite solid evidence that the risk isn’t as great as we thought it was back in 1954, is perhaps the Daigo Fukuryu Maru Exhibition Hall’s most profound lesson. The museum helps us understand the events and historic context that gave birth to our fear of radiation, and why it is so deeply engrained. It helps us realize how fear with such deep emotional roots is not readily overcome by objective consideration of the facts alone. It helps us see how easily fear can overpower reason, even when fear of a risk does more harm than the risk itself. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 3 01:55:22 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 01:55:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?QSBuZXcg4oCcbGVmdOKAnSBhcHBlYWwgZm9y?= =?utf-8?q?_imperialist_intervention_in_Syria?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gilbert Achtar, and Eric Ruder of the ISO. No mention of Ashley Smith of the ISO, and where is Louis Proyect (the unrepentant Marxist) and others we are familiar with? They all support war in Syria, because the stakes are so high for Israel and the US, in respect to not just the oil, but Iran. Not necessarily military war with Iran, but sanctions and “economic” war with Iran. This is necessary for eventual control of Russia and China. The question is, trivial in the scheme of things, have they always been in the employ of the CIA, or are they like Amy Goodman, when faced with financial concerns, open to selling out when offered a deal? Back to the real issue at hand. Many of our Pentagon leaders are “Vietnam revisionists” they believe if we had gone ahead and bombed and destroyed Hanoi, we would have won, militarily. So, now Damascus is in the crosshairs. > > >> On Mar 2, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Achcar is on there. Just another Imperialist Warmonger. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Al-Awda-News at yahoogroups.com [mailto:Al-Awda-News at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ali Mallah alimallah at hotmail.com [Al-Awda-News] >> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 3:25 PM >> To: United 4 Peace & Justice ; Al-Awda Group >> Subject: [AL-AWDA-News] WS: A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria >> >> >> http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/02/letr-m02.html >> >> A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria >> www.wsws.org >> The “open letter” was clearly addressed to Washington and its allies, demanding the escalation of their use of armed force against the war-ravaged country. >> >> >> A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria >> By Bill Van Auken >> 2 March 2018 >> >> On February 27, the New York Review of Books published an open letter signed by some 200 people, many of them identifying themselves as activists, academics, writers and journalists. Originally titled “Stop pretending that you can’t do anything to save Syrians,” the headline was subsequently changed to “The World Must Act Now on Syria.” >> >> The letter was published with no introduction. Who wrote the text of the letter, who changed its title, how the signatures were gathered and indeed all other information about the document is left in the dark. >> >> >> >> Its purpose, however, is crystal clear. Issued in the midst of a massive war propaganda campaign in the Western media over the Russian and Syrian government assault on the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, one of the last strongholds of the Islamist militias backed by Washington and its regional allies, the letter constitutes an open appeal to the US and the other imperialist powers to launch a full-scale military intervention. >> >> >> >> Like the media propaganda campaign of which it is an integral part, the “open letter” constitutes a thoroughly one-sided, false and deeply hypocritical portrayal of the Syrian developments. >> >> >> >> It protests solely “the crimes that the Assad regime has committed against Syrians, aided by local and foreign militias, by Iranian strategic and financial aid, by Russian airpower and mercenaries.” >> >> >> >> Noticeably absent from its concerns are the crimes carried out by US and the other imperialist powers in Syria, not to mention the broader region. The authors of the open letter and its signatories were not motivated to make any such appeal as US airstrikes and artillery bombardments razed the cities of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria to the ground, burying tens of thousands of their inhabitants in the rubble. >> >> >> >> Just days after the issuance of the letter, it was reported that the Pentagon had deployed another 600 special forces troops, backed by armor, to the strategically vital area of El Tanf on the Iraqi border. Far from protesting such an intervention, those who drafted the open letter want more—much more—of the same. >> >> >> >> Chiding the imperialist governments, the letter declares: “Those with the power to act have been generous with expressions of sympathy but have offered nothing beyond the wish that this war on civilians—which they grotesquely call a ‘civil war’—would end. They call on ‘all parties’ to show restraint, even though one side alone has a virtual monopoly on violence.” >> >> >> >> The imperialists have “offered nothing”? The Assad government maintains a “monopoly on violence”? Who do they think they are kidding? The CIA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the other reactionary Sunni oil sheikdoms poured tens of thousands of tons of arms and ammunition and billions of dollars into Syria to arm Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias that carried out a reign of terror across Syria. Tens of thousands of foreign fighters were funneled into the country and paid to serve as proxy ground forces in the US-orchestrated war for regime change aimed at toppling the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Somewhere between 130,000 and 170,000 government troops and militia members supporting the Assad regime have been killed fighting these CIA-backed forces. >> >> >> >> The letter writes off the United Nations as “ineffectual,” adding, “While there are no longer any illusions about the role of the Security Council, every member state has nevertheless adopted and pledged to uphold the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine...” >> >> >> >> “For the agony of the people of Syria to come to an end, it must be forcibly stopped,” the document continues, adding that there “are myriad geopolitical reasons why this is an imperative, but none as immediate and important as the sanctity of life and the exercise of free will.” >> >> >> >> The message is clear: world imperialism must take action! Military intervention is required. The “myriad geopolitical reasons” for such action go unstated, but are nonetheless clear to anyone familiar with the complex struggle in Syria. US imperialism sees both Russia’s and Iran’s influence in the country as an obstacle to its own bloody and protracted struggle for hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East, a struggle that has left literally millions of victims in its wake. With their talk about the “sanctity of life,” the authors of the letter not only mock these victims, but offer their services in providing window dressing for Washington’s bloody operations. >> >> >> >> The signatories to this reactionary document represent a disparate and dubious group that includes no small number of direct imperialist agents, emigre “assets” of one or another Western intelligence agency and, no doubt, some roped in on false pretenses and by means of a hollow appeal to “human rights” sentiments. >> >> >> >> Among those signing the document are individuals who have a long and direct experience in imperialism’s operations in the region. One such person is Burhan Ghalioun, the former head of the Syrian National Council, who served as a conduit for the money and arms poured into the Syrian Islamist militias by the CIA and the reactionary Sunni monarchies. >> >> >> >> There are others, such as Moncef Marzouki, the former Tunisian president who played a key role in strangling the revolutionary uprising of the working class in that country and aligning Tunisia with the reactionary wars that Washington and its European allies have waged in Libya and Syria.. >> >> >> >> Also putting his name on the list was Saad Bin Tefla, a former Kuwaiti government minister and media tycoon. >> >> Joining such figures—and no doubt playing the key role in fashioning the letter’s phony human rights rhetoric, which echoes the propaganda used to justify every major imperialist intervention from the Balkans to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and beyond—is a collection of of self-described “socialists” and “leftists”. >> >> >> >> These include Gilbert Achcar, a professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London and the principal spokesman on the Middle East for the Pabloite United Secretariat and its website International Viewpoint. Having backed the imperialist interventions in both Libya and Syria, Achcar has gone beyond mere propagandizing for war, meeting with Syrian National Council (SNC) officials, a collection of US and French intelligence assets, to advise them on the best strategy to bring about direct imperialist intervention. >> >> >> >> Also among the signatories is Eric Ruder, a prominent member of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in the US and writer for its publicationSocialist Worker. Like Achcar and International Viewpoint, the ISO has supported the imperialist intervention in Syria from its outset, providing reporting and analysis that are, in all essentials, indistinguishable from State Department propaganda. >> >> >> >> Dan La Botz, co-editor of New Politics and a leading member of Solidarity who recently joined the Democratic Socialists of America, also signed the letter. Like the ISO, New Politics has its roots in the political tendency founded by Max Shachtman, who broke with the Trotskyist movement in 1940 and later became a champion of US imperialist intervention in Korea and Vietnam. >> >> >> >> Also signing the letter is Michael Karadjis, a member of the Australian pseudo-left organization, Socialist Alliance, with a long and filthy record of promoting imperialist interventions around the world in the name of “human rights,” from Kosovo to Timor, Libya and Syria. On Syria, he has authored pieces justifying a Syrian “rebel” commander eating the organs from the body of a slain soldier as only “minor cannibalism” and praising both the 2015 Turkish shoot-down of a Russian warplane and the Trump administration’s firing of 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase last April. >> >> >> >> None of these pseudo-left signatories, who invoke the brutality of the government of Bashar al-Assad to promote imperialist intervention in Syria, have anything to do with genuine socialism or Marxism. Assad’s regime, like those throughout the oppressed former colonial countries of the Middle East, is ultimately an expression of the incapacity of the national bourgeoisie to carry through either a genuine struggle against imperialism or a restructuring of the old colonial forms of rule along democratic lines. >> >> >> >> As Leon Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution established, that task can be accomplished only by the working class through the revolutionary overthrow of these regimes as part of the global struggle for socialism. It cannot—as these pseudo-lefts would have it—be contracted out to imperialism and its Islamist proxies. >> >> >> >> Achcar gives their game away in a recent interview with International Viewpoint. Pointing to the Pentagon’s use of the Syrian Kurdish militia as its principal proxy ground force, he dismisses “anti-imperialism”—which he placed in quotes—as a perspective that “does not fit the situation” in Syria, where “the United States supports ... a progressive force in its fight against a reactionary enemy.” >> >> >> >> All of these pseudo-left elements are aligning their politics directly with those of US imperialism and in particular with those sections of the US military and intelligence apparatus that are demanding a more aggressive confrontation with Russia. Not only are they functioning as direct accessories to the crimes committed against the masses of Syria, but they are helping to pave the way to world war. >> >> >> __._,_.___ >> Posted by: Ali Mallah >> >> Have you tried the highest rated email app? >> With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. >> ================================================================ >> Onward, United and Stronger. Until Return! >> ================================================================ >> Support Al-Awda, a Great Organization and Cause! >> Become a Member Today: http://al-awda.org/membership.html >> >> Join Palestinian Refugees Right to Return - Al-Awda Cause on Facebook http://www.causes.com/causes/1752-palestinian-refugees-right-to-return-al-awda >> >> LIKE US on facebook https://www.facebook.com/AlAwdaPRRC >> >> Twitter: @alawdaprrc >> ================================================================ >> Unless indicated otherwise, all statements posted represent the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition. >> ================================================================ >> VISIT YOUR GROUP >> >> • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use >> >> >> . >> >> >> __,_._,___ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sat Mar 3 02:02:01 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 02:02:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?QSBuZXcg4oCcbGVmdOKAnSBhcHBlYWwgZm9y?= =?utf-8?q?_imperialist_intervention_in_Syria?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not new “left,” faux “left.” > On Mar 2, 2018, at 14:33, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > https://www.rt.com/op-ed/420335-us-media-syria-ghouta/ > > >> On Mar 2, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Achcar is on there. Just another Imperialist Warmonger. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Al-Awda-News at yahoogroups.com [mailto:Al-Awda-News at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ali Mallah alimallah at hotmail.com [Al-Awda-News] >> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 3:25 PM >> To: United 4 Peace & Justice ; Al-Awda Group >> Subject: [AL-AWDA-News] WS: A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria >> >> >> http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/02/letr-m02.html >> >> A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria >> www.wsws.org >> The “open letter” was clearly addressed to Washington and its allies, demanding the escalation of their use of armed force against the war-ravaged country. >> >> >> A new “left” appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria >> By Bill Van Auken >> 2 March 2018 >> >> On February 27, the New York Review of Books published an open letter signed by some 200 people, many of them identifying themselves as activists, academics, writers and journalists. Originally titled “Stop pretending that you can’t do anything to save Syrians,” the headline was subsequently changed to “The World Must Act Now on Syria.” >> >> The letter was published with no introduction. Who wrote the text of the letter, who changed its title, how the signatures were gathered and indeed all other information about the document is left in the dark. >> >> >> >> Its purpose, however, is crystal clear. Issued in the midst of a massive war propaganda campaign in the Western media over the Russian and Syrian government assault on the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, one of the last strongholds of the Islamist militias backed by Washington and its regional allies, the letter constitutes an open appeal to the US and the other imperialist powers to launch a full-scale military intervention. >> >> >> >> Like the media propaganda campaign of which it is an integral part, the “open letter” constitutes a thoroughly one-sided, false and deeply hypocritical portrayal of the Syrian developments. >> >> >> >> It protests solely “the crimes that the Assad regime has committed against Syrians, aided by local and foreign militias, by Iranian strategic and financial aid, by Russian airpower and mercenaries.” >> >> >> >> Noticeably absent from its concerns are the crimes carried out by US and the other imperialist powers in Syria, not to mention the broader region. The authors of the open letter and its signatories were not motivated to make any such appeal as US airstrikes and artillery bombardments razed the cities of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria to the ground, burying tens of thousands of their inhabitants in the rubble. >> >> >> >> Just days after the issuance of the letter, it was reported that the Pentagon had deployed another 600 special forces troops, backed by armor, to the strategically vital area of El Tanf on the Iraqi border. Far from protesting such an intervention, those who drafted the open letter want more—much more—of the same. >> >> >> >> Chiding the imperialist governments, the letter declares: “Those with the power to act have been generous with expressions of sympathy but have offered nothing beyond the wish that this war on civilians—which they grotesquely call a ‘civil war’—would end. They call on ‘all parties’ to show restraint, even though one side alone has a virtual monopoly on violence.” >> >> >> >> The imperialists have “offered nothing”? The Assad government maintains a “monopoly on violence”? Who do they think they are kidding? The CIA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the other reactionary Sunni oil sheikdoms poured tens of thousands of tons of arms and ammunition and billions of dollars into Syria to arm Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias that carried out a reign of terror across Syria. Tens of thousands of foreign fighters were funneled into the country and paid to serve as proxy ground forces in the US-orchestrated war for regime change aimed at toppling the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Somewhere between 130,000 and 170,000 government troops and militia members supporting the Assad regime have been killed fighting these CIA-backed forces. >> >> >> >> The letter writes off the United Nations as “ineffectual,” adding, “While there are no longer any illusions about the role of the Security Council, every member state has nevertheless adopted and pledged to uphold the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine...” >> >> >> >> “For the agony of the people of Syria to come to an end, it must be forcibly stopped,” the document continues, adding that there “are myriad geopolitical reasons why this is an imperative, but none as immediate and important as the sanctity of life and the exercise of free will.” >> >> >> >> The message is clear: world imperialism must take action! Military intervention is required. The “myriad geopolitical reasons” for such action go unstated, but are nonetheless clear to anyone familiar with the complex struggle in Syria. US imperialism sees both Russia’s and Iran’s influence in the country as an obstacle to its own bloody and protracted struggle for hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East, a struggle that has left literally millions of victims in its wake. With their talk about the “sanctity of life,” the authors of the letter not only mock these victims, but offer their services in providing window dressing for Washington’s bloody operations. >> >> >> >> The signatories to this reactionary document represent a disparate and dubious group that includes no small number of direct imperialist agents, emigre “assets” of one or another Western intelligence agency and, no doubt, some roped in on false pretenses and by means of a hollow appeal to “human rights” sentiments. >> >> >> >> Among those signing the document are individuals who have a long and direct experience in imperialism’s operations in the region. One such person is Burhan Ghalioun, the former head of the Syrian National Council, who served as a conduit for the money and arms poured into the Syrian Islamist militias by the CIA and the reactionary Sunni monarchies. >> >> >> >> There are others, such as Moncef Marzouki, the former Tunisian president who played a key role in strangling the revolutionary uprising of the working class in that country and aligning Tunisia with the reactionary wars that Washington and its European allies have waged in Libya and Syria.. >> >> >> >> Also putting his name on the list was Saad Bin Tefla, a former Kuwaiti government minister and media tycoon. >> >> Joining such figures—and no doubt playing the key role in fashioning the letter’s phony human rights rhetoric, which echoes the propaganda used to justify every major imperialist intervention from the Balkans to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and beyond—is a collection of of self-described “socialists” and “leftists”. >> >> >> >> These include Gilbert Achcar, a professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London and the principal spokesman on the Middle East for the Pabloite United Secretariat and its website International Viewpoint. Having backed the imperialist interventions in both Libya and Syria, Achcar has gone beyond mere propagandizing for war, meeting with Syrian National Council (SNC) officials, a collection of US and French intelligence assets, to advise them on the best strategy to bring about direct imperialist intervention. >> >> >> >> Also among the signatories is Eric Ruder, a prominent member of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in the US and writer for its publicationSocialist Worker. Like Achcar and International Viewpoint, the ISO has supported the imperialist intervention in Syria from its outset, providing reporting and analysis that are, in all essentials, indistinguishable from State Department propaganda. >> >> >> >> Dan La Botz, co-editor of New Politics and a leading member of Solidarity who recently joined the Democratic Socialists of America, also signed the letter. Like the ISO, New Politics has its roots in the political tendency founded by Max Shachtman, who broke with the Trotskyist movement in 1940 and later became a champion of US imperialist intervention in Korea and Vietnam. >> >> >> >> Also signing the letter is Michael Karadjis, a member of the Australian pseudo-left organization, Socialist Alliance, with a long and filthy record of promoting imperialist interventions around the world in the name of “human rights,” from Kosovo to Timor, Libya and Syria. On Syria, he has authored pieces justifying a Syrian “rebel” commander eating the organs from the body of a slain soldier as only “minor cannibalism” and praising both the 2015 Turkish shoot-down of a Russian warplane and the Trump administration’s firing of 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase last April. >> >> >> >> None of these pseudo-left signatories, who invoke the brutality of the government of Bashar al-Assad to promote imperialist intervention in Syria, have anything to do with genuine socialism or Marxism. Assad’s regime, like those throughout the oppressed former colonial countries of the Middle East, is ultimately an expression of the incapacity of the national bourgeoisie to carry through either a genuine struggle against imperialism or a restructuring of the old colonial forms of rule along democratic lines. >> >> >> >> As Leon Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution established, that task can be accomplished only by the working class through the revolutionary overthrow of these regimes as part of the global struggle for socialism. It cannot—as these pseudo-lefts would have it—be contracted out to imperialism and its Islamist proxies. >> >> >> >> Achcar gives their game away in a recent interview with International Viewpoint. Pointing to the Pentagon’s use of the Syrian Kurdish militia as its principal proxy ground force, he dismisses “anti-imperialism”—which he placed in quotes—as a perspective that “does not fit the situation” in Syria, where “the United States supports ... a progressive force in its fight against a reactionary enemy.” >> >> >> >> All of these pseudo-left elements are aligning their politics directly with those of US imperialism and in particular with those sections of the US military and intelligence apparatus that are demanding a more aggressive confrontation with Russia. Not only are they functioning as direct accessories to the crimes committed against the masses of Syria, but they are helping to pave the way to world war. >> >> >> __._,_.___ >> Posted by: Ali Mallah >> >> Have you tried the highest rated email app? >> With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. >> ================================================================ >> Onward, United and Stronger. Until Return! >> ================================================================ >> Support Al-Awda, a Great Organization and Cause! >> Become a Member Today: http://al-awda.org/membership.html >> >> Join Palestinian Refugees Right to Return - Al-Awda Cause on Facebook http://www.causes.com/causes/1752-palestinian-refugees-right-to-return-al-awda >> >> LIKE US on facebook https://www.facebook.com/AlAwdaPRRC >> >> Twitter: @alawdaprrc >> ================================================================ >> Unless indicated otherwise, all statements posted represent the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition. >> ================================================================ >> VISIT YOUR GROUP >> >> • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use >> >> >> . >> >> >> __,_._,___ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 13:32:50 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (stuartnlevy) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2018 07:32:50 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE antiwar demonstration TODAY, Sat 2-4pm Message-ID: <5a9aa404.02616b0a.8911b.17a8@mx.google.com> This month will mark the 15th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.  We are still involved there, and are ramping up troops for even more endless war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile our government threatens new military action in Venezuela, Iran, North Korea.  While the old wars have grown unpopular, too many people in our country believe that taking down other countries' governments, and killing their people in the process, is a legitimate thing for our gov't to do. Let's remind them that it isn't- and hearten those who think that war should not be a normal part of our lives. Please join AWARE this afternoon, 2pm - 4pm, at the usual corner of Main and Neil in downtown Champaign, for our monthly antiwar demonstration. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 3 13:33:03 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 13:33:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] W. V student demo. supports call to expand teachers strike. Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » “I think the working class should be in control” West Virginia student demonstration supports call to expand teachers strike By our reporters 3 March 2018 Support for the West Virginia teachers strike and sentiment for its expansion continues to grow among students and workers. Teachers and public school employees have been on strike for seven days, defying return-to-work orders by the teachers unions on Tuesday night. [http://www.wsws.org/asset/ada2fd1e-7194-4e10-8c84-d883f21da64O/image.jpg?rendition=image480]High school students demonstration in Charleston, West Virginia More than 1,500 students and teachers attended a demonstration and march outside the state capitol building organized by high school students. Juliana, one of the students who organized the event, told the World Socialist Web Site that she and her friends started planning the march on Wednesday. “We made a Facebook event that afternoon, and next thing we knew there were hundreds of people sharing it.” The event was livestreamed on the World Socialist Web SiteFacebook page as part of ongoing on-the-spot coverage on the teachers’ struggle. Several students addressed the rally. One said, “This isn’t just about teachers, or just about state employees. It’s about our futures. We need to see the bigger picture. [http://www.wsws.org/asset/af94ccf9-fa6a-4d27-9406-46be8a97ea1O/image.jpg?rendition=image480]A high school student addresses the demonstration “A lot of the time, our teachers buy our school supplies for us. Some students who go to my school cannot afford textbooks. And at the beginning of the year the teachers will go out of their own pocket, they will sacrifice what little money they get for the students, because they care about us. We have outdated science books, with information that has been proven wrong, but we’re still using them.” Zac Corrigan, a member of the International Youth and Students for Social Equality, the student and youth movement of the Socialist Equality Party, also spoke. He called for an expansion of the strike and the mobilization of the entire working class behind school employees. “Your demands are the demands of the entire working class,” Corrigan said. “Workers everywhere are tired of being told there is no money for our basic social rights, no money for education, no money for decent jobs. Meanwhile trillions are made available for Wall Street bailouts, corporate tax cuts and endless war.” Corrigan warned that the unions, media and Democratic and Republican politicians were seeking to shut down the strike. “It is time to reach out to workers throughout the state,” he said, “to coal miners, to natural gas workers, to factory and warehouse workers, to service and health care workers, to high school and college students.” Corrigan added to applause: “It is time to rally the broadest support behind this strike. If the governor and his henchmen threaten injunctions, fines and dismissals, the response of the working class should be: General Strike!” Corrigan said the teachers’ fight was a “political struggle to determine which class should rule” and “how the wealth created by the working class should be distributed.” WSWS reporter Zac Corrigan addresses rally of West Virginia students The Democrats, Republicans and unions all boycotted the rally even though it was held on the steps of the state capitol. They are working to shut down the strike and view with fear workers’ sentiment for broadening the fight. After the march, thousands of teachers, students and supporters once again flooded the capitol building and rallied inside. WSWS reporters distributed hundreds of leaflets of the statement, “Mobilize the entire working class behind West Virginia teachers! Form rank-and-file committees to expand the struggle!” Zack Sapp is a 24-year-old custodian at a school in Logan County, a southern coalmining region of West Virginia. His father is a retired coal miner. He told the WSWS: “I think we have to stand up for what we deserve. I come in early and leave late almost every day. “There’s no evening shift at our school, so we have to clean the building while the kids are there, which makes it really difficult. On top of that, I have to drive one hour to get to work and one hour to get back home. And I only take home about $650 every two weeks. It’s not enough for what we do and the time we put in.” [http://www.wsws.org/asset/836aa583-6a81-4ae0-875c-b782bedd54dP/image.jpg?rendition=image480]Zack Sapp, a school custodian “I heard that Frontier [telecommunications] workers may be going on strike on Monday. And out of state, I heard that teachers in Pennsylvania are planning to go on strike. A lot of people say that we inspired them, and I’m happy about that. People have to stand up for what’s right. I feel that the politicians don’t care for us.” Zack continued: “I think the working class should be in control. We’ve all worked too hard to not get what we deserve. I don’t think the billionaires should control us. I feel that our senators are bought out. They don’t want to do anything for us because they’re getting paid.” Sylvia, who has taught in Kendall County since 1999, attended the march on Friday with her son, who is in high school. [http://www.wsws.org/asset/cf52bed6-478a-4456-b7c3-c179cc608f7I/image.jpg?rendition=image480]Sylvia with her son “When the union said they were closing the strike, I felt disheartened. I felt like no one had been listening to what we had been saying for such a long period of time. Yes, the raise is nice, but without the insurance, without the benefits, it all goes hand in hand. That was the main point. “I have a master’s degree. My husband is a welder. I have three children, all teenagers. Everybody has a lot of doctors’ appointments. It’s $40 for each co-pay right now. Plus, with the rising costs, it takes more and more out of the paychecks. That’s less and less that goes toward the family for the things that kids need growing up. Sylvia explained how she and her co-workers had independently organized to continue the strike. “We never met back at school. It was just through social media, and texting and calling. We said, ‘No, this is not right.’ We’re going to be back up there tomorrow! Everybody on the first day wore black, and we said we’re back in black! Because nobody listened to us, and it took a few minutes for it to sink in that, wait a second, this is our representation, and maybe they have a few things wrong.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 3 15:28:09 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 15:28:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd:CREDO: U.S. support for Saudi-led war must end (signatures needed) References: Message-ID: Please sign the petition, keeping in mind, the Saudi “lead” war in Yemen, couldn’t be done without US weapons, training and logistics support……. Tell the Senate: No war in Yemen The petition to the Senate reads: “We urge you to co-sponsor and support S.J.Res.54 to end U.S. military involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen.” Add your name: [Sign the petition ►] Dear Robert, [Tell the U.S Senate: No war in Yemen] Last August, an American-made laser-guided bomb killed seven children in Yemen’s capital city. Before the strike, a 5-year-old named Buthaina had five brothers and sisters. After the strike she had none.1 Buthaina and her siblings were just a few of the estimated 5,000 killed or injured in the Saudi-led war in Yemen that started in 2015 – an average of five a day.2 Right now, American military forces are refueling the Saudis’ American-made planes so that the Saudis and their coalition can drop American-made weapons to carry out a devastating war that is killing civilians, destroying crops, cutting off access to ports and wreaking havoc on the people of Yemen. As a result of American support for the war, millions are facing starvation and the country is battling what may be the worst cholera epidemic in history.3 We must speak out now to stop this deadly war in the Middle East. Fortunately, progressive champion Sen. Bernie Sanders just introduced bipartisan legislation to invoke the War Powers Resolution, which would require a vote in the next few weeks on ending U.S. support for this Saudi-led war.4 We have a short window to demand that the Senate vote to end U.S. military involvement and withdraw its support from the conflict that has led to what the United Nations calls the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.5 Tell the Senate: Pass S.J.Res.54 to end U.S. support for Saudi-led war in Yemen. Click here to sign the petition. For nearly three years, under the guise of reassuring our allies and “confronting Iran,” the United States has quietly assisted Saudi Arabia in their conflict with the Houthis – a Yemeni Shiite militia group originally formed around the historical economic and political marginalization of Yemen’s northwest. The United States has provided weapons, provided logistical and intelligence support, and helped refuel coalition jets as they dropped bombs on Yemeni civilians. But the Houthis have limited ties to Iran and absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda, ISIS or any other terrorist organization that could conceivably fall within the scope of military intervention covered by the current Authorization for Use of Military Force.6 This unauthorized war started under the Obama administration, and in the face of egregious civilian casualties, President Obama scaled back U.S. involvement. But Trump has given the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates the green light to double down on its disastrous air campaign.7 The civilian death toll in Yemen has been heart-wrenching – with over 10,000 casualties and rising – but the United States continues to offer resources to the Saudi-led coalition. In October 2016, a coalition airstrike targeted a funeral procession, killing over 130 innocent people and injuring 500 more.8 During the 10 day period from Dec 6 – 16, Saudi airstrikes killed 136 civilians, including at least seven civilians when they Saudi-led coalition struck a hospital on Dec. 10.9 Then on Jan. 1, Saudi airstrikes killed 23 people in the port city of Hodeida.10 In providing the Saudi-led coalition targeting intelligence, mid-air refueling and other logistical support, the United States is complicit in violations of international law. Tell the Senate: S.J.Res.54 to end U.S. support for Saudi-led war in Yemen. Click here to sign the petition. Beyond the direct violence, the ongoing war in Yemen has forced millions to flee their homes, resulted in the world's worst cholera outbreak, and has left more than two-thirds of Yemen's population – more than 20 million people – not knowing where their next meal will come from.11 According to the UN 400,000 Yemeni children are acutely malnourished – that is at risk of death from starvation – while as many as 8.4 million people in Yemen are on the verge of famine.12 That is because Saudi forces are using food as a weapon of war – enforcing a blockade that has stopped much needed food, medicine and supplies from entering the country.13 What’s more, the war has contributed to a fast-moving cholera outbreak – the largest documented in modern history – that has already affected more than 1 million people.14 U.S. tax dollars are directly financing this Saudi-led war, even though U.S. involvement has not been authorized by Congress – whose responsibility it is to debate, vote on and authorize military action. By participating in this war in this way, Congress and Donald Trump are robbing the American people of their right to be represented in these decisions. Congress must remove us from this conflict, immediately. Tell the Senate: Pass S.J.Res.54 to end U.S. support for Saudi-led war in Yemen. Click the link below to sign the petition. https://act.credoaction.com/sign/End_War_in_Yemen?t=8&akid=27493%2E1021714%2EhkSsVH Thank you for standing up for peace, Kaili Lambe, Director of Organizing CREDO Action from Working Assets Add your name: [Sign the petition ►] References: 1. The New York Times, “Young Yemeni Girl Is Sole Survivor After Airstrike Topples Her Home,” Aug. 26, 2017. 2. AFP, "Yemen war: 5,000 children dead or hurt and 400,000 malnourished, UN says," The Guardian, Jan. 16, 2018. 3. Bethan McKernan, “Yemen: almost one death per hour as cholera epidemic spreads like wildfire,” Independent, June 9, 2017. 4. Lee Fang and Alex Emmons, “Bernie Sanders Wants to End U.S. Support for Yemen War. Saudi Lobbyists Fought Similar Measures Last Year,” The Intercept, Feb. 28, 2018. 5. Robert Naiman, “Rand Paul: Unconstitutional Saudi War In Yemen Is Not In Our Interest, And Congress Should Vote,” HuffPost, Sept. 19, 2017. 6. Joost Hiltermann and April Longley Alley, “The Houthis Are Not Hezbollah,” ForeignPolicy, Feb. 27, 2017. 7. Samuel Oakford, “U.S. Doubled Fuel Support for Saudi Bombing Campaign in Yemen After Deadly Strike on Funeral,” The Intercept, July 13, 2017. 8. Catherine Thorbecke, “US-Made Bomb Used in Airstrike on Funeral in Yemen, Human Rights Watch Says," ABC News, Oct. 13, 2016. 9. U.N. Commission on Human Rights, "Press briefing on Yemen and Gaza," Dec. 19, 2017. 10. The Washington Post, “World Digest: Jan. 1, 2018,” Jan. 1, 2018. 11. Reuters, "More than 8 million Yemenis 'a step away from famine': U.N.,” Dec. 11, 2017. 12. AFP, “Yemen war: 5,000 children dead or hurt and 400,000 malnourished, UN says." 13. Clarissa Ward, Salma Abdelaziz and Scott McWhinnie, “In Yemen, the markets have food, but children are starving to death,” CNN, Dec. 19, 2017. 14. Bel Trew, “One million cases in Yemen cholera crisis," The Times, Dec. 22, 2017. ________________________________ [FB] Share on Facebook Post to your wall [Tw] Tweet this Post to Twitter [https://act.credoaction.com/o.gif?akid=27493.1021714.hkSsVH] [CREDO action] © 2018 CREDO. All rights reserved. _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Guidelines: %(http://www.unitedforpeace.org/listserv-community-guidelines) 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/karenaram%40hotmail.com You are subscribed as: karenaram at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 16:17:33 2018 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 16:17:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Two important links References: <804334290.7768953.1520093853888.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <804334290.7768953.1520093853888@mail.yahoo.com> Fascinating discussion about Gene Sharp, 2nd program down. http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S180222 Discussion of Chinese adoption of neoclassical economic ideas: How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? | | | | | | | | | | | How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? The Real News Network In his new book, "Competing Economic Paradigms in China," Steve Cohn examines how China's economic policy went f... | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 3 16:18:16 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 16:18:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Day-Long Non-Violent Direct Action Training at UUCUC on March 10 In-Reply-To: References: <12B3F7CD-DD0C-4E88-A7E6-E2CFB10E8451@ecojusticecollaborative.org> Message-ID: The use of the word “disobedience” implies, “wrong doing” and will prevent many from participation in such civil resistance actions. One of the reasons we didn’t have the elderly or mainstream Americans, involved in the anti-war movement during the sixties, generally speaking of course, was because they saw too much being reported on mainstream media showing “young people, students, hippies” behaving badly, and being arrested. Many of these people behaving badly were of course “agent provocateurs.” On Mar 2, 2018, at 07:14, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: With all due respect, these days we should be talking about Civil Resistance—not “civil disobedience”, for the reasons explained below. Fab. Light at the End of the Tunnel By Professor Francis A. Boyle Peace Teach-In University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign September 23, 2017 © Copyright 2017 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this paper the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. After September 11, 2001 the people of the world witnessed successive governments in the United States that have demonstrated little respect for fundamental considerations of international law, human rights, and the United States Constitution. Instead, the world has watched a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international and domestic legal orders by gangs of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign affairs and American domestic policy. Even more seriously, in many instances specific components of the U.S. government’s foreign policies constitute ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and United States domestic law, and in particular the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950), as well as the Pentagon’s own U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 on The Law of Land Warfare, which applies to the President himself as Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Depending on the substantive issues involved, these international and domestic crimes typically include but are not limited to the Nuremberg offences of “crimes against peace”—e.g., Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, and their longstanding threatened war of aggression against Iran. Their criminal responsibility also concerns crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare: torture, enforced disappearances, assassinations, murders, kidnappings, extraordinary renditions, “shock and awe,” depleted uranium, white phosphorous, cluster bombs, drone strikes, etc. Furthermore, various officials of the United States government have committed numerous inchoate crimes incidental to these substantive offences that under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) are international crimes in their own right: planning, and preparation, solicitation, incitement, conspiracy, complicity, attempt, aiding and abetting, etc. Of course the terrible irony of today’s situation is that seven decades ago at Nuremberg the U.S. government participated in the prosecution, punishment, and execution of Nazi government officials for committing some of the same types of heinous international crimes that these officials of the United States government currently inflict upon Peoples of Color all over the world. To be sure, I personally oppose the imposition of capital punishment upon any human being for any reason no matter how monstrous their crimes, whether they be Saddam Hussein, Bush Junior, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump. According to basic principles of international criminal law set forth in paragraph 501 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, all high level civilian officials and military officers in the U.S. government who either knew or should have known that soldiers or civilians under their control (such as the C.I.A. or mercenary contractors), committed or were about to commit international crimes and failed to take the measures necessary to stop them, or to punish them, or both, are likewise personally responsible for the commission of international crimes. This category of officialdom who actually knew or should have known of the commission of these international crimes under their jurisdiction and failed to do anything about them include at the very top of America’s criminal chain-of-command the President, the Vice-President, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence, the C.I.A. Director, National Security Advisor and the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff along with the appropriate Regional Commanders-in-Chiefs, especially for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and now U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). These U.S. government officials and their immediate subordinates are responsible for the commission of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as specified by the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as by U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 of 1956. Today in international legal terms, the United States government itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, because of its formulation and undertaking of serial wars of aggression, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the former Nazi regime in Germany. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of civil resistance designed to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to “defense” and “counter-terrorism.” They are the terrorists! They terrorize the entire world! For that very reason, large numbers of American citizens have decided to act on their own cognizance by means of civil resistance in order to demand that U.S. government officials adhere to basic principles of international law, of U.S. domestic law, and of the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of foreign affairs and military operations. Mistakenly, however, such actions have been defined to constitute classic instances of "civil disobedience" as historically practiced in the United States. And the conventional status quo admonition by the U.S. power elite and its sycophantic news media for those who knowingly engage in “civil disobedience” has always been that they must meekly accept their punishment for having performed a prima facie breach of the positive laws as a demonstration of their good faith and moral commitment. Nothing could be further from the truth! Today’s civil resisters are the sheriffs! The U.S. government officials are the outlaws! Here I would like to suggest a different way of thinking about civil resistance activities that are specifically designed to thwart, prevent, or impede ongoing criminal activity by officials of the U.S. government under well‑recognized principles of international and U.S. domestic law. Such civil resistance activities represent the last constitutional avenue open to the American people to preserve their democratic form of government with its historical commitment to the rule of law and human rights. Civil resistance is the last hope Americans have to prevent the U.S. government from moving even farther down the paths of lawless violence in Africa, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, military interventionism into Latin America, and nuclear confrontation with Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, and China. Such measures of "civil resistance" must not be confused with, and indeed must be carefully distinguished from, acts of "civil disobedience" as traditionally defined. In today’s civil resistance cases, what we witness are American citizens attempting to prevent the ongoing commission of international and domestic crimes under well-recognized principles of international law and U.S. domestic law. This is a phenomenon essentially different from the classic civil disobedience cases of the 1950s and 1960s where incredibly courageous African Americans and their supporters were conscientiously violating domestic laws for the express purpose of changing them. By contrast, today’s civil resisters are acting for the express purpose of upholding the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, human rights, and international law. Applying the term “civil disobedience” to such civil resistors mistakenly presumes their guilt and thus perversely exonerates the U.S. government criminals. Civil resistors disobeyed nothing, but to the contrary obeyed international law and the United States Constitution. By contrast, U.S. government officials grossly violated fundamental principles of international law as well as U.S. criminal law and thus committed international crimes and U.S. domestic crimes as well as impeachable violations of the United States Constitution. The civil resistors are the sheriffs enforcing international law, U.S. criminal law and the U.S. Constitution against the criminals working for the U.S. government! Today the American people must reaffirm their commitment to the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles by holding their government officials fully accountable under international law and U.S. domestic law for the commission of such grievous international and domestic crimes. They must not permit any aspect of their foreign affairs and defense policies to be conducted by acknowledged “war criminals” according to the U.S. government’s own official definition of that term as set forth in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), the U.S. War Crimes Act, the Geneva Conventions, and the Hague Regulations, inter alia. The American people must insist upon the impeachment, dismissal, resignation, indictment, conviction, and long-term incarceration of all U.S. government officials guilty of such heinous international and domestic crimes. If not so restrained by civil resistance, the U.S. government could very well precipitate a Third World War. That is precisely what American civil resisters are doing today! The future of American foreign policy and the peace of the world lie in the hands of American citizens—not the bureaucrats, legislators, judges, lobbyists, think-tankers, professors, and self-styled experts who inhibit Washington, D.C., New York City, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Hyde Park/Chicago, Illinois. Civil resistance is the way to go! This is our Nuremberg Moment now! Thank you. Francis 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 Pam Richart via Peace Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 8:59 AM To: Peace > Subject: [Peace] Day-Long Non-Violent Direct Action Training at UUCUC on March 10 If you want to learn more about non-violent direct action as a powerful force for change … and are ready to put your values into action, this is a great opportunity! Saturday, March 10 Non-Violent Direct Action Training at UUCUC Throughout history non-violent direct action has played a recurring and vital role in shining a light on injustice and bringing about social change. On Saturday, March 10, members of the Social Action Committee of UUCUC will host a day-long training in the principles, philosophy and practice of non-violent direct action.This training will help prepare us to participate in six weeks of "direct action and nonviolent civil disobedience" at our state capitol associated with Reverend Barber’s Poor People’s Campaign. These actions begin on Mother’s Day, May 13, and continue through June 21. But this training also has much broader, universal applications. Led by Jerica Arents, noted activist and educator in peace, justice and conflict studies, this interactive training will provide basic knowledge and skills to better understand, support, and/or actively engage in non-violent direct action as part of social change. We invite you to join us! Registration is required, but no one will be turned away for financial reasons. Call Lan Richart at 773-556-3417 for more information. Date: Saturday, March 10, 2018 Time: 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM Location: Unitarian Universalist Church of Urbana-Champaign (Fellowship Hall) Cost: $20 (includes lunch, snacks and training materials) Register: https://uucuc.brownpapertickets.com/ Meet the Trainer: Jerica Arents is a professor in the Peace, Justice, Conflict Studies Program at DePaul University. Her ongoing interests focus on social movements and activism with interests in peacemaking in Afghanistan and the effects of the NATO-led occupation on ordinary Afghans. She collaborates with the Afghan Peace Volunteers in Kabul, where they have created the first multi-ethnic community of youth committed to nonviolent action. She also serves as an organizer with Witness Against Torture, a campaign to close the prison at Guantánamo and end U.S.-sponsored torture worldwide. Pamela Richart Eco-Justice Collaborative 919 West University Avenue Champaign, Illinois 61821 773.556.3418 prichart at ecojusticecollaborative.org www.ecojusticecollaborative.org "Today we are faced with a challenge that calls for a shift in our thinking, so that humanity stops threatening its life-support system. We are called to assist the Earth to heal her wounds and in the process heal our own – indeed, to embrace the whole creation in all its diversity, beauty and wonder. This will happen if we see the need to revive our sense of belonging to a larger family of life, with which we have shared our evolutionary process." -2004 Nobel Peace Laureate, Wangari Maathai -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RJI" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rji+unsubscribe at uucuc.org. To post to this group, send email to rji at uucuc.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/uucuc.org/d/msgid/rji/4782290F-CFE8-41B9-B20D-4EF361BC8311%40ecojusticecollaborative.org. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb06514ecdf7e4e85cb6408d580507be2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636556005524675961&sdata=i73O5WUxvRNETGdvisKLuCNZw35JpDQ4M64UujvHAy8%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Mar 4 02:13:14 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 02:13:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bruce Gagnon, on 16th day of Hunger Strike, over US war policies. Message-ID: I am not happy about this. I do not support it. I respect this man so much, the photo of him on his 16th day of a hunger strike wasting away is disturbing. His intentions are pure, but it’s not worth the sacrifice he is making, given there is so little media coverage. "Urgent. One of the most respected, dedicated, long time anti-war activists Bruce Gagnon is on his16th day of a hunger strike over a blatant theft by war profiteers." Here are related articles. Please read and share. https://www.pressherald.com/…/controversial-bill-to-give-b…/ https://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action4/common/public/… https://www.pressherald.com/…/letter-to-the-editor-giving-…/ https://www.nytimes.com/…/tax-cuts-share-buybacks-corporate.. Thank you Bruce Gagnon for your solid activism against the war machine." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Mar 4 12:33:00 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 12:33:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Thailand References: <61854989.2093.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: Application can be applied to new political Parties everywhere, including here. Respond to this post by replying above this line New post on Uglytruth-Thailand [http://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar.png] [http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b94c98491e599510a5ec039e64af3261?s=50&d=identicon&r=G] How radical will the new “radical party” really be? by uglytruththailand Giles Ji Ungpakorn The announcement of the creation of a new “radical party” of younger activists has caused a stir and raised the hopes of many among the current generation of democracy activists. The party is the brain child of billionaire tycoon Thanathorn Juangroongruangki and law academic Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, who is a member of the pro-democracy Nitirat group. [See http://bit.ly/2CXa3NP ]. In a recent Facebook post, Piyabutr Saengkanokkul indicated that the party would model itself on the new left parties in Europe and would be opposed to neo-liberalism. He mentioned Syriza, Podemos, La France Insoumise and the Italian Five Star Movement. The problem is that Syriza, which was elected on an anti-austerity programme, is now implementing vicious neo-liberal cuts to the living standards of Greek workers and pensioners. The question is how the new Thai party will resist the junta’s laws which entrench neo-liberal economic policy in the Constitution and the National Strategy. Will it be able to resist the mainstream consensus in favour of “fiscal discipline” which was previously used against Taksin’s use of state funds to improve the lives of the poor? Will the new party propose a Welfare State funded by progressive taxation of the rich and the large corporations? How would such a policy conflict with the interests of billionaire tycoon Thanathorn Juangroongruangki who is deputy chairman of Summit Corporation? Summit is a leading auto parts manufacturer of automotive, motorcycle, electrical appliance, and agricultural machinery. It also has media holdings. Parties like Syriza and La France Insoumise have made serious attempts to link up with the organised labour movement. Will Thailand’s new “radical party” also reach out to the Thai trade union movement? Will it propose scrapping restrictions on trade union rights, raising the minimum wage to coincide with the demands of the unions and reduce working hours? How does this fit with the behaviour of Summit Corporation? The company has a history of sacking trade union activists, enforcing overtime and opposing affective trade unions. What is worrying is that in the past Piyabutr has said that class “is not an issue in Thailand”. Is this a way of ignoring the working class in order to build an alliance with a billionaire tycoon? [See http://bit.ly/2Fcp9Fm ]. In the past all mainstream political parties have been run or funded by rich businessmen. Thailand desperately needs a new radical party of the working class and poor farmers. That would truly be something “new”. In terms of Podemos, the internal democracy of this party can be seriously questioned as ordinary members are not really empowered to determine policy and the leadership is in the hands of charismatic national leaders who appear in the media. When Piyabutr talks of “new” devolved structures of his party, relying on social media, will this denial of a centralised leadership lead in practice to unaccountable leadership by charismatic national leaders who appear in the media such as Thanathorn and Piyabutr? Podemos has also played a shameful role in defending the Spanish State against the Catalonian independence movement. What position will Thailand’s new “radical party” take in terms of self-determination for Patani? As far as Italy’s Five Star Movement is concerned, it doesn’t seem to have many real policies. Its main claim is to be “new” and different from mainstream politicians. Yet one of its policies, concerning asylum seekers and immigration, is highly reactionary. What position will Thailand’s new “radical party” take on Rohingya asylum seekers and the terrible treatment on non-Thai citizens and workers within the country? In the past, just after the 14th October 1973 uprising against the military, Thailand had a so-called left-leaning “new” party of youth. It was called “New Force”. It had no concrete policies except claiming to be “new”. This was in direct contrast to the Communist Party. New Force disappeared into thin air in a few years. Any new radical party in Thailand needs to have a policy of scrapping the lèse-majesté law, the immediate freeing all political prisoners, massive public investment in renewable energy and clean public transport and, last but not least, policies which promote gender rights, especially the right of women to choose safe abortions on demand, funded by the public health system. In the immediate future, it is unlikely that the new “radical party” could win enough seats to form a government and it is a good thing that Piyabutr is aware of this, saying that the party would not just give up after the first election. The question is whether the party will merely concentrate on winning elections or whether it will help build mass movements of people who wish to push forward progressive demands. uglytruththailand | March 4, 2018 at 7:10 am | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: https://wp.me/p4bxj7-xL Comment See all comments Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Uglytruth-Thailand. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://uglytruththailand.wordpress.com/2018/03/04/how-radical-will-the-new-radical-party-really-be/ Thanks for flying with [https://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar-default.png] WordPress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Mar 4 14:19:25 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 14:19:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A model for all, Jackson, Miss. Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Mar 4 15:01:31 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 15:01:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Two important links In-Reply-To: <804334290.7768953.1520093853888@mail.yahoo.com> References: <804334290.7768953.1520093853888.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <804334290.7768953.1520093853888@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David, the discussion related to China’s rise to a Capitalist Superpower is definitely worth a listen. Prof. Cohn presents the essence of their rise very well, without the usual western negativism. It remains to be seen what the future holds, in respect to uncontrollable capitalism, with imperialism being the late stage of capitalism, consuming us all. However, the Chinese are not imperialistic, as is the West, so one can hope. On Mar 3, 2018, at 08:17, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Fascinating discussion about Gene Sharp, 2nd program down. http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S180222 Discussion of Chinese adoption of neoclassical economic ideas: How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? The Real News Network In his new book, "Competing Economic Paradigms in China," Steve Cohn examines how China's economic policy went f... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 15:11:15 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 09:11:15 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Two important links In-Reply-To: References: <804334290.7768953.1520093853888.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <804334290.7768953.1520093853888@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I’m a bit skeptical of Cohn, from the RealNews interview. It’s topic we should take up on Neptune. —CGE > On Mar 4, 2018, at 9:01 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > David, the discussion related to China’s rise to a Capitalist Superpower is definitely worth a listen. Prof. Cohn presents the essence of their rise very well, without the usual western negativism. > > It remains to be seen what the future holds, in respect to uncontrollable capitalism, with imperialism being the late stage of capitalism, consuming us all. However, the Chinese are not imperialistic, as is the West, so one can hope. > > >> On Mar 3, 2018, at 08:17, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Fascinating discussion about Gene Sharp, 2nd program down. >> >> http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S180222 >> >> Discussion of Chinese adoption of neoclassical economic ideas: >> >> How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? >> >> >> How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? >> The Real News Network >> In his new book, "Competing Economic Paradigms in China," Steve Cohn examines how China's economic policy went f... >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Mar 4 15:26:44 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 15:26:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Two important links In-Reply-To: References: <804334290.7768953.1520093853888.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <804334290.7768953.1520093853888@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Carl I don’t disagree. Cohn’s use of a couple “words” that put a negative slant on things, does give me pause in relation to being overly positive in relation to him, but that being said, I didn’t hear anything that caused concern. Perhaps its what I didn’t hear, but his focus was on "social economics.” I am usually overly positive in relation to China myself, given the negativity of most US “experts” and the fear being promoted by mainstream media, which I see as the US goals of “hegemony and imperialism.” However, if one simply looks at the future of China, from either a Chinese or a Marxist perspective, there is cause for concern, though certainly not in the near future. Again, they’re not imperialistic, and their build up of their military is defensive in the face of US provocations with the Obama Administration’s “pivot to Asia,” US military bases and occupation of the South China Sea, not to mention our provocations and actions around the world in respect to regime change of those leaders that are not disposed to the US, and now Trumps threats of “tariff wars”. Then there is the BRI which the US is planning to “disrupt?” with our usual interventions and militarism, On Mar 4, 2018, at 07:11, C G Estabrook > wrote: I’m a bit skeptical of Cohn, from the RealNews interview. It’s topic we should take up on Neptune. —CGE On Mar 4, 2018, at 9:01 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: David, the discussion related to China’s rise to a Capitalist Superpower is definitely worth a listen. Prof. Cohn presents the essence of their rise very well, without the usual western negativism. It remains to be seen what the future holds, in respect to uncontrollable capitalism, with imperialism being the late stage of capitalism, consuming us all. However, the Chinese are not imperialistic, as is the West, so one can hope. On Mar 3, 2018, at 08:17, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Fascinating discussion about Gene Sharp, 2nd program down. http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S180222 Discussion of Chinese adoption of neoclassical economic ideas: How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? The Real News Network In his new book, "Competing Economic Paradigms in China," Steve Cohn examines how China's economic policy went f... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Mar 4 15:46:12 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 15:46:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Israel, the US proxy, left and right. Message-ID: http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21264:Gideon-Levy%3A-The-Zionist-Tango%3A-Step-Left%2C-Step-Right -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 15:48:26 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 09:48:26 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Two important links In-Reply-To: References: <804334290.7768953.1520093853888.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <804334290.7768953.1520093853888@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AC8890E-AB1F-4771-9920-7D0D9CAE1064@gmail.com> I can’t find any reviews of Cohn’s book, which is strange (and it is published by Routledge, which doesn’t inspire great confidence). And of course you’re right about the ‘pivot to Asia.’ (Remember who was Secretary of State as the S. China Sea stuff grew up: the war party is on the case…): > It’s a Halford Mackinder (1861-1947) delight... —CGE > On Mar 4, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl > > I don’t disagree. Cohn’s use of a couple “words” that put a negative slant on things, does give me pause in relation to being overly positive in relation to him, but that being said, I didn’t hear anything that caused concern. Perhaps its what I didn’t hear, but his focus was on "social economics.” > > I am usually overly positive in relation to China myself, given the negativity of most US “experts” and the fear being promoted by mainstream media, which I see as the US goals of “hegemony and imperialism.” However, if one simply looks at the future of China, from either a Chinese or a Marxist perspective, there is cause for concern, though certainly not in the near future. > > Again, they’re not imperialistic, and their build up of their military is defensive in the face of US provocations with the Obama Administration’s “pivot to Asia,” US military bases and occupation of the South China Sea, not to mention our provocations and actions around the world in respect to regime change of those leaders that are not disposed to the US, and now Trumps threats of “tariff wars”. > > Then there is the BRI which the US is planning to “disrupt?” with our usual interventions and militarism, > > >> On Mar 4, 2018, at 07:11, C G Estabrook > wrote: >> >> I’m a bit skeptical of Cohn, from the RealNews interview. >> >> It’s topic we should take up on Neptune. —CGE >> >> >>> On Mar 4, 2018, at 9:01 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> David, the discussion related to China’s rise to a Capitalist Superpower is definitely worth a listen. Prof. Cohn presents the essence of their rise very well, without the usual western negativism. >>> >>> It remains to be seen what the future holds, in respect to uncontrollable capitalism, with imperialism being the late stage of capitalism, consuming us all. However, the Chinese are not imperialistic, as is the West, so one can hope. >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 3, 2018, at 08:17, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> Fascinating discussion about Gene Sharp, 2nd program down. >>>> >>>> http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S180222 >>>> >>>> Discussion of Chinese adoption of neoclassical economic ideas: >>>> >>>> How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? >>>> >>>> >>>> How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? >>>> The Real News Network >>>> In his new book, "Competing Economic Paradigms in China," Steve Cohn examines how China's economic policy went f... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Mar 4 19:35:58 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 19:35:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Two important links In-Reply-To: <804334290.7768953.1520093853888@mail.yahoo.com> References: <804334290.7768953.1520093853888.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <804334290.7768953.1520093853888@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David, I just finished the interview on Gene Sharp. I would have passed it up, as info. related to just one obscure person. I was wrong, its exceptionally informative. Glad I watched Friday’s NFN, which encouraged me to listen to it. On Mar 3, 2018, at 08:17, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Fascinating discussion about Gene Sharp, 2nd program down. http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S180222 Discussion of Chinese adoption of neoclassical economic ideas: How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? The Real News Network In his new book, "Competing Economic Paradigms in China," Steve Cohn examines how China's economic policy went f... _______________________________________________ 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 Mar 4 23:15:28 2018 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 23:15:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Two important links In-Reply-To: References: <804334290.7768953.1520093853888.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <804334290.7768953.1520093853888@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1532381850.8133303.1520205328195@mail.yahoo.com> It's a fascinating piece of the puzzle, especially regarding post-Cold War imperial doctrine in E. Europe and the Middle East. But as the "documentary" The World in Disarray shows, our powers of persuasion go only so far, and violence or threat of violence is still the primary tactic. On ‎Sunday‎, ‎March‎ ‎4‎, ‎2018‎ ‎01‎:‎36‎:‎01‎ ‎PM, Karen Aram wrote: David, I just finished the interview on Gene Sharp. I would have passed it up, as info. related to just one obscure person. I was wrong, its exceptionally informative. Glad I watched Friday’s NFN, which encouraged me to listen to it.  On Mar 3, 2018, at 08:17, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: Fascinating discussion about Gene Sharp, 2nd program down. http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#S180222 Discussion of Chinese adoption of neoclassical economic ideas: How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? | | | | | | | | | | | How Did Communist China Become a Capitalist Superpower? The Real News Network In his new book, "Competing Economic Paradigms in China," Steve Cohn examines how China's economic policy went f... | | | _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Mar 5 03:11:42 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 03:11:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right References: <1562697972.-66084228@salsa4.salsa4DB.mail.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: He, Gideon Levy, notes that he used to be for a two state solution, but now thinks that it's impossible. His is a pretty grim picture of the state of israel. Begin forwarded message: From: The Real News Network > Subject: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Date: March 4, 2018 at 11:30:46 AM CST To: mkb3 at mac.com Reply-To: noreply at therealnews.com Please add newsletter at therealnews.com to your email contacts to make sure you get our daily email. The Real News Daily, Sunday March 4, 2018 MAKE A DONATION [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/glevy0302.jpg] Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Gideon Levy speaking at the Naitonal Press Club in Washington DC on the eve of the official AIPAC conference. Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Israeli daily Haaretz, says when you shoot a fifteen year old in the head and say he fell from his bicycle no zionist questions it, there is no room for debate and discussion, no room for the right and the left in Israel [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/aabukhalil0302israelpt2.jpg]Israel's Deepening Involvement in the Syrian War Israel has recently been intensifying air strikes and the arming of anti-government forces in Syria, some of which are close to Al Qaeda. Professor As'ad AbuKhalil explains how Israel's activity in Syria is part of a larger pattern of its overall foreign policy engagement around the world [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/tgraham0205ohio.jpg]The Black Disinvestment Crisis Pt 3: Gentrification without Representation School Closings and Food Deserts in the African American community of West Dayton while tax incentives are given to build luxury housing downtown are the focus of a conversation with activists from Racial Justice NOW! [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/sjanis0302tax.jpg]Baltimore Councilman Compares Tax Break to 'Tropical Fruit That I Can't Pronounce' The glib remark came during a serious debate over the real cost of tax breaks to developers as the city moves forward with new incentives while state analysts warn the final price tag of these expansive private subsidies is unknown by Stephen Janis and Taya Graham [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/rm0301jtd5.jpg]Join The Dots Ep 5 - The Air We Breathe In this episode of Join The Dots, Real Media discusses the health effects of and possible solutions to air pollution as London breaks its annual air pollution limit in just the first month of 2018 [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/bmier0302brazil.jpg]Brazil's Military Takeover in Rio Sparks Authoritarian Fears Deeply unpopular Brazilian President Michel Temer issued a decree to put the military in charge of security in Rio de Janeiro instead of police, dubiously claiming the purpose is to crack down on crime. But many Brazilians worry that it's the first stage in a return to military rule, explains journalist Brian Mier [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/eblast_banner.png] Featured Videos [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/deepstatemovie.jpg]Is the Oil Industry Canada's 'Deep State'? [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-01-01/jfreeston0127honduras.jpg]Honduras: the Never-Ending Coup [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2017-05-01/thedges0502schumerFP.jpg]Chuck Schumer: War Hawk or Progressive? Latest Columns The Powerful Global Spy Alliance You Never Knew Existed Oil Market Fears: War, Default And Nuclear Weapons Arizona “Ground Zero” for Koch Attack on Public Education Billionaire vs. Billionaire: Illinois Governors Race Breaking All State Campaign Finance Records What Could a Left Presidency Look Like in Mexico? China’s dilemma: Balancing support for militants with struggle against political violence Public-sector unions prepare to be kneecapped at the Supreme Court 'Really extreme' global weather event leaves scientists aghast Gulf crisis upends fiction of a separation of sports and politics We Support The Real News Network [Emma Thompson] Emma Thompson [Kendrick Sampson] Kendrick Sampson [Gabriel Byrne] Gabriel Byrne [Nina Turner] Nina Turner [Ralph Nader] Ralph Nader [Danny Glover] Danny Glover [http://therealnews.com/t2/templates/gk_twn/images/logo3.png] 231 Holliday Street Baltimore MD 21202 1 866 396 4231 MAKE A DONATION SUBSCRIBE | UNSUBSCRIBE | EMAIL PREFERENCES Problems unsubscribing? Please contact us here. [empowered by Salsa] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Mon Mar 5 10:39:49 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 04:39:49 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] action needed--keep those calls and emails coming Message-ID: You all know about the GEO strike, and many have shown solidarity by walking the picket lines, calling and emailing the Provost's office, and donating to the GEO strike fund. Please continue to show solidarity with our brothers and sisters as the strike enters its second week. Call and email the Provost's office, and ask that full tuition waivers, a living wage, and more assistance with health care costs for every graduate employee be part of the contract: (217) 333-6677 provost at illinois.edu If you are able, please donate to the GEO strike fund: https://www.gofundme.com/uiuc-geo-strike-fund Lend physical support by standing on the picket lines on campus. Spread the word on social media. The more attention this historic strike gets, the less UIUC likes the bad publicity. In solidarity, Debra Schrishuhn Central Illinois PDA Progressive Democrats of America From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 5 12:58:39 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:58:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Forgotten History Message-ID: CRITICAL ENQUIRY Forgotten History See article way below: Home-->Forgotten History * US War In Russia * Terror in America, 1886 US and Allied Wars in Russia, 1918-22 Many Americans would be surprised to learn that the USA, along with Britain, France, and Japan, fought a campaign in Russia just after the Great War (World War I). The primary objective of this action was the re-establishment of an Eastern Front following the collapse of the Russian government during the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, but Allied fear of communist ambitions in other countries also played into the intervention as will be seen below. The overall campaign was named the Polar Bear Expedition, but was also known as the Northern Russian Expedition, the American North Russia Expeditionary Force - ANREF or the American Expeditionary Force North Russia - AEFNR. These efforts are not mentioned in most history survey courses, and few texts even mention that US troops (or those of any other nation) fought against the Bolsheviks during this period. The presence of US Army units from Michigan in Vladivostok, Archangel, and other Russian locations is rarely noted although the University of Michigan maintains an archive of photographs and other primary evidence relating to the period. [Russian Prisoners] From the Louis E. Schicker collection in the University of Michigan's Polar Bear archives Troops were sent to Russia near the close of World War I for several reasons, all of which were related to the instability of the Russian government. First, the Russian army's disastrous defeat at the hands of the Germans resulted in the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. Initially his government was replaced by an interim democratic administration (the only democratic regime that has ever existed in Russia) under the leadership of Alexander Kerensky. This change in government structure caused president Woodrow Wilson to change his mind about participation in the war. He had initially refused to commit the US to an alliance with the despotic Tsarist government. Thus, US troops were mustered for action on the Western Front. However, in October 1917 the Bolshevik revolution replaced the Kerensky government with communist rule under Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. This resulted in the withdrawl of Russian troops from the Eastern front as the new government negotiated a separate peace with Germany under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Loss of the Eastern Front placed additional pressure on Allied troops from the US, France, Britain, and other countries fighting on the Western Front. The Germans were able to move troops from Eastern borders to French battlefields, thus strengthening their hand. The change of government also left at risk vast amounts of military materiel and armaments provided by Britain to the Kerensky government. There was concern that these supplies would be captured by the Germans or (worse) the Bolsheviks. This was unacceptable, both from a military and economic standpoint. There was also a concern that the armaments might be used against other European powers once the newly established communist government built up the newly minted red Army's power. Western nations greatly feared Marxism, which taught that industrial powers would eventually be overthrown in "peoples' revolutions" as the "proletariat" took their rightful place. The idea of a heavily armed communist state was, as a result, extremely unpalatable to most Western governments. The various Allies are estimated to have sent the following strength of troops to the Russian campaign (from Wikipedia): * 50,000 Czechoslovaks[4] (along the Trans-Siberian railway) * 28,000 Japanese (later increased to 70,000[5], all in the Vladivostok region) * 24,000 Greeks (in Crimea and the Ukraine) * 13,000 Americans (in Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions) * 12,000 Poles (mostly in Crimea and the Ukraine) * 4,000 Canadians (in Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions) * 4,000 Serbs (in Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions) * 4,000 Romanians (in Arkhangelsk region) * 2,000 Italians (in Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions) * 1,600 British (in Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions) * 760 French (mostly in Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions Obviously the British and French were desperately short of troops due to commitments on the Western Front. Thus their contribution to the Eastern campaign was very small in terms of personnel. American troops were deployed in Archangel (Arkangelsk), Murmansk, and Vladivostok. Many of these troops were from units organized in Michigan, including the 339th Infantry, 310th Engineers, 337th Field Hospital, and 337th Ambulance Company. This group later adopted the name "The Polar Bear Expedition," and members referred to themselves as Polar Bears. [US Troops arrive in Archangel] American Troops Arriving at Vladivostok US involvement in this ill-conceived expedition was short. Once the Armistice was signed on November 11, 1918 the Wilson government began receiving letters and petitions to bring the troops home from Siberia and other regions in which they were deployed. Most were withdrawn from Russia by mid 1919, having lost several hundred men to combat as well as sickness (including the Spanish Flu). Video from YouTube showing US soldiers from the 339th in Russia circa 1918. Consequences The Allied incursion generally accomplished nothing significant in terms of either foreign relations or military success. The small forces deployed to Russia were unable to break the power of the Red Army, and simply watched as the White Army (composed of anti-communist Russians) was slowly destroyed. Worse, the Allies are said to have made and then broken numerous promises of additional assistance made to Admiral Kolchak, the leader of a "government in exile" established at Omsk following the Bolshevik revolution. John Ward, who lead the British force known as "Die-Hards," states that It is certain that Admiral Koltchak would never have gone to Siberia, nor have become the head of the constitutional movement and government of Russia, if he had not been advised and even urged to do so by the Allies. He received the most categorical promises of whole-hearted support and early Allied recognition before he agreed to take up the dangerous duty of head of the Omsk Government. Had these urgings and promises been ungrudgingly performed a Constituent Assembly would be now sitting at Moscow hammering out the details of a Federal Constitution for a mighty Russian Republic or a parliamentary system similar to our own. (Ward, 1920) Having agreed to assist Kolchak and the anti-communists, the Allies then apparently worked at odds with each other rather than forming a united front behind his government. The British and Japanese were rabidly fearful of communism as a whole. The former were mindful of Marx' prediction that communism would be established first in England and France (the most industrialized nations when he wrote The Communist Manifesto), while the latter feared communism as a threat to the monarchy. [...] [the Allies'] help took the form of positive wilful obstruction. The Japanese, by bolstering up Semianoff and Kalmakoff, and the Americans, by protecting and organising enemies, made it practically impossible for the Omsk Government to maintain its authority or existence. The most that could be expected was that both would see the danger of their policy in time to avert disaster. One did; the other left when the evils created had got beyond control. Koltchak has not been destroyed so much by the acts of his enemies as by the stupidity and neglect of his Allied friends. (Ward, 1920) It may also be argued that this incursion into the fledgling Soviet Union (then called the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) by Allied forces set the stage for later Soviet fear of attack from the West. Certainly the intervention of foreign troops and their action against the new communist regime was a useful propaganda tool. It could be used to justify fear of capitalist states, the later creation of the eastern European Soviet bloc (as a buffer against invasion), and even the extermination of Soviet soldiers who came into contact with non-Soviet governments and military agencies. As is so often the case, a badly thought out short term foreign policy decision had serious ramifications for decades to come. Is it any surprise that this incident is not even discussed in US history classes? References * With the "Die-Hards" in Siberia; Ward, Col. John 1920. Available online at Project Gutenberg * The Bently Historical Library's online Polar Bear Digital Collections at the Univ. of Michigan * Polar Bear Expedition entry at Wikipedia * Article on Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War at Wikipedia * Foglesong, David S. America's Secret War Against Bolshevism. University of North Carolina Press, 1995 Note: All information contained in these pages is © 2008 Richard E. Joltes. Excerpts may be used where proper credit is given and permission is obtained in advance. All rights reserved. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Mar 5 13:35:33 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 13:35:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo for Chief Illiniwak & Mussolini 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) Francis 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, February 11, 2018 4:40 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: News Gazette for Mussolini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Champaign News-Gazette, Nov. 5, 1926, p.4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12898 bytes Desc: Champaign News-Gazette, Nov. 5, 1926, p.4.pdf URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Mar 5 13:39:23 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 13:39:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo for Chief Illiniwak and Eugenics 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) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Champaign News-Gazette Dec. 12 1922 p.4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 8315 bytes Desc: Champaign News-Gazette Dec. 12 1922 p.4.pdf URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Mar 5 14:20:33 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:20:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo for Chief Illiniwak & Mussolini Message-ID: Fired and Disgraced UI President Joey Whitey told me that what happened in 2007 was a "compromise" by the Board of Trustees: Namely, the white racist frat boy desecrating everything Indians hold Sacred would stop dancing at half-times. But everything else about Chief Illiniwak would remain exactly the same. This prompted my response to President Whitey with a CC to the Board of Trustees. Fab. On Behalf Of Robert Schmidt Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:23 PM To: Native News Subject: [NativeNews] Boyle's letter to U of I president Dear President White: You and the Board of Trustees must eradicate anything related to Indians from the sports program: "Fighting Illini", "Oskeewowow," the TomTom beats, the fake Indian Music from the 3 in 1 march and elsewhere in band performances , the war paint, the feathers, the tomahawks, the Illiniwak Logo, etc. In addition the University of Illinois must hold onto the Illiniwak Logo and not transfer it to the White Racists and Bigots on the so-called Council of Illiniwak Chiefs where they will continue to perpetrate this desecration of Indians forever . You must also indicate that you will vigorously prosecute anyone who violates your Trademark to Chief Illiniwak. You must terminate all licenses for Chief Illiniwak. And you must clear this racist Illiniwak garbage out of all University of Illinois Buildings. Little Red Sambo is finally gone--no thanks to you, the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor, the Provost and previous Board Members, Presidents, Chancellors and Provosts--except for Nancy Kantor whom you all summarily ran out of town on a rail for doing the right thing for American Indians. But now you and the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor and the Provost must concentrate on getting rid of all elements of Little Red Samboism from this campus. Based upon prior experience, I will not hold my breath. But we will keep coming after you all until you do the right thing for American Indians. Professor Francis A. Boyle cc: University of Illinois Board of Trustees Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) __._,_.___ Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 7:36 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: News Gazoo for Chief Illiniwak & Mussolini Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 4:40 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: News Gazette for Mussolini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Mar 5 21:39:10 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 21:39:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] Article on planning for Trump Military Parade protest References: Message-ID: <0AA3FA2E-108C-4647-A3F5-5C0A58EEA400@illinois.edu> FYI. An action worth while! Begin forwarded message: From: Kevin Zeese > Subject: [ufpj-activist] Article on planning for Trump Military Parade protest Date: March 5, 2018 at 11:04:37 AM CST To: ufpj-activist > There are now 39 organizations signed pn to particpate in the protest against the military parade. You can see them as well as sign up on the No Trump Military Parade website. Please share this website with organizations you are part of or who you think should participate. Individuals can also sign on to participate. Below is our weekly newsletter article which focuses on the organizing for this protest. Thanks for promoting this united effort to oppose the normalization and glorification of militarism. KZ https://popularresistance.org/mass-mobilization-militarism/ MASS MOBILIZATION AGAINST TRUMP MILITARY PARADE By Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese, Popular Resistance. March 4, 2018 | NEWSLETTER, President Trump ordered the Pentagon to start planning a military parade on Veteran’s Day this November. Trump wants to outdo the military parade he attended in France on Bastille Day. Estimates are it could cost up to $50 million. The last military parade was after the Gulf War in 1991. A coalition of groups is organizing to oppose the parade, click here to learn more. [https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/03/1moab-e1520217731692.png] Military parade in dangerous times This display of military power and glorification of war comes when the risks of nuclear conflict and wars are rising. It comes when massive tax cuts have been given to the rich while spending on domestic needs are threatened and a recession is looming. A military parade is a manifestation of many problems – threats of war and ongoing imperialism, the fading US empire trying to hang on to global hegemony, militarization of our communities and an economy and government that serve the elites’ interests while the rest of the population struggles. The military parade will try to intimidate other nations by displaying the US’ weapons, but it will actually demonstrate an insecure fading empire trying to show it still has power. In his state of the union this week, President Putin announced Russia’s new weapons system that seem to make US defenses and weaponry obsolete. If true, this increases the risks of damage to the US if it attacks Russia or its allies. The Pentagon knows the US is losing its position as the major global power, but rather than accept reality, it is being more aggressive, seeking war and regime change in North Korea, Iran and Venezuela. The new National Defense Strategy and Nuclear Posture Review focus on Russia and China as rivals and escalate the arms race. State Department officials have been ordered to sell more weapons. It is time to de-escalate, not escalate. The US has killed more than 20 million people in 37 countries since the end of World War II. But, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted nearly unanimously to increase military spending by $40 billion more than requested. It is President Trump who ordered the parade, but US militarism is a product of both major political parties. The military parade will show the United States is marching in the wrong direction. [https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/03/1money4ppl-e1520217893216.jpg] Uniting against militarism and austerity When President Trump first mentioned a possible military parade, a number of groups started organizing responses. ANSWER Coalition put out a call for people to come to DC to protest, Roots Action launched a petition opposing the parade, and veteran’s groups started organizing an indigenous-led peace march calling for a return to celebrating Armistice Day. This November is the 100th anniversary of the armistice that ended World War I. When it became more likely that the parade would happen, we heard from people in the United States and around the world asking if protests would be held against it. Last week, Popular Resistance hosted a conference call to bring anti-war, peace and justice groups together to coordinate actions. There was great enthusiasm, energy and unity among the groups. We agreed to collaborate on actions around Veteran’s Day weekend to organize hundreds of thousands of people to come to Washington, DC to oppose the parade (or whatever city the parade is in if it is moved) and to call for solidarity actions around the world. We hope the parade will be cancelled. If it is, we will still gather to demand: 1. Stop the glorification and normalization of war. 2. Return Veteran’s Day to Armistice Day, a day to celebrate peace. 3. End US wars and acts of aggression, including regime change. 4. Cut military spending, invest in human needs and protection of the planet. 5. Stop the militarization of schools and communities. 6. Stop repression against dissent. Since the call, more groups have started signing on to the effort. Your organization can sign on here. A website was created, No Trump Military Parade. The growing list of organizations that have signed on is included and you can sign on as an individual. As the organizing advances, the website will include specific information on planned events and a map of solidarity actions in the United States and around the world, as well as flyers and other materials for outreach. [https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/03/1guns-e1520218001845.jpg] Time to end the culture of violence Elliott Swain argues that militarism at home and abroad are deeply connected. A school shooting by a white man trained to kill by the NRA and Pentagon-supported Jr ROTC program and a school bombing by the US military in Syria have intertwined roots. We must address both or we will fail in ending our culture of violence. In her new book, “Loaded, A Disarming History of the Second Amendment,” Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz describes the deep roots of the culture of violence and gun laws in the United States. She writes, we have “a history of inherently violent settler-colonialism and chattel slavery” that was made possible by militias. The violence of settler-colonialism continues today. Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report writes, “All the sound and fury about gun control is useless because this society demands that the slave patrol never disband. There are even arguments made to expand it.” She ties violence in the US to white supremacy and racism. Chris Hedges explains guns are equated with political power, “Mass culture and most historians do not acknowledge the patterns of violence that have played out over and over since the founding of the nation. This historical amnesia blinds us to the endemic violence that defines our culture and is encoded in our national myth.” We can take steps to start decolonizing the United States. We discussed that this week on Clearing the FOG with Sherri Mitchell, who describes in depth what can be done in her new book, “Sacred Instructions.” Militarization infects our communities in many ways. How can we blame people who turn to violence as a solution when that is the knee-jerk response of our nation? If we have a conflict with another country, usually because we want their resources, we make threats, impose sanctions or attack. If a community rises up with legitimate anger against oppressive systems, we send in militarized police and the national guard. Children are taught from a young age that members of the military are heroes. They are desensitized to violence through video games that target non-whites, television and movies, and are trained to kill through programs like Jr ROTC in their schools. These are all designed to feed them into the insatiable military machine. [https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/03/1budget-e1520218139216.jpg] This includes economic violence The statistics on deaths in the United States are staggering. Eric London lays it out: “Since 2000, there have been 270,000 murders in the US, 600,000 drug overdoses (200,000 involving opioids), 650,000 suicides (130,000 by veterans), and 85,000 workplace deaths. An estimated 700,000 people have died prematurely during this period due to lack of health care. Police killed over 12,000 people from 2000 to 2014, and up to 27,000 immigrants have died attempting to cross the US-Mexico border since 1998. The government has executed roughly 850 prisoners since 2000. Over 2.2 million adults are currently incarcerated in jails and prisons, with another 4.7 million on probation or parole.” That equals over 2.3 million deaths in the last 17 years, over 140,000 avoidable deaths each year. At the root of these deaths is economic violence that devastates communities in the US and other countries. Economic violence perpetrated in the US feeds the war machine. Military spending now consumes 57% of federal discretionary spending, leaving only 43% to meet basic needs such as education, housing, transportation and energy. Harel B. writes that our national security spending is close to $1 trillion a year. He estimates that an actual defense budget, rather than an Empire budget, would cost $100 billion annually. Imagine what could be done with an extra $900 billion in the US where 40% of the people live on the edge of poverty and the social safety net is shrinking. Imagine the high standard of living we could all attain if social needs were given a blank check, instead of the military. We don’t have to imagine it, other wealthy countries are already living with high quality healthcare systems, excellent public schools and free higher education. [https://popularresistance-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/03/nato-e1520218379331.jpg] Next Steps Organizing to oppose the military parade is an opportunity to unite people against war, militarism and violence. It is an opportunity to unite USians with people around the world who oppose US violence. A military parade will be a major error as it will show the United States to be an insecure nation at a time when people realize US empire is fading. Rather than the US recognizing it needs to join the community of nations in a multi-polar world, it will show the US trying to hang on to global dominance. A critical step is to grow the anti-war movement in the US. There are many upcoming opportunities: * April 14 and 15, people across the nation will protest the wars at home and abroad. * July 11 and 12 there will be international actions to demonstrate the desire for peace during the NATO summit. * October 20 and 21 is a Women’s March on the Pentagon. And of course, we urge you to join the mass mobilization to stop President Trump’s military parade and show the world that people in the US are ready to end wars. Visit No Trump Military Parade, sign on, and share it with people and organizations who oppose war. @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 [cid:D28D3695-C723-45DE-BED9-901493117D32 at example.com]_______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Guidelines: %(http://www.unitedforpeace.org/listserv-community-guidelines) Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/mkb0029%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: mkb0029 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: No Trump Military Parade image for article.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 49981 bytes Desc: No Trump Military Parade image for article.JPG URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Mar 6 00:20:42 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 00:20:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" In-Reply-To: <94eb2c0b06609f64760566b35937@google.com> References: <94eb2c0b06609f64760566b35937@google.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: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 6:16 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" [https://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4G6uo7hLAq4/mqdefault.jpg] Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians by UPTV6 University of Illinois College of Law professor Francis Boyle speaks to the grave injustice that is the treatment of the Palestinian people both within the West Bank and Gaza, as well as within Israel proper. His areas of expertise include Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Jurisprudence, and ... Help center • Report spam ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 00:49:10 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 00:49:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians References: Message-ID: Hi Karen & Stuart, Here’s the video on Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians from last Thursday - https://youtu.be/4G6uo7hLAq4 Stuart, that audio recorder worked great! We’ll remember that for the future. Thanks for recording! Karen, Jake will be in touch with broadcast times on UPTV. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Mar 6 01:16:01 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 01:16:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] 6-minute video summary of Nov. 4 conference "Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons? Is it Legal? Constitutional? Just?" References: Message-ID: Check out the video. Some statements are not strong enough or encompass enough, but they are worthy of supporting in the interim. Begin forwarded message: From: Cole Harrison > Subject: [ufpj-activist] 6-minute video summary of Nov. 4 conference "Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons? Is it Legal? Constitutional? Just?" Date: March 5, 2018 at 5:59:29 PM CST To: UFPJ Activist list >, Bananas list > Dear Peace Movement Allies, [cid:ii_jeeuznei0_161f880f39af1ef3] As you may remember, Massachusetts Peace Action and others held a Nov. 4 conference, “Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons: Is it Legal? Is it Constitutional? Is it Just?” at Harvard Science Center. Some of you attended and we were grateful for that! We have posted a 6-minute video showing the conference highlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr-bXzvgQBw&index=1&list=PL2SOU6wwxB0vZEgAvRotf9-INc9nA8t02 And here are the edited transcripts of the talks published this week in Public Books: http://www.publicbooks.org/virtual-roundtable-on-presidential-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons/ Public Books is a widely read online journal (the median age of its readers is 24-25; they read it on their cell phones). I would appreciate your spreading those links to your networks, perhaps connecting them to an ask to support HR.669/S.200 along the lines of: Right now, the most important step you can take to prevent presidential first use of a nuclear weapon is the one you will hear the speakers (including former Secretary of Defense William Perry) identify in the 6-minute video: support HR.669 and S.200 by contacting your representatives and urging them to become co-sponsors of the bill that prohibits the president from launching a missile in the absence of a Congressional Declaration of War. Of nine Massachusetts representatives in the House, only Reps. McGovern, Clark, and Tsongas have cosponsored so far; especially if you are a constituent of Reps. Capuano, Kennedy, Moulton, Lynch, Keating, or Neal, please contact them! You can use this page to send your message, or call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Once the injuries occur, we won’t be able to undo them. Please act now to prohibit presidential first use. Please ask your friends, neighbors, and co-workers to act as well – especially if their representatives in the House or Senate aren’t yet co-sponsors. By the way our next conference, "Minds Not Missiles: Reducing the Threat of Nuclear War", will be held at MIT on April 7-8. We invite you to attend, and particularly request your help in calling that conference to the attention of students (travel support is available). With thanks and best wishes, Elaine Scarry author Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing between Democracy and Doom Harvard University Jonathan King Chair, Nuclear Disarmament Working Group, Massachusetts Peace Action MIT Cole Harrison Executive Director, MAPA -- "Not one step back" Cole Harrison Executive Director Massachusetts Peace Action - the Commonwealth's largest grassroots peace organization 11 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138 617-354-2169 w 617-466-9274 m www.masspeaceaction.org Facebook: facebook.com/masspeaceaction Twitter: masspeaceaction [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png] Virus-free. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Guidelines: %(http://www.unitedforpeace.org/listserv-community-guidelines) Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/mkb0029%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: mkb0029 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 692144 bytes Desc: image.png URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Mar 6 01:42:45 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 01:42:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Unfortunate that Francis Boyle relies on the Yugoslav conflict to buttress his arguments against Israel. I give more credence to Diana Johnstone’s analysis of what went on there; there was genocide against the Bosnians. The conflict was more an effort by the U.S. and NATO to destroy Yugoslavia. On Mar 5, 2018, at 6:49 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Hi Karen & Stuart, Here’s the video on Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians from last Thursday - https://youtu.be/4G6uo7hLAq4 Stuart, that audio recorder worked great! We’ll remember that for the future. Thanks for recording! Karen, Jake will be in touch with broadcast times on UPTV. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 6 01:53:09 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 19:53:09 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <640748DD-9F61-4FB6-91FC-1780D4C19469@gmail.com> > On Mar 5, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Unfortunate that Francis Boyle relies on the Yugoslav conflict to buttress his arguments against Israel. I give more credence to Diana Johnstone’s analysis of what went on there… > The conflict was more an effort by the U.S. and NATO to destroy Yugoslavia. > I think Mort is quite right about this. See the following account from a dozen years ago. —CGE =========================== On the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia Noam Chomsky interviewed by Danilo Mandic April 25, 2006... DM: Last month marked the seventh anniversary of the beginning of the bombing of Yugoslavia. Why did NATO wage that war or I should say why did the United States wage that war? NC: Actually, we have for the first time a very authoratative comment on that from the highest level of Clinton administration, which is something that one could have surmised before, but now it is asserted. This is from Strobe Talbott who was in charge of the…he ran the Pentagon/State Department intelligence Joint Committee on the diplomacy during the whole affair including the bombing, so that’s very top of Clinton administration; he just wrote the forward to a book by his Director of Communications, John Norris, and in the forward he says if you really want to understand what the thinking was of the top of Clinton administration this is the book you should read and take a look on John Norris’s book and what he says is that the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians. It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated. That’s from the highest level. Again, we could have guessed it, but I’ve never seen it said before. That it wasn’t because of the Kosovo Albanians, that we know. And this is a point of religious fanaticism that the West can’t talk about for interesting reasons having to do with Western culture, but there is just overwhelming documentation, impeccable documentation. Two big compilations of the State Department trying to justify the war, the OSCE records, NATO records, KIM Monitor records, long British Parliamentary inquiry which led into it. They all showed the same thing – and sort of what we knew, I mean it was an ugly place, there were atrocities there. DM: Given this clear documentary record I want to ask you about the elite Intellectual opinion, what you call… NC: In the United States. DM: …in the United States and in the West in general, because reviewing it you would get the impression – you would be forgiven for imagining that every critic of the NATO intervention was one of two things: either a “Milosevic sympathizer” or someone who doesn’t care about genocide. What does this mean? NC: First of all that’s a common feature of intellectual culture. One good U.S. critic, Harold Rosenberg once described intellectuals as the “herd of independent minds.” They think they are very independent but they are a stampede in a herd, which is true; when there is a party line, you have to adhere to it and the party line is systematic. The party line is subordination to state power and to state violence. Now you are allowed to criticize it but on a very narrow grounds. You can criticize it because it is not working or for some mistake or benign intentions that went astray or something, like you see right now in Iraq war, the tone of debate about Iraq war but take a look at it – it’s very similar to the debate in PRAVDA during the invasion of Afghanistan. Actually I brought this up to a Polish reporter recently and I asked him if he had been reading PRAVDA. He just laughed and said yeah it’s the same. Now you read PRAVDA in the nineteen eighties, it’s you know: “the travail of the Russian soldiers that are going to get killed and now there are these terrorists who prevent us from bringing justice and peace to the Afghans, we of course did not invade them, we intervened and helped them at the request of the legitimate government, the terrorists are preventing us from doing all good the things we wanted to do etc.” I have read Japanese counter-insurgency documents from the second WW, from the ninety thirties – the same, you know: “…we tried to bring them an earthly paradise, but the Chinese bandits are preventing it …” in fact I don’t know of any exception in history. If you want, British imperialism is the same, I mean even people of the highest moral integrity like John Stewart Mill were talking about, well we have to intervene in India and conquer India because the barbarians can’t control themselves, there are atrocities, we are to bring them the benefits of the British rule and civilization and so on. Now in the United States it’s the same. Now take bombing of Kosovo; that was an incredibly important event for American intellectuals and the reason it had to do it all was for what was going on during nineties. And the nineties are for the West, not just the U.S. and France and England were the worst – probably the low point in intellectual history for the West, I think. I mean it was like a comic strip mimicking a satire of Stalinism, literally. You take a look at the New York Times or read the French press, the British press, there was all full of talk about how there is a “normative revolution” that has swept through the West, for the first time in history, a state namely the United States, “the leader of the free world” is acting from “pure altruism”, …Clinton’s policy has entered into a “noble phase,” with a “saintly glow” on and on, I am quoting from the liberals. DM: Now, this particular humanitarian sharade was… NC: That’s pre Kosovo. DM: Right. And it was specific in a sense because it was based on the claim that it was preventing genocide. NC: Now this is, see there are no examples yet. DM: Let me just read something that you said in an interview around the time of the bombing. You said that “the term “genocide” as applied to Kosovo is an insult to the victims of Hitler. In fact, it’s revisionist to an extreme.” What did you mean by that? NC: First of all let me just fix the timing. The things I’ve been quoting are from the late nineties. DM: Before Kosovo. NC: Yeah. Now, they needed some event to justify this massive self-adulation, OK? Along came Kosovo fortunately and so now they had to stop genocide. What was the genocide in Kosovo? We know from the Western documentation what it was. In the year prior to the bombing, according to Western sources about two thousand people were killed, the killings were distributed, a lot of them were coming in fact according to British government, which was the most hawkish element of the Alliance, up until January 1999 a majority of killings came from the KLA guerillas who were coming in as they said, you know, to try to incite a harsh Serbian response, which they got, in order to appeal to Western humanitarians to bomb. We know from the Western records that nothing changed between January and March, in fact up until March 20 they indicate nothing. March 20th they indicate an increase in KLA attacks. But, it was ugly but by international standards it was almost invisible unfortunately and it was very distributed. If the British are correct, the majority was coming from the KLA guerillas. DM: And as it later turned out the KLA was also receiving financial and military support. NC: They were being supported by CIA in those months. And to call that genocide, is really to insult the victims of the holocaust, you know, if that’s genocide than the whole world is covered with genocide. In fact it’s kind of striking; right at the same time the Western intellectuals were praising themselves for their magnificent humanitarianism, much worse atrocities were going on right across the border, in Turkey. That’s inside NATO, not at the borders of NATO… “how can we allow this on the borders of NATO,”… but how about inside NATO where Turkey was carrying, had driven probably several million Kurds out of their homes, destroyed about 3500 villages laid waste the whole place, every conceivable form of torture and massacre you can imagine, killed nobody knows how many people, we don’t count our victims, tens of thousands of people, how they were able to do that? The reason is because they were getting 80% of their arms from Clinton and as the atrocities increased, the arms flow increased. In fact in one single year, 1997, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than the entire Cold War period combined! Up until the counter-insurgency. That was not reported in the West. You do not report your own crimes, that’s critical. And right in the midst of all of this, “how can we tolerate a couple of thousand people being killed in Kosovo, mixed guerillas and …” In fact the 50th Anniversary of NATO took place right in the middle of all of this. And there were lamentations about what was going on right across NATO’s border. Not a word about the much worse things going on inside NATO’s borders, thanks to the massive flow of arms from the United States. Now that’s only one case. Comparable things were going on all over where the U.S. were supportive of much worse, but this, you had to focus on this, that was the topic for “the herd of independent minds.” It played a crucial role in their self image because they had been going through a period of praising themselves for their magnificence in their “normative revolution” and their “noble phase” and so on and so forth, so it was a god-sent, and therefore you couldn’t ask any questions about it. Incidentally the same happened in the earlier phase of the Balkan wars. It was awful, and so on and so forth. However, but if you look at the coverage, for example there was one famous incident which has completely reshaped the Western opinion and that was the photograph of the thin man behind the barb-wire. DM: A fraudulent photograph, as it turned out. NC: You remember. The thin men behind the barb-wire so that was Auschwitz and ‘we can’t have Auschwitz again.’ The intellectuals went crazy and the French were posturing on television and the usual antics. Well, you know, it was investigated and carefully investigated. In fact it was investigated by the leading Western specialist on the topic, Philip Knightly, who is a highly respected media analyst and his specialty is photo journalism, probably the most famous Western and most respected Western analyst in this. He did a detailed analysis of it. And he determined that it was probably the reporters who were behind the barb-wire, and the place was ugly, but it was a refugee camp, I mean, people could leave if they wanted and, near the thin man was a fat man and so on, well and there was one tiny newspaper in England, probably three people, called LM which ran a critique of this, and the British (who haven’t a slightest concept of freedom of speech, that is a total fraud)…a major corporation, ITN, a big media corporation had publicized this, so the corporation sued the tiny newspaper for lible. Now the British lible laws were absolutely atrocious. The person accused has to prove that the, what he’s reporting is not done in malice and he can’t prove that. So and in fact when you have a huge corporation with batteries of lawyers and so on, carrying out a suit against the three people in the office, who probably don’t have the pocket-money, it’s obvious what is going to happen. Especially under these grotesque lible laws. So yes, they were able to prove the little newspaper…and couldn’t prove it wasn’t done out of malice, they were put out of business. There was just euphoria in the left liberal British press. You’ve read The Guardian and The Observer, they thought it was wonderful. DM: Mentioning The Guardian, what you describe is… NC: Sorry, incidentally…, after they put the newspaper out of business under this utterly grotesque legal case of the British laws, the left liberal newspapers, like The Guardian were just in a state of euphoria about this wonderful achievement. They had managed to destroy a tiny newspaper because it questioned some image that they had presented and they were very proud of themselves for it, which was probably misunderstood or misinterpreted. Well, Philip Knightly, he wrote a very harsh critique of the British media for behaving in this way, and tried to teach them an elementary lesson about freedom of speech. He also added that probably the photograph was misinterpreted. Couldn’t get published. Well, you know, that’s when Kosovo came along, it was the same thing. That you can not tell the truth about it, look I’ve gone through a ton of reporting on this, almost invariably they inverted the chronology. There were atrocities… DM: But after the bombing. NC: After the bombing. The way it’s presented is: the atrocities took place and then we had to bomb to prevent genocide, just inverted. DM: Let me ask you about the conduct of the actual war. You mentioned The Guardian, it’s interesting because you yourself had recently had an unpleasant experience… NC: Over this. DM: … when The Guardian misquoting you over Srebrenica. It misquoted you to make it appear as if you were questioning the Srebrenica massacre. But let me bring you back to the conduct of the actual war. That was another… NC: … the 1999 bombing. DM: The bombing, which was also overlooked or selectively covered by the Western media in general. Now, Amnesty International, among others, reported that “NATO committed serious violations of the rules of war during it’s campaign”, numerous human rights groups concur and document various war crimes. One of them had its anniversary two days ago, when the Radio Television Serbia was bombed, the national television, its headquarters, killing 16 people. First of all, why were these crimes completely unreported, and secondly, is there any prospects for there being any responsibility taken for these crimes? NC: I’d say the crimes were reported but they were cheered. It’s not that they were unknown, like the bombing of the radio station, yes, it was reported and the TV station, but it’s fine. Because the TV station was described as a propaganda outlet, so therefore it was right to bomb. That happens all the time. It just happened last year, in November 2004. One of the worst war crimes in Iraq… DM: Al Jazeera … NC: … was invasion of Falluja. Al Jazeera’s one thing, but there was worse. The invasion of Falluja was kind of similar to Srebrenica, if you look, but … They invaded Falluja; the first thing the invading troops did, U.S. troops, was to take over the general hospital and throw the patients on the floor, they were taken out their beds, put on the floor, hands tied on their backs, doctors thrown on the floor, hands on their backs, it was a picture of it in the front page of the The New York Times, they said it was wonderful. DM: The Geneva Convention forbids hospitals to be… NC: It’s a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and George Bush should be facing the death penalty for that, even under the U.S. law. But it was presented, no mention of the Geneva Conventions, and it was presented as a wonderful thing, because the Falluja general hospital was a “propaganda center,” namely it was releasing casualty figures, so therefore it was correct to carry out a massive war crime. Well, the bombing of the TV station was presented the same way. In fact, as I’m sure you recall, there was an offer from NATO that they would not bomb if they agreed to broadcast six hours of NATO propaganda. Well, this is considered quite right. How can it be dealt with? A group of international lawyers did appeal to the International Tribunal on the Yugoslavia. They presented a brief, saying they should look into NATO war crimes, but what they cited was reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and admissions by the NATO command. That was what they presented, the…I am forgetting, but I think it was Karla Del Ponte at the time; she would not look at it, in violation of the laws of the Tribunal, because she “had faith in NATO.” And that was the answer. Well, something else interesting happened after that: Yugoslavia did bring the case to the War Court… DM: Which also rejected the case. NC: The Court accepted it and in fact deliberated for a couple of years it may still be, but what is interesting is that the U.S. excused itself from the case and the Court accepted the excuse. Why? Because Yugoslavia had mentioned the Genocide Convention and the U.S. did sign the Genocide Convention (after forty years), it ratified it, but it ratified it with reservation, saying “inapplicable to the United States”. So in other words, the United States is entitled to commit genocide, therefore and that was the case that the U.S. Justice Department of President Clinton’s brought to the World Court and the Court had to agree. If a country does not accept World Court jurisdiction, it has to be excluded, so the U.S. was excluded from the trial, on the grounds that it grants itself the right to commit genocide. Do you think this was reported here? DM: The World Court, though, excused itself from hearing the case trying the illegality of the war, on the grounds that Yugoslavia was not a full member of the United Nations at the time when the case was brought to the… NC: Maybe they’ve finally reached that… DM: …they finally did that… NC: …for several years they were deliberating but that’s the sequence, does any of this get reported? You can ask your friends at Princeton, ask the faculty. They don’t know. I mean these… any more than… they will know that, they sort of probably remember the bombing, the capture of the General Hospital in Falluja but, was there any comment saying that was a war crime? DM: What struck me was that you compared the Srebrenica massacre with the Falluja invasion, why is that? NC: Because there are similarities. DM: Like what? NC: In the case of Srebrenica women and children were trucked out and then came, you know, the massacre. In the case of Falluja, the women and children were ordered out, they weren’t trucked out, they were ordered out, but the men weren’t allowed to leave and then came the attack. In fact, it turned out that the roads out were blocked. Well, I mean all things, it’s not the same story, but that part is similar. I actually mentioned that a couple of times. Storms of protest hysteria, you know. Incidentally this Guardian affair – part of it which was totally fraud is on the part of the editors, not the reporter. They blamed it on the reporter, but it was the editors. One other thing that they were infuriated about was that she asked me what about the thin man behind the barb-wire, isn’t that a horrible atrocity? I said well, you know, it’s not certain that it was correct. OK, that led to the hysteria. That’s when Philip Knightly tried to intervene to present once again his analysis and once again his critique of the media, but couldn’t. He is a very prominent, prestigious person. You just cannot break ranks; that’s not tolerated. I mean, we are lucky, we do not have censorship, it’s free society, but the self-censorship is overwhelming. Actually, Orwell once wrote about this, in something that nobody has read. Everyone has read Animal Farm and almost nobody has read the introduction to Animal Farm… DM: Unpublished. NC: Unpublished, came out in his unpublished papers, thirty years later. In it what he said is, Animal Farm is a satire of this totalitarian state, he said free England is not very different. In free England unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force and he gave examples. It’s very similar here. And it does not matter how extreme they are, I mean the Iraq invasion is a perfect example. There is not, you can not find anywhere in the main stream a suggestion that it is wrongful to invade another country. If you had invaded another country you have to pay reparations, you have to withdraw and the leadership has to be punished. I mean, and I don’t know if you have read the Nuremburg Judgments, but after the Nuremburg Judgments, Justice Jackson, Chief of Council of Prosecution of the U.S. Justice, made very, very eloquent statements about how we must…we are sentencing these people to death of the crimes for which they committed or crimes when anybody commits them, including when we commit them, we have to live up to that. He said “we are handing the defendants a poison chalice, and if we sipped from this chalice we must be treated the same way.” Can’t be more explicit! They also defined aggression. Aggression was defined in terms which just apply absolutely and without exception not only to the invasion of Iraq but to all sorts of other invasions, in Vietnam and many others, actually even terrorist war against Nicaragua, technically falls under the crime of aggression as defined in Nuremburg. DM: Does the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia? NC: Yes. And that’s not even questioned. In fact there is a, there was a so-called, an Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Kosovo bombing led by a very respected South African jurist – Justice Goldstone – and they concluded that the bombing was, in their words, “illegal but legitimate”. Illegal makes it a war crime. But they said it was legitimate because it was necessary to stop genocide. And then comes the usual inversion of the history. Actually, Justice Goldstone who was a respectable person, later recognized that the atrocities came after the bombing. And that they were furthermore the anticipated consequence, he did recognize that in a lecture in New York, couple of years ago, he said: “well, nevertheless we can take some comfort in the fact that Serbia was planning it anyway, and the proof for they were planning it is” guess what – “Operation Horse-Shoe”, – a probable intelligence fabrication that was publicized after the bombing, so even if it was true, it wouldn’t matter. And furthermore, even if that was true, it was a contingency plan. Now look, Israel has a contingency plans to drive all the Palestinians out of the West Bank if there is a conflict, so does that mean that Iran has the right to bomb Israel? Now, the U.S. has contingency plans to invade Canada, OK so does that mean that everybody has a right to bomb the United States? That’s the last straw of justification on the part of a respectable person. But for the “herd of independent minds” it just does not matter. The bombing was because of their “high values”, and their “nobility” and was to stop genocide. Say anything else, you know… tons of vilification and abuse comes. But it’s not just on this issue, it’s on every issue. So try to bring up the idea…take, say, the Vietnam War, a lot of time has passed, a huge amount of scholarship, tons of documentation, blew up the country… DM: Let me just interrupt, I’m sorry, we won’t have time to go into that… NC: OK. DM: I want to ask you about some of the present developments that are being used again to fabricate a lot of these issues. Slobodan Milosevic died last month. What is the significance of his death in your view? NC: Milosevic was, he committed many crimes, not a nice person, terrible person, but the charges against him would have never have held up. He was originally indicted on the Kosovo charges. The indictment was issued right in the middle of bombing which already nullifies it. It used British, it admittedly used British and the U.S. intelligence right in the middle of bombing, can’t possibly take it seriously. However if you look at the indictment, it was for crimes committed after the bombing. There was one exception: Racak. Let’s even grant that the claims are true, let’s put that aside. So, there was one exception, no evidence that he was involved or you know, it took place, But almost the entire indictment was for after the bombing. How are those charges going to stand up unless you put Bill Clinton and Tony Blair on the dock alongside? Then they realized that it was a weak case. So they added the early Balkan wars, OK? Lot of horrible things happened there. But the worst crime, the one that they were really going to charge him for that genocide was Srebrenica. Now, there is a little problem with that: namely there was an extensive, detailed inquiry into it by the Dutch Government, which was the responsible government, there were Dutch forces there, that’s a big, you know, hundreds of pages inquiry, and their conclusion is that Milosevic did not know anything about that, and that when it was discovered in Belgrade, they were horrified. Well, suppose that had entered into the testimony? DM: Does this mean that you are a “Milosevic sympathizer”? NC: No, he was terrible. In fact he should have been thrown out, in fact he probably would have been thrown out and in the early nineties if the Albanians had voted, it was pretty close. He did all sorts of terrible things but it wasn’t a totalitarian state, I mean, there were elections, there was the opposition, a lot of rotten things, but there are rotten things everywhere and I certainly wouldn’t want to have dinner with him or talk to him, and yes, he deserves to be tried for crimes, but this trial was never going to hold up, if it was even semi-honest. It was a farce; in fact they were lucky that he died. DM: In what sense? NC: Because they did not have to go through out the whole trial. Now they can, you can build up an image about how he would have been convicted as another Hitler. DM: Had he lived. NC: But now they don’t have to do it. DM: I just want to bring you back to the bombing of the RTS. Some have argued that this particular act of NATO’s in 1999 set precedants for targeting of media by the United States afterward – in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – that it set a precedant for legitimizing media houses and labeling them as propaganda in order to bomb them in U.S. invasions. Do you make any connection there? NC: Well, I mean, the chronology is correct. But I don’t think they need excuses. The point is: you bomb anybody you want to. Let’s take 1998, so it was before. Now in 1998, here’s another thing you’re not allowed to say in the States and the West that leads to hysteria, but I’ll say it – in 1998 Clinton bombed the major pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, OK? That was, this is the plant that’s using the most of the pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines for poor African country that’s under embargo, can’t replace it. What’s that going to do? Obviously they killed unknown numbers of people, in fact the U.S. barred an investigation by the UN so we don’t know and of course you don’t want to investigate your own crimes, but there were some evidence. So the German Ambassador, who is a fellow at the Harvard University to Sudan wrote an article in Harvard International Review in which he estimated the casualties in the tens of thousands of deaths. The research of the Head of the Near East Foundation, a very respectable foundation, their regional director had field work in Somalia and in Sudan, he did the study, he came out with the same conclusions, probably tens of thousands of dead. Right after the bombing, within weeks, Human Rights Watch issued a warning that it was going to be a humanitarian catastrophe and gave examples of aid workers being pulled out from areas where people were dying and so on. You can not mention this. Any mention of this brings the same hysteria, as criticizing the bombing of the TV station. So it’s unmentionable, it is a Western crime and therefore it was legitimate. Let’s just suppose that Al Quaida blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S., or England or Israel or any country in which people lived. Human beings, not ants, people. Fine. Can you imagine the reaction, we’d probably have a nuclear war, but when we do it to a poor African country – didn’t happen! Not discussed, in fact the only issue that is discussed if there is discussion is whether the intelligence was correct when it claimed that it was also producing chemical weapons. That is the only question. Mention anything else, the usual hysteria, and tirades…This is a very disciplined, Western intellectual culture is extremely disciplined. And rigid. You can not go beyond fixed bounds. It’s not, you know, it’s not censored, it’s all voluntary but it’s true and it’s not, incidentally, not free societies like this. In fact the third world countries are different. So take, say, Turkey, half third world; I mean in Turkey, the intellectuals, the leading intellectuals, now best known writers, academics, journalists, artists I mean they not only protest atrocities about the Kurdish massacre, they protest it constantly, but they were also constant in carrying out civil disobedience against them. I also participated with them sometimes. And they go publish banned writings which reported presented them to the Prosecutor’s Office, demand they were prosecuted. It’s not a joke, you know, facing… sometimes they are sent to prison, that’s no joke. There’s nothing like that in the West. Inconceivable. When I am in Western Europe I hear them telling me Turkey is not civilized enough to enter the European Union. I burst out laughing! It’s the other way round. DM: Speaking of democratic movements, there was a… [crew]: This is the last question. DM: OK, two more quick questions; one: you mentioned the democratic movements in various countries. There was of course a promising democratic movement in Serbia before and, of course, during the bombing. And people like Wesley Clark had claimed that this bombing would be of benefit to the anti-Milosevic forces, when it of course turned out to be a disaster. Was this a sincere evaluation on behalf of NATO? NC: Well, I can’t look into their minds. When you commit a crime it is extremely easy to find a justification for it. That’s true of personal life; it’s true of international affairs. So yes, maybe they believed it. I mean, I think there’s convincing evidence that the Japanese fascists believed that they were doing good when they carried out things in the Second World War. John Stewart Mill surely believed he was being honorable and noble when he was calling for the conquest of India right after some of the worst atrocities which I mentioned, you can easily believe you are noble. I mean, to me it’s obvious that it was going to harm the democratic movement, I heard about it and I couldn’t get much information but it was obvious that it was going to happen. I mean it is happening right now in Iran. There is a democratic movement in Iran, they are pleading with the United States not to maintain a harsh embargo, certainly not to attack, it is harming them, and it strengthens the most reactionary violent elements in the society, of course. DM: Let me ask you one final question about the future. Negotiations over Kosovo’s final status are under way right now, the United States is backing Agim Ceku, who was someone involved in ethnic cleansing not only in… NC: Not someone. He was a war criminal himself. What about the Krajina expulsion, which he was…. DM: First of all, what do you see as an appropriate, realistic solution for the final status of Kosovo and how does that differ from what the United States is now promoting? NC: My feeling has been for a long time that the only realistic solution is one that in fact was offered by the President of Serbia I think back round 1993 [Chomsky is referring to the proposal of former Serbian President of Yugoslavia, Dobrica Cosic], namely some kind of partition, with the Serbian, by now very few Serbs left but the, what were the Serbian areas being part of Serbia and the rest be what they called “independent” which means it’ll join Albania. I just don’t see…I didn’t see any other feasible solution ten years ago. DM: Shall we wrap up? Professor Chomsky, thank you very much. (Room ambience, room tone, reaction shots …) 273 Shares CHOMSKY.INFO From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Mar 6 03:15:37 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 03:15:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians References: <640748DD-9F61-4FB6-91FC-1780D4C19469@gmail.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) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 9:13 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' ; Brussel, Morton K Cc: Karen Aram Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians Yeah well the International Court of Justice--the World Court of the United Nations System--agreed with me repeatedly. 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) -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 7:53 PM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians > On Mar 5, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Unfortunate that Francis Boyle relies on the Yugoslav conflict to > buttress his arguments against Israel. I give more credence to Diana Johnstone’s analysis of what went on there… The conflict was more an effort by the U.S. and NATO to destroy Yugoslavia. > I think Mort is quite right about this. See the following account from a dozen years ago. —CGE =========================== On the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia Noam Chomsky interviewed by Danilo Mandic April 25, 2006... DM: Last month marked the seventh anniversary of the beginning of the bombing of Yugoslavia. Why did NATO wage that war or I should say why did the United States wage that war? NC: Actually, we have for the first time a very authoratative comment on that from the highest level of Clinton administration, which is something that one could have surmised before, but now it is asserted. This is from Strobe Talbott who was in charge of the…he ran the Pentagon/State Department intelligence Joint Committee on the diplomacy during the whole affair including the bombing, so that’s very top of Clinton administration; he just wrote the forward to a book by his Director of Communications, John Norris, and in the forward he says if you really want to understand what the thinking was of the top of Clinton administration this is the book you should read and take a look on John Norris’s book and what he says is that the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians. It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated. That’s from the highest level. Again, we could have guessed it, but I’ve never seen it said before. That it wasn’t because of the Kosovo Albanians, that we know. And this is a point of religious fanaticism that the West can’t talk about for interesting reasons having to do with Western culture, but there is just overwhelming documentation, impeccable documentation. Two big compilations of the State Department trying to justify the war, the OSCE records, NATO records, KIM Monitor records, long British Parliamentary inquiry which led into it. They all showed the same thing – and sort of what we knew, I mean it was an ugly place, there were atrocities there. DM: Given this clear documentary record I want to ask you about the elite Intellectual opinion, what you call… NC: In the United States. DM: …in the United States and in the West in general, because reviewing it you would get the impression – you would be forgiven for imagining that every critic of the NATO intervention was one of two things: either a “Milosevic sympathizer” or someone who doesn’t care about genocide. What does this mean? NC: First of all that’s a common feature of intellectual culture. One good U.S. critic, Harold Rosenberg once described intellectuals as the “herd of independent minds.” They think they are very independent but they are a stampede in a herd, which is true; when there is a party line, you have to adhere to it and the party line is systematic. The party line is subordination to state power and to state violence. Now you are allowed to criticize it but on a very narrow grounds. You can criticize it because it is not working or for some mistake or benign intentions that went astray or something, like you see right now in Iraq war, the tone of debate about Iraq war but take a look at it – it’s very similar to the debate in PRAVDA during the invasion of Afghanistan. Actually I brought this up to a Polish reporter recently and I asked him if he had been reading PRAVDA. He just laughed and said yeah it’s the same. Now you read PRAVDA in the nineteen eighties, it’s you know: “the travail of the Russian soldiers that are going to get killed and now there are these terrorists who prevent us from bringing justice and peace to the Afghans, we of course did not invade them, we intervened and helped them at the request of the legitimate government, the terrorists are preventing us from doing all good the things we wanted to do etc.” I have read Japanese counter-insurgency documents from the second WW, from the ninety thirties – the same, you know: “…we tried to bring them an earthly paradise, but the Chinese bandits are preventing it …” in fact I don’t know of any exception in history. If you want, British imperialism is the same, I mean even people of the highest moral integrity like John Stewart Mill were talking about, well we have to intervene in India and conquer India because the barbarians can’t control themselves, there are atrocities, we are to bring them the benefits of the British rule and civilization and so on. Now in the United States it’s the same. Now take bombing of Kosovo; that was an incredibly important event for American intellectuals and the reason it had to do it all was for what was going on during nineties. And the nineties are for the West, not just the U.S. and France and England were the worst – probably the low point in intellectual history for the West, I think. I mean it was like a comic strip mimicking a satire of Stalinism, literally. You take a look at the New York Times or read the French press, the British press, there was all full of talk about how there is a “normative revolution” that has swept through the West, for the first time in history, a state namely the United States, “the leader of the free world” is acting from “pure altruism”, …Clinton’s policy has entered into a “noble phase,” with a “saintly glow” on and on, I am quoting from the liberals. DM: Now, this particular humanitarian sharade was… NC: That’s pre Kosovo. DM: Right. And it was specific in a sense because it was based on the claim that it was preventing genocide. NC: Now this is, see there are no examples yet. DM: Let me just read something that you said in an interview around the time of the bombing. You said that “the term “genocide” as applied to Kosovo is an insult to the victims of Hitler. In fact, it’s revisionist to an extreme.” What did you mean by that? NC: First of all let me just fix the timing. The things I’ve been quoting are from the late nineties. DM: Before Kosovo. NC: Yeah. Now, they needed some event to justify this massive self-adulation, OK? Along came Kosovo fortunately and so now they had to stop genocide. What was the genocide in Kosovo? We know from the Western documentation what it was. In the year prior to the bombing, according to Western sources about two thousand people were killed, the killings were distributed, a lot of them were coming in fact according to British government, which was the most hawkish element of the Alliance, up until January 1999 a majority of killings came from the KLA guerillas who were coming in as they said, you know, to try to incite a harsh Serbian response, which they got, in order to appeal to Western humanitarians to bomb. We know from the Western records that nothing changed between January and March, in fact up until March 20 they indicate nothing. March 20th they indicate an increase in KLA attacks. But, it was ugly but by international standards it was almost invisible unfortunately and it was very distributed. If the British are correct, the majority was coming from the KLA guerillas. DM: And as it later turned out the KLA was also receiving financial and military support. NC: They were being supported by CIA in those months. And to call that genocide, is really to insult the victims of the holocaust, you know, if that’s genocide than the whole world is covered with genocide. In fact it’s kind of striking; right at the same time the Western intellectuals were praising themselves for their magnificent humanitarianism, much worse atrocities were going on right across the border, in Turkey. That’s inside NATO, not at the borders of NATO… “how can we allow this on the borders of NATO,”… but how about inside NATO where Turkey was carrying, had driven probably several million Kurds out of their homes, destroyed about 3500 villages laid waste the whole place, every conceivable form of torture and massacre you can imagine, killed nobody knows how many people, we don’t count our victims, tens of thousands of people, how they were able to do that? The reason is because they were getting 80% of their arms from Clinton and as the atrocities increased, the arms flow increased. In fact in one single year, 1997, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than the entire Cold War period combined! Up until the counter-insurgency. That was not reported in the West. You do not report your own crimes, that’s critical. And right in the midst of all of this, “how can we tolerate a couple of thousand people being killed in Kosovo, mixed guerillas and …” In fact the 50th Anniversary of NATO took place right in the middle of all of this. And there were lamentations about what was going on right across NATO’s border. Not a word about the much worse things going on inside NATO’s borders, thanks to the massive flow of arms from the United States. Now that’s only one case. Comparable things were going on all over where the U.S. were supportive of much worse, but this, you had to focus on this, that was the topic for “the herd of independent minds.” It played a crucial role in their self image because they had been going through a period of praising themselves for their magnificence in their “normative revolution” and their “noble phase” and so on and so forth, so it was a god-sent, and therefore you couldn’t ask any questions about it. Incidentally the same happened in the earlier phase of the Balkan wars. It was awful, and so on and so forth. However, but if you look at the coverage, for example there was one famous incident which has completely reshaped the Western opinion and that was the photograph of the thin man behind the barb-wire. DM: A fraudulent photograph, as it turned out. NC: You remember. The thin men behind the barb-wire so that was Auschwitz and ‘we can’t have Auschwitz again.’ The intellectuals went crazy and the French were posturing on television and the usual antics. Well, you know, it was investigated and carefully investigated. In fact it was investigated by the leading Western specialist on the topic, Philip Knightly, who is a highly respected media analyst and his specialty is photo journalism, probably the most famous Western and most respected Western analyst in this. He did a detailed analysis of it. And he determined that it was probably the reporters who were behind the barb-wire, and the place was ugly, but it was a refugee camp, I mean, people could leave if they wanted and, near the thin man was a fat man and so on, well and there was one tiny newspaper in England, probably three people, called LM which ran a critique of this, and the British (who haven’t a slightest concept of freedom of speech, that is a total fraud)…a major corporation, ITN, a big media corporation had publicized this, so the corporation sued the tiny newspaper for lible. Now the British lible laws were absolutely atrocious. The person accused has to prove that the, what he’s reporting is not done in malice and he can’t prove that. So and in fact when you have a huge corporation with batteries of lawyers and so on, carrying out a suit against the three people in the office, who probably don’t have the pocket-money, it’s obvious what is going to happen. Especially under these grotesque lible laws. So yes, they were able to prove the little newspaper…and couldn’t prove it wasn’t done out of malice, they were put out of business. There was just euphoria in the left liberal British press. You’ve read The Guardian and The Observer, they thought it was wonderful. DM: Mentioning The Guardian, what you describe is… NC: Sorry, incidentally…, after they put the newspaper out of business under this utterly grotesque legal case of the British laws, the left liberal newspapers, like The Guardian were just in a state of euphoria about this wonderful achievement. They had managed to destroy a tiny newspaper because it questioned some image that they had presented and they were very proud of themselves for it, which was probably misunderstood or misinterpreted. Well, Philip Knightly, he wrote a very harsh critique of the British media for behaving in this way, and tried to teach them an elementary lesson about freedom of speech. He also added that probably the photograph was misinterpreted. Couldn’t get published. Well, you know, that’s when Kosovo came along, it was the same thing. That you can not tell the truth about it, look I’ve gone through a ton of reporting on this, almost invariably they inverted the chronology. There were atrocities… DM: But after the bombing. NC: After the bombing. The way it’s presented is: the atrocities took place and then we had to bomb to prevent genocide, just inverted. DM: Let me ask you about the conduct of the actual war. You mentioned The Guardian, it’s interesting because you yourself had recently had an unpleasant experience… NC: Over this. DM: … when The Guardian misquoting you over Srebrenica. It misquoted you to make it appear as if you were questioning the Srebrenica massacre. But let me bring you back to the conduct of the actual war. That was another… NC: … the 1999 bombing. DM: The bombing, which was also overlooked or selectively covered by the Western media in general. Now, Amnesty International, among others, reported that “NATO committed serious violations of the rules of war during it’s campaign”, numerous human rights groups concur and document various war crimes. One of them had its anniversary two days ago, when the Radio Television Serbia was bombed, the national television, its headquarters, killing 16 people. First of all, why were these crimes completely unreported, and secondly, is there any prospects for there being any responsibility taken for these crimes? NC: I’d say the crimes were reported but they were cheered. It’s not that they were unknown, like the bombing of the radio station, yes, it was reported and the TV station, but it’s fine. Because the TV station was described as a propaganda outlet, so therefore it was right to bomb. That happens all the time. It just happened last year, in November 2004. One of the worst war crimes in Iraq… DM: Al Jazeera … NC: … was invasion of Falluja. Al Jazeera’s one thing, but there was worse. The invasion of Falluja was kind of similar to Srebrenica, if you look, but … They invaded Falluja; the first thing the invading troops did, U.S. troops, was to take over the general hospital and throw the patients on the floor, they were taken out their beds, put on the floor, hands tied on their backs, doctors thrown on the floor, hands on their backs, it was a picture of it in the front page of the The New York Times, they said it was wonderful. DM: The Geneva Convention forbids hospitals to be… NC: It’s a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and George Bush should be facing the death penalty for that, even under the U.S. law. But it was presented, no mention of the Geneva Conventions, and it was presented as a wonderful thing, because the Falluja general hospital was a “propaganda center,” namely it was releasing casualty figures, so therefore it was correct to carry out a massive war crime. Well, the bombing of the TV station was presented the same way. In fact, as I’m sure you recall, there was an offer from NATO that they would not bomb if they agreed to broadcast six hours of NATO propaganda. Well, this is considered quite right. How can it be dealt with? A group of international lawyers did appeal to the International Tribunal on the Yugoslavia. They presented a brief, saying they should look into NATO war crimes, but what they cited was reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and admissions by the NATO command. That was what they presented, the…I am forgetting, but I think it was Karla Del Ponte at the time; she would not look at it, in violation of the laws of the Tribunal, because she “had faith in NATO.” And that was the answer. Well, something else interesting happened after that: Yugoslavia did bring the case to the War Court… DM: Which also rejected the case. NC: The Court accepted it and in fact deliberated for a couple of years it may still be, but what is interesting is that the U.S. excused itself from the case and the Court accepted the excuse. Why? Because Yugoslavia had mentioned the Genocide Convention and the U.S. did sign the Genocide Convention (after forty years), it ratified it, but it ratified it with reservation, saying “inapplicable to the United States”. So in other words, the United States is entitled to commit genocide, therefore and that was the case that the U.S. Justice Department of President Clinton’s brought to the World Court and the Court had to agree. If a country does not accept World Court jurisdiction, it has to be excluded, so the U.S. was excluded from the trial, on the grounds that it grants itself the right to commit genocide. Do you think this was reported here? DM: The World Court, though, excused itself from hearing the case trying the illegality of the war, on the grounds that Yugoslavia was not a full member of the United Nations at the time when the case was brought to the… NC: Maybe they’ve finally reached that… DM: …they finally did that… NC: …for several years they were deliberating but that’s the sequence, does any of this get reported? You can ask your friends at Princeton, ask the faculty. They don’t know. I mean these… any more than… they will know that, they sort of probably remember the bombing, the capture of the General Hospital in Falluja but, was there any comment saying that was a war crime? DM: What struck me was that you compared the Srebrenica massacre with the Falluja invasion, why is that? NC: Because there are similarities. DM: Like what? NC: In the case of Srebrenica women and children were trucked out and then came, you know, the massacre. In the case of Falluja, the women and children were ordered out, they weren’t trucked out, they were ordered out, but the men weren’t allowed to leave and then came the attack. In fact, it turned out that the roads out were blocked. Well, I mean all things, it’s not the same story, but that part is similar. I actually mentioned that a couple of times. Storms of protest hysteria, you know. Incidentally this Guardian affair – part of it which was totally fraud is on the part of the editors, not the reporter. They blamed it on the reporter, but it was the editors. One other thing that they were infuriated about was that she asked me what about the thin man behind the barb-wire, isn’t that a horrible atrocity? I said well, you know, it’s not certain that it was correct. OK, that led to the hysteria. That’s when Philip Knightly tried to intervene to present once again his analysis and once again his critique of the media, but couldn’t. He is a very prominent, prestigious person. You just cannot break ranks; that’s not tolerated. I mean, we are lucky, we do not have censorship, it’s free society, but the self-censorship is overwhelming. Actually, Orwell once wrote about this, in something that nobody has read. Everyone has read Animal Farm and almost nobody has read the introduction to Animal Farm… DM: Unpublished. NC: Unpublished, came out in his unpublished papers, thirty years later. In it what he said is, Animal Farm is a satire of this totalitarian state, he said free England is not very different. In free England unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force and he gave examples. It’s very similar here. And it does not matter how extreme they are, I mean the Iraq invasion is a perfect example. There is not, you can not find anywhere in the main stream a suggestion that it is wrongful to invade another country. If you had invaded another country you have to pay reparations, you have to withdraw and the leadership has to be punished. I mean, and I don’t know if you have read the Nuremburg Judgments, but after the Nuremburg Judgments, Justice Jackson, Chief of Council of Prosecution of the U.S. Justice, made very, very eloquent statements about how we must…we are sentencing these people to death of the crimes for which they committed or crimes when anybody commits them, including when we commit them, we have to live up to that. He said “we are handing the defendants a poison chalice, and if we sipped from this chalice we must be treated the same way.” Can’t be more explicit! They also defined aggression. Aggression was defined in terms which just apply absolutely and without exception not only to the invasion of Iraq but to all sorts of other invasions, in Vietnam and many others, actually even terrorist war against Nicaragua, technically falls under the crime of aggression as defined in Nuremburg. DM: Does the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia? NC: Yes. And that’s not even questioned. In fact there is a, there was a so-called, an Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Kosovo bombing led by a very respected South African jurist – Justice Goldstone – and they concluded that the bombing was, in their words, “illegal but legitimate”. Illegal makes it a war crime. But they said it was legitimate because it was necessary to stop genocide. And then comes the usual inversion of the history. Actually, Justice Goldstone who was a respectable person, later recognized that the atrocities came after the bombing. And that they were furthermore the anticipated consequence, he did recognize that in a lecture in New York, couple of years ago, he said: “well, nevertheless we can take some comfort in the fact that Serbia was planning it anyway, and the proof for they were planning it is” guess what – “Operation Horse-Shoe”, – a probable intelligence fabrication that was publicized after the bombing, so even if it was true, it wouldn’t matter. And furthermore, even if that was true, it was a contingency plan. Now look, Israel has a contingency plans to drive all the Palestinians out of the West Bank if there is a conflict, so does that mean that Iran has the right to bomb Israel? Now, the U.S. has contingency plans to invade Canada, OK so does that mean that everybody has a right to bomb the United States? That’s the last straw of justification on the part of a respectable person. But for the “herd of independent minds” it just does not matter. The bombing was because of their “high values”, and their “nobility” and was to stop genocide. Say anything else, you know… tons of vilification and abuse comes. But it’s not just on this issue, it’s on every issue. So try to bring up the idea…take, say, the Vietnam War, a lot of time has passed, a huge amount of scholarship, tons of documentation, blew up the country… DM: Let me just interrupt, I’m sorry, we won’t have time to go into that… NC: OK. DM: I want to ask you about some of the present developments that are being used again to fabricate a lot of these issues. Slobodan Milosevic died last month. What is the significance of his death in your view? NC: Milosevic was, he committed many crimes, not a nice person, terrible person, but the charges against him would have never have held up. He was originally indicted on the Kosovo charges. The indictment was issued right in the middle of bombing which already nullifies it. It used British, it admittedly used British and the U.S. intelligence right in the middle of bombing, can’t possibly take it seriously. However if you look at the indictment, it was for crimes committed after the bombing. There was one exception: Racak. Let’s even grant that the claims are true, let’s put that aside. So, there was one exception, no evidence that he was involved or you know, it took place, But almost the entire indictment was for after the bombing. How are those charges going to stand up unless you put Bill Clinton and Tony Blair on the dock alongside? Then they realized that it was a weak case. So they added the early Balkan wars, OK? Lot of horrible things happened there. But the worst crime, the one that they were really going to charge him for that genocide was Srebrenica. Now, there is a little problem with that: namely there was an extensive, detailed inquiry into it by the Dutch Government, which was the responsible government, there were Dutch forces there, that’s a big, you know, hundreds of pages inquiry, and their conclusion is that Milosevic did not know anything about that, and that when it was discovered in Belgrade, they were horrified. Well, suppose that had entered into the testimony? DM: Does this mean that you are a “Milosevic sympathizer”? NC: No, he was terrible. In fact he should have been thrown out, in fact he probably would have been thrown out and in the early nineties if the Albanians had voted, it was pretty close. He did all sorts of terrible things but it wasn’t a totalitarian state, I mean, there were elections, there was the opposition, a lot of rotten things, but there are rotten things everywhere and I certainly wouldn’t want to have dinner with him or talk to him, and yes, he deserves to be tried for crimes, but this trial was never going to hold up, if it was even semi-honest. It was a farce; in fact they were lucky that he died. DM: In what sense? NC: Because they did not have to go through out the whole trial. Now they can, you can build up an image about how he would have been convicted as another Hitler. DM: Had he lived. NC: But now they don’t have to do it. DM: I just want to bring you back to the bombing of the RTS. Some have argued that this particular act of NATO’s in 1999 set precedants for targeting of media by the United States afterward – in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – that it set a precedant for legitimizing media houses and labeling them as propaganda in order to bomb them in U.S. invasions. Do you make any connection there? NC: Well, I mean, the chronology is correct. But I don’t think they need excuses. The point is: you bomb anybody you want to. Let’s take 1998, so it was before. Now in 1998, here’s another thing you’re not allowed to say in the States and the West that leads to hysteria, but I’ll say it – in 1998 Clinton bombed the major pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, OK? That was, this is the plant that’s using the most of the pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines for poor African country that’s under embargo, can’t replace it. What’s that going to do? Obviously they killed unknown numbers of people, in fact the U.S. barred an investigation by the UN so we don’t know and of course you don’t want to investigate your own crimes, but there were some evidence. So the German Ambassador, who is a fellow at the Harvard University to Sudan wrote an article in Harvard International Review in which he estimated the casualties in the tens of thousands of deaths. The research of the Head of the Near East Foundation, a very respectable foundation, their regional director had field work in Somalia and in Sudan, he did the study, he came out with the same conclusions, probably tens of thousands of dead. Right after the bombing, within weeks, Human Rights Watch issued a warning that it was going to be a humanitarian catastrophe and gave examples of aid workers being pulled out from areas where people were dying and so on. You can not mention this. Any mention of this brings the same hysteria, as criticizing the bombing of the TV station. So it’s unmentionable, it is a Western crime and therefore it was legitimate. Let’s just suppose that Al Quaida blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S., or England or Israel or any country in which people lived. Human beings, not ants, people. Fine. Can you imagine the reaction, we’d probably have a nuclear war, but when we do it to a poor African country – didn’t happen! Not discussed, in fact the only issue that is discussed if there is discussion is whether the intelligence was correct when it claimed that it was also producing chemical weapons. That is the only question. Mention anything else, the usual hysteria, and tirades…This is a very disciplined, Western intellectual culture is extremely disciplined. And rigid. You can not go beyond fixed bounds. It’s not, you know, it’s not censored, it’s all voluntary but it’s true and it’s not, incidentally, not free societies like this. In fact the third world countries are different. So take, say, Turkey, half third world; I mean in Turkey, the intellectuals, the leading intellectuals, now best known writers, academics, journalists, artists I mean they not only protest atrocities about the Kurdish massacre, they protest it constantly, but they were also constant in carrying out civil disobedience against them. I also participated with them sometimes. And they go publish banned writings which reported presented them to the Prosecutor’s Office, demand they were prosecuted. It’s not a joke, you know, facing… sometimes they are sent to prison, that’s no joke. There’s nothing like that in the West. Inconceivable. When I am in Western Europe I hear them telling me Turkey is not civilized enough to enter the European Union. I burst out laughing! It’s the other way round. DM: Speaking of democratic movements, there was a… [crew]: This is the last question. DM: OK, two more quick questions; one: you mentioned the democratic movements in various countries. There was of course a promising democratic movement in Serbia before and, of course, during the bombing. And people like Wesley Clark had claimed that this bombing would be of benefit to the anti-Milosevic forces, when it of course turned out to be a disaster. Was this a sincere evaluation on behalf of NATO? NC: Well, I can’t look into their minds. When you commit a crime it is extremely easy to find a justification for it. That’s true of personal life; it’s true of international affairs. So yes, maybe they believed it. I mean, I think there’s convincing evidence that the Japanese fascists believed that they were doing good when they carried out things in the Second World War. John Stewart Mill surely believed he was being honorable and noble when he was calling for the conquest of India right after some of the worst atrocities which I mentioned, you can easily believe you are noble. I mean, to me it’s obvious that it was going to harm the democratic movement, I heard about it and I couldn’t get much information but it was obvious that it was going to happen. I mean it is happening right now in Iran. There is a democratic movement in Iran, they are pleading with the United States not to maintain a harsh embargo, certainly not to attack, it is harming them, and it strengthens the most reactionary violent elements in the society, of course. DM: Let me ask you one final question about the future. Negotiations over Kosovo’s final status are under way right now, the United States is backing Agim Ceku, who was someone involved in ethnic cleansing not only in… NC: Not someone. He was a war criminal himself. What about the Krajina expulsion, which he was…. DM: First of all, what do you see as an appropriate, realistic solution for the final status of Kosovo and how does that differ from what the United States is now promoting? NC: My feeling has been for a long time that the only realistic solution is one that in fact was offered by the President of Serbia I think back round 1993 [Chomsky is referring to the proposal of former Serbian President of Yugoslavia, Dobrica Cosic], namely some kind of partition, with the Serbian, by now very few Serbs left but the, what were the Serbian areas being part of Serbia and the rest be what they called “independent” which means it’ll join Albania. I just don’t see…I didn’t see any other feasible solution ten years ago. DM: Shall we wrap up? Professor Chomsky, thank you very much. (Room ambience, room tone, reaction shots …) 273 Shares CHOMSKY.INFO _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Mar 6 03:18:32 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 03:18:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My sincere thanks to you all. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 6:49 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians Hi Karen & Stuart, Here’s the video on Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians from last Thursday - https://youtu.be/4G6uo7hLAq4 Stuart, that audio recorder worked great! We’ll remember that for the future. Thanks for recording! Karen, Jake will be in touch with broadcast times on UPTV. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 03:36:02 2018 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 03:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right In-Reply-To: References: <1562697972.-66084228@salsa4.salsa4DB.mail.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> It's a compelling talk, of course. He does not pull any punches. But if the U.S. govt. wanted to seriously promote a 2-state solution, it would happen. It is impossible if it's left just to Israel, the PA, and the BDS tactic. DG On ‎Sunday‎, ‎March‎ ‎4‎, ‎2018‎ ‎09‎:‎12‎:‎12‎ ‎PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: He, Gideon Levy, notes that he used to be for a two state solution, but now thinks that it's impossible. His is a pretty grim picture of the state of israel. Begin forwarded message: From:The Real News Network Subject:Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Date:March 4, 2018 at 11:30:46 AM CST To:mkb3 at mac.com Reply-To:noreply at therealnews.com Please add newsletter at therealnews.com to your email contacts to make sure you get our daily email. | | | | | | | The Real News Daily, Sunday March 4, 2018  | | | | | | MAKE A DONATION | | | Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Gideon Levy speaking at the Naitonal Press Club in Washington DC on the eve of the official AIPAC conference. Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Israeli daily Haaretz, says when you shoot a fifteen year old in the head and say he fell from his bicycle no zionist questions it, there is no room for debate and discussion, no room for the right and the left in Israel | | | Israel's Deepening Involvement in the Syrian War Israel has recently been intensifying air strikes and the arming of anti-government forces in Syria, some of which are close to Al Qaeda. Professor As'ad AbuKhalil explains how Israel's activity in Syria is part of a larger pattern of its overall foreign policy engagement around the world | | The Black Disinvestment Crisis Pt 3: Gentrification without Representation School Closings and Food Deserts in the African American community of West Dayton while tax incentives are given to build luxury housing downtown are the focus of a conversation with activists from Racial Justice NOW! | | | | Baltimore Councilman Compares Tax Break to 'Tropical Fruit That I Can't Pronounce' The glib remark came during a serious debate over the real cost of tax breaks to developers as the city moves forward with new incentives while state analysts warn the final price tag of these expansive private subsidies is unknown by Stephen Janis and Taya Graham | | Join The Dots Ep 5 - The Air We Breathe In this episode of Join The Dots, Real Media discusses the health effects of and possible solutions to air pollution as London breaks its annual air pollution limit in just the first month of 2018 | | | | Brazil's Military Takeover in Rio Sparks Authoritarian Fears Deeply unpopular Brazilian President Michel Temer issued a decree to put the military in charge of security in Rio de Janeiro instead of police, dubiously claiming the purpose is to crack down on crime. But many Brazilians worry that it's the first stage in a return to military rule, explains journalist Brian Mier | Featured Videos | | Is the Oil Industry Canada's 'Deep State'? | | | | | | | Honduras: the Never-Ending Coup | | | | | | | Chuck Schumer: War Hawk or Progressive? | | | | | | | | | | | Latest Columns | | | The Powerful Global Spy Alliance You Never Knew Existed | | | | | | | | Oil Market Fears: War, Default And Nuclear Weapons  | | | | | | | | Arizona “Ground Zero” for Koch Attack on Public Education | | | | | | | | Billionaire vs. Billionaire: Illinois Governors Race Breaking All State Campaign Finance Records | | | | | | | | What Could a Left Presidency Look Like in Mexico? | | | | | | | | China’s dilemma: Balancing support for militants with struggle against political violence | | | | | | | | Public-sector unions prepare to be kneecapped at the Supreme Court | | | | | | | | 'Really extreme' global weather event leaves scientists aghast | | | | | | | | Gulf crisis upends fiction of a separation of sports and politics  | | | | | | | | | We Support The Real News Network | | Emma Thompson | Kendrick Sampson | Gabriel Byrne | Nina Turner | Ralph Nader | Danny Glover | | | | | 231 Holliday Street Baltimore MD 21202 1 866 396 4231MAKE A DONATIONSUBSCRIBE | UNSUBSCRIBE | EMAIL PREFERENCES  Problems unsubscribing? Please contact us 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 davegreen84 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 03:36:02 2018 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 03:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right In-Reply-To: References: <1562697972.-66084228@salsa4.salsa4DB.mail.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> It's a compelling talk, of course. He does not pull any punches. But if the U.S. govt. wanted to seriously promote a 2-state solution, it would happen. It is impossible if it's left just to Israel, the PA, and the BDS tactic. DG On ‎Sunday‎, ‎March‎ ‎4‎, ‎2018‎ ‎09‎:‎12‎:‎12‎ ‎PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: He, Gideon Levy, notes that he used to be for a two state solution, but now thinks that it's impossible. His is a pretty grim picture of the state of israel. Begin forwarded message: From:The Real News Network Subject:Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Date:March 4, 2018 at 11:30:46 AM CST To:mkb3 at mac.com Reply-To:noreply at therealnews.com Please add newsletter at therealnews.com to your email contacts to make sure you get our daily email. | | | | | | | The Real News Daily, Sunday March 4, 2018  | | | | | | MAKE A DONATION | | | Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Gideon Levy speaking at the Naitonal Press Club in Washington DC on the eve of the official AIPAC conference. Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Israeli daily Haaretz, says when you shoot a fifteen year old in the head and say he fell from his bicycle no zionist questions it, there is no room for debate and discussion, no room for the right and the left in Israel | | | Israel's Deepening Involvement in the Syrian War Israel has recently been intensifying air strikes and the arming of anti-government forces in Syria, some of which are close to Al Qaeda. Professor As'ad AbuKhalil explains how Israel's activity in Syria is part of a larger pattern of its overall foreign policy engagement around the world | | The Black Disinvestment Crisis Pt 3: Gentrification without Representation School Closings and Food Deserts in the African American community of West Dayton while tax incentives are given to build luxury housing downtown are the focus of a conversation with activists from Racial Justice NOW! | | | | Baltimore Councilman Compares Tax Break to 'Tropical Fruit That I Can't Pronounce' The glib remark came during a serious debate over the real cost of tax breaks to developers as the city moves forward with new incentives while state analysts warn the final price tag of these expansive private subsidies is unknown by Stephen Janis and Taya Graham | | Join The Dots Ep 5 - The Air We Breathe In this episode of Join The Dots, Real Media discusses the health effects of and possible solutions to air pollution as London breaks its annual air pollution limit in just the first month of 2018 | | | | Brazil's Military Takeover in Rio Sparks Authoritarian Fears Deeply unpopular Brazilian President Michel Temer issued a decree to put the military in charge of security in Rio de Janeiro instead of police, dubiously claiming the purpose is to crack down on crime. But many Brazilians worry that it's the first stage in a return to military rule, explains journalist Brian Mier | Featured Videos | | Is the Oil Industry Canada's 'Deep State'? | | | | | | | Honduras: the Never-Ending Coup | | | | | | | Chuck Schumer: War Hawk or Progressive? | | | | | | | | | | | Latest Columns | | | The Powerful Global Spy Alliance You Never Knew Existed | | | | | | | | Oil Market Fears: War, Default And Nuclear Weapons  | | | | | | | | Arizona “Ground Zero” for Koch Attack on Public Education | | | | | | | | Billionaire vs. Billionaire: Illinois Governors Race Breaking All State Campaign Finance Records | | | | | | | | What Could a Left Presidency Look Like in Mexico? | | | | | | | | China’s dilemma: Balancing support for militants with struggle against political violence | | | | | | | | Public-sector unions prepare to be kneecapped at the Supreme Court | | | | | | | | 'Really extreme' global weather event leaves scientists aghast | | | | | | | | Gulf crisis upends fiction of a separation of sports and politics  | | | | | | | | | We Support The Real News Network | | Emma Thompson | Kendrick Sampson | Gabriel Byrne | Nina Turner | Ralph Nader | Danny Glover | | | | | 231 Holliday Street Baltimore MD 21202 1 866 396 4231MAKE A DONATIONSUBSCRIBE | UNSUBSCRIBE | EMAIL PREFERENCES  Problems unsubscribing? Please contact us 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 6 03:57:01 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 21:57:01 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right In-Reply-To: <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1562697972.-66084228@salsa4.salsa4DB.mail.salsalabs.com> <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This seems quite right. > On Mar 5, 2018, at 9:36 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > It's a compelling talk, of course. He does not pull any punches. But if the U.S. govt. wanted to seriously promote a 2-state solution, it would happen. It is impossible if it's left just to Israel, the PA, and the BDS tactic. > > DG From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 6 03:57:01 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 21:57:01 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right In-Reply-To: <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1562697972.-66084228@salsa4.salsa4DB.mail.salsalabs.com> <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This seems quite right. > On Mar 5, 2018, at 9:36 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > It's a compelling talk, of course. He does not pull any punches. But if the U.S. govt. wanted to seriously promote a 2-state solution, it would happen. It is impossible if it's left just to Israel, the PA, and the BDS tactic. > > DG From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Mar 6 04:01:37 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 04:01:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right In-Reply-To: <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1562697972.-66084228@salsa4.salsa4DB.mail.salsalabs.com> <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Yeah, as I have written in Breaking All The Rules (Clarity Press: 2009) Clinton ordered Indonesia to get out of East Timor—or else. A US President could order Israel to get out of Palestine—or else. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 9:36 PM To: Peace Discuss ; Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right It's a compelling talk, of course. He does not pull any punches. But if the U.S. govt. wanted to seriously promote a 2-state solution, it would happen. It is impossible if it's left just to Israel, the PA, and the BDS tactic. DG On ‎Sunday‎, ‎March‎ ‎4‎, ‎2018‎ ‎09‎:‎12‎:‎12‎ ‎PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: He, Gideon Levy, notes that he used to be for a two state solution, but now thinks that it's impossible. His is a pretty grim picture of the state of israel. Begin forwarded message: From: The Real News Network > Subject: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Date: March 4, 2018 at 11:30:46 AM CST To: mkb3 at mac.com Reply-To: noreply at therealnews.com Please add newsletter at therealnews.com to your email contacts to make sure you get our daily email. The Real News Daily, Sunday March 4, 2018 MAKE A DONATION [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/glevy0302.jpg] Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Gideon Levy speaking at the Naitonal Press Club in Washington DC on the eve of the official AIPAC conference. Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Israeli daily Haaretz, says when you shoot a fifteen year old in the head and say he fell from his bicycle no zionist questions it, there is no room for debate and discussion, no room for the right and the left in Israel [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/aabukhalil0302israelpt2.jpg]Israel's Deepening Involvement in the Syrian War Israel has recently been intensifying air strikes and the arming of anti-government forces in Syria, some of which are close to Al Qaeda. Professor As'ad AbuKhalil explains how Israel's activity in Syria is part of a larger pattern of its overall foreign policy engagement around the world [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/tgraham0205ohio.jpg]The Black Disinvestment Crisis Pt 3: Gentrification without Representation School Closings and Food Deserts in the African American community of West Dayton while tax incentives are given to build luxury housing downtown are the focus of a conversation with activists from Racial Justice NOW! [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/sjanis0302tax.jpg]Baltimore Councilman Compares Tax Break to 'Tropical Fruit That I Can't Pronounce' The glib remark came during a serious debate over the real cost of tax breaks to developers as the city moves forward with new incentives while state analysts warn the final price tag of these expansive private subsidies is unknown by Stephen Janis and Taya Graham [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/rm0301jtd5.jpg]Join The Dots Ep 5 - The Air We Breathe In this episode of Join The Dots, Real Media discusses the health effects of and possible solutions to air pollution as London breaks its annual air pollution limit in just the first month of 2018 [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/bmier0302brazil.jpg]Brazil's Military Takeover in Rio Sparks Authoritarian Fears Deeply unpopular Brazilian President Michel Temer issued a decree to put the military in charge of security in Rio de Janeiro instead of police, dubiously claiming the purpose is to crack down on crime. But many Brazilians worry that it's the first stage in a return to military rule, explains journalist Brian Mier [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/eblast_banner.png] Featured Videos [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/deepstatemovie.jpg]Is the Oil Industry Canada's 'Deep State'? [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-01-01/jfreeston0127honduras.jpg]Honduras: the Never-Ending Coup [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2017-05-01/thedges0502schumerFP.jpg]Chuck Schumer: War Hawk or Progressive? Latest Columns The Powerful Global Spy Alliance You Never Knew Existed Oil Market Fears: War, Default And Nuclear Weapons Arizona “Ground Zero” for Koch Attack on Public Education Billionaire vs. Billionaire: Illinois Governors Race Breaking All State Campaign Finance Records What Could a Left Presidency Look Like in Mexico? China’s dilemma: Balancing support for militants with struggle against political violence Public-sector unions prepare to be kneecapped at the Supreme Court 'Really extreme' global weather event leaves scientists aghast Gulf crisis upends fiction of a separation of sports and politics We Support The Real News Network [Emma Thompson] Emma Thompson [Kendrick Sampson] Kendrick Sampson [Gabriel Byrne] Gabriel Byrne [Nina Turner] Nina Turner [Ralph Nader] Ralph Nader [Danny Glover] Danny Glover [http://therealnews.com/t2/templates/gk_twn/images/logo3.png] 231 Holliday Street Baltimore MD 21202 1 866 396 4231 MAKE A DONATION SUBSCRIBE | UNSUBSCRIBE | EMAIL PREFERENCES Problems unsubscribing? Please contact us here. [empowered by Salsa] _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Mar 6 04:59:25 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 04:59:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right In-Reply-To: <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1562697972.-66084228@salsa4.salsa4DB.mail.salsalabs.com> <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A65DBA7-E64E-460E-A240-11AFDB85102F@illinois.edu> Levy answered that question, noting the “impossibility” of getting all those colonies removed from the west bank. Moreover, the U.S. would never force the Israelis to remove all those colonies. As Levy says, the U.S. never was, or would be, serious about a just two state solution (with the state of the world as it exists). So, you are fantasizing… On Mar 5, 2018, at 9:36 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: It's a compelling talk, of course. He does not pull any punches. But if the U.S. govt. wanted to seriously promote a 2-state solution, it would happen. It is impossible if it's left just to Israel, the PA, and the BDS tactic. DG On ‎Sunday‎, ‎March‎ ‎4‎, ‎2018‎ ‎09‎:‎12‎:‎12‎ ‎PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: He, Gideon Levy, notes that he used to be for a two state solution, but now thinks that it's impossible. His is a pretty grim picture of the state of israel. Begin forwarded message: From: The Real News Network > Subject: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Date: March 4, 2018 at 11:30:46 AM CST To: mkb3 at mac.com Reply-To: noreply at therealnews.com Please add newsletter at therealnews.com to your email contacts to make sure you get our daily email. The Real News Daily, Sunday March 4, 2018 MAKE A DONATION [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/glevy0302.jpg] Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Gideon Levy speaking at the Naitonal Press Club in Washington DC on the eve of the official AIPAC conference. Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Israeli daily Haaretz, says when you shoot a fifteen year old in the head and say he fell from his bicycle no zionist questions it, there is no room for debate and discussion, no room for the right and the left in Israel [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/aabukhalil0302israelpt2.jpg]Israel's Deepening Involvement in the Syrian War Israel has recently been intensifying air strikes and the arming of anti-government forces in Syria, some of which are close to Al Qaeda. Professor As'ad AbuKhalil explains how Israel's activity in Syria is part of a larger pattern of its overall foreign policy engagement around the world [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/tgraham0205ohio.jpg]The Black Disinvestment Crisis Pt 3: Gentrification without Representation School Closings and Food Deserts in the African American community of West Dayton while tax incentives are given to build luxury housing downtown are the focus of a conversation with activists from Racial Justice NOW! [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/sjanis0302tax.jpg]Baltimore Councilman Compares Tax Break to 'Tropical Fruit That I Can't Pronounce' The glib remark came during a serious debate over the real cost of tax breaks to developers as the city moves forward with new incentives while state analysts warn the final price tag of these expansive private subsidies is unknown by Stephen Janis and Taya Graham [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/rm0301jtd5.jpg]Join The Dots Ep 5 - The Air We Breathe In this episode of Join The Dots, Real Media discusses the health effects of and possible solutions to air pollution as London breaks its annual air pollution limit in just the first month of 2018 [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/bmier0302brazil.jpg]Brazil's Military Takeover in Rio Sparks Authoritarian Fears Deeply unpopular Brazilian President Michel Temer issued a decree to put the military in charge of security in Rio de Janeiro instead of police, dubiously claiming the purpose is to crack down on crime. But many Brazilians worry that it's the first stage in a return to military rule, explains journalist Brian Mier [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/eblast_banner.png] Featured Videos [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/deepstatemovie.jpg]Is the Oil Industry Canada's 'Deep State'? [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-01-01/jfreeston0127honduras.jpg]Honduras: the Never-Ending Coup [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2017-05-01/thedges0502schumerFP.jpg]Chuck Schumer: War Hawk or Progressive? Latest Columns The Powerful Global Spy Alliance You Never Knew Existed Oil Market Fears: War, Default And Nuclear Weapons Arizona “Ground Zero” for Koch Attack on Public Education Billionaire vs. Billionaire: Illinois Governors Race Breaking All State Campaign Finance Records What Could a Left Presidency Look Like in Mexico? China’s dilemma: Balancing support for militants with struggle against political violence Public-sector unions prepare to be kneecapped at the Supreme Court 'Really extreme' global weather event leaves scientists aghast Gulf crisis upends fiction of a separation of sports and politics We Support The Real News Network [Emma Thompson] Emma Thompson [Kendrick Sampson] Kendrick Sampson [Gabriel Byrne] Gabriel Byrne [Nina Turner] Nina Turner [Ralph Nader] Ralph Nader [Danny Glover] Danny Glover [http://therealnews.com/t2/templates/gk_twn/images/logo3.png] 231 Holliday Street Baltimore MD 21202 1 866 396 4231 MAKE A DONATION SUBSCRIBE | UNSUBSCRIBE | EMAIL PREFERENCES Problems unsubscribing? Please contact us here. [empowered by Salsa] _______________________________________________ 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 brussel at illinois.edu Tue Mar 6 04:59:25 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 04:59:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right In-Reply-To: <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1562697972.-66084228@salsa4.salsa4DB.mail.salsalabs.com> <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A65DBA7-E64E-460E-A240-11AFDB85102F@illinois.edu> Levy answered that question, noting the “impossibility” of getting all those colonies removed from the west bank. Moreover, the U.S. would never force the Israelis to remove all those colonies. As Levy says, the U.S. never was, or would be, serious about a just two state solution (with the state of the world as it exists). So, you are fantasizing… On Mar 5, 2018, at 9:36 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: It's a compelling talk, of course. He does not pull any punches. But if the U.S. govt. wanted to seriously promote a 2-state solution, it would happen. It is impossible if it's left just to Israel, the PA, and the BDS tactic. DG On ‎Sunday‎, ‎March‎ ‎4‎, ‎2018‎ ‎09‎:‎12‎:‎12‎ ‎PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: He, Gideon Levy, notes that he used to be for a two state solution, but now thinks that it's impossible. His is a pretty grim picture of the state of israel. Begin forwarded message: From: The Real News Network > Subject: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Date: March 4, 2018 at 11:30:46 AM CST To: mkb3 at mac.com Reply-To: noreply at therealnews.com Please add newsletter at therealnews.com to your email contacts to make sure you get our daily email. The Real News Daily, Sunday March 4, 2018 MAKE A DONATION [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/glevy0302.jpg] Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Gideon Levy speaking at the Naitonal Press Club in Washington DC on the eve of the official AIPAC conference. Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Israeli daily Haaretz, says when you shoot a fifteen year old in the head and say he fell from his bicycle no zionist questions it, there is no room for debate and discussion, no room for the right and the left in Israel [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/aabukhalil0302israelpt2.jpg]Israel's Deepening Involvement in the Syrian War Israel has recently been intensifying air strikes and the arming of anti-government forces in Syria, some of which are close to Al Qaeda. Professor As'ad AbuKhalil explains how Israel's activity in Syria is part of a larger pattern of its overall foreign policy engagement around the world [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/tgraham0205ohio.jpg]The Black Disinvestment Crisis Pt 3: Gentrification without Representation School Closings and Food Deserts in the African American community of West Dayton while tax incentives are given to build luxury housing downtown are the focus of a conversation with activists from Racial Justice NOW! [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/sjanis0302tax.jpg]Baltimore Councilman Compares Tax Break to 'Tropical Fruit That I Can't Pronounce' The glib remark came during a serious debate over the real cost of tax breaks to developers as the city moves forward with new incentives while state analysts warn the final price tag of these expansive private subsidies is unknown by Stephen Janis and Taya Graham [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/rm0301jtd5.jpg]Join The Dots Ep 5 - The Air We Breathe In this episode of Join The Dots, Real Media discusses the health effects of and possible solutions to air pollution as London breaks its annual air pollution limit in just the first month of 2018 [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/bmier0302brazil.jpg]Brazil's Military Takeover in Rio Sparks Authoritarian Fears Deeply unpopular Brazilian President Michel Temer issued a decree to put the military in charge of security in Rio de Janeiro instead of police, dubiously claiming the purpose is to crack down on crime. But many Brazilians worry that it's the first stage in a return to military rule, explains journalist Brian Mier [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/eblast_banner.png] Featured Videos [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/deepstatemovie.jpg]Is the Oil Industry Canada's 'Deep State'? [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-01-01/jfreeston0127honduras.jpg]Honduras: the Never-Ending Coup [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2017-05-01/thedges0502schumerFP.jpg]Chuck Schumer: War Hawk or Progressive? Latest Columns The Powerful Global Spy Alliance You Never Knew Existed Oil Market Fears: War, Default And Nuclear Weapons Arizona “Ground Zero” for Koch Attack on Public Education Billionaire vs. Billionaire: Illinois Governors Race Breaking All State Campaign Finance Records What Could a Left Presidency Look Like in Mexico? China’s dilemma: Balancing support for militants with struggle against political violence Public-sector unions prepare to be kneecapped at the Supreme Court 'Really extreme' global weather event leaves scientists aghast Gulf crisis upends fiction of a separation of sports and politics We Support The Real News Network [Emma Thompson] Emma Thompson [Kendrick Sampson] Kendrick Sampson [Gabriel Byrne] Gabriel Byrne [Nina Turner] Nina Turner [Ralph Nader] Ralph Nader [Danny Glover] Danny Glover [http://therealnews.com/t2/templates/gk_twn/images/logo3.png] 231 Holliday Street Baltimore MD 21202 1 866 396 4231 MAKE A DONATION SUBSCRIBE | UNSUBSCRIBE | EMAIL PREFERENCES Problems unsubscribing? Please contact us here. [empowered by Salsa] _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Mar 6 12:26:09 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 12:26:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: GEO Strike At University Of Illinois Makes History References: <5a9e82e2481b7_19cbe1265984382d6@asgworker-qmb2-27.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: From: Debra Schrishuhn For Progressive Democrats of America > Subject: GEO Strike At University Of Illinois Makes History [Progressive Democrats of America] Show Solidarity With The Striking Graduate Empoyees Dear Karen— Members of the Graduate Employees' Organization (IFT/AFT Local 6300) began a strike at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) on February 26, after 11 months of stonewalled negotiations and nearly seven months after their old contract expired. By Friday, the strike was the longest in UIUC history, with picket lines at nine campus buildings and more graduate workers swelling the lines daily. Hundreds of classes have been cancelled or moved to other sites. Although both sides called for talks over the weekend, mediation failed, and the strike continues this week. [GEO_Strikers.jpg] At stake: continuation of full tuition waivers for all graduate employees as stipulated in previous contracts, a living wage, and additional financial help on health care costs that are rising in part to Republican sabotage of the Affordable Care Act. Graduate students teach classes, grade papers, proctor exams, conduct research, and keep the University functioning at a high level of learning. The University fought the formation of this union for years, and ceaselessly tries to undermine it. Support the GEO by calling and emailing the UIUC Provost’s Office: (217) 333-6677; provost at illinois.edu Public attention to this struggle is vital if the GEO is to prevail. Together, we can make this happen. In solidarity, Debra Schrishuhn for Donna, Mike F., Judy, Mike H., Janis, Dr. Bill, Kimberly, Bryan, and Amos—your PDA National Team INVEST IN PROGRESS NOW! [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/58a554a898876e2025000004/attachments/original/1487344767/donate.png?1487344767] Progressive Democrats of America Grand Rapids, MI 49515, United States www.pdamerica.org [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/58a554a898876e2025000004/attachments/original/1487307268/facebook2.png?1487307268] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/58a554a898876e2025000004/attachments/original/1487307284/twitter.png?1487307284] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/58a554a898876e2025000004/attachments/original/1487307273/google.png?1487307273] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/58a554a898876e2025000004/attachments/original/1487307279/rss.png?1487307279] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/58a554a898876e2025000004/attachments/original/1487307275/linkedin.png?1487307275] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/58a554a898876e2025000004/attachments/original/1487307286/youtube.png?1487307286] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/58a554a898876e2025000004/attachments/original/1487307277/pinterest.png?1487307277] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/58a554a898876e2025000004/attachments/original/1487307282/tumbler.png?1487307282] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/58a554a898876e2025000004/attachments/original/1487307271/flickr.png?1487307271] Paid for by Progressive Democrats of America Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee This email was sent to karenaram at hotmail.com. To stop receiving emails, click here. Created with NationBuilder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Mar 6 13:06:07 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 13:06:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] BDS: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians! Message-ID: [cid:image001.png at 01D3B519.96131840] 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) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 270735 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 13:16:41 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 13:16:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians In-Reply-To: References: <640748DD-9F61-4FB6-91FC-1780D4C19469@gmail.com> Message-ID: My apologies to Prof. Boyle, as I think he’d like to drop the conversation, given the trivial criticisms by our armchair warriors. Did either Noam Chomsky or Diana Johnstone, spend considerable time in the Balkans at that time, as did Prof. Boyle? Did either of them spend time in the Hague, or with US Diplomats attempting to halt the potential massacre that occurred? We’re not talking about a “soldier” in the field, or an “embedded” journalist, with myopic vision. We’re talking about the International lawyer who spent years of his own time there, doing everything he could to prevent the massacre. He has made it clear, one of our largest military bases resides now in the Balkans. He has written a book documenting the genocide, you might wish to read, then you can critique his statements with authority. "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.” On Mar 5, 2018, at 19:15, 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: Monday, March 05, 2018 9:13 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' >; Brussel, Morton K > Cc: Karen Aram > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians Yeah well the International Court of Justice--the World Court of the United Nations System--agreed with me repeatedly. 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) -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 7:53 PM To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians On Mar 5, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: Unfortunate that Francis Boyle relies on the Yugoslav conflict to buttress his arguments against Israel. I give more credence to Diana Johnstone’s analysis of what went on there… The conflict was more an effort by the U.S. and NATO to destroy Yugoslavia. I think Mort is quite right about this. See the following account from a dozen years ago. —CGE =========================== On the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia Noam Chomsky interviewed by Danilo Mandic April 25, 2006... DM: Last month marked the seventh anniversary of the beginning of the bombing of Yugoslavia. Why did NATO wage that war or I should say why did the United States wage that war? NC: Actually, we have for the first time a very authoratative comment on that from the highest level of Clinton administration, which is something that one could have surmised before, but now it is asserted. This is from Strobe Talbott who was in charge of the…he ran the Pentagon/State Department intelligence Joint Committee on the diplomacy during the whole affair including the bombing, so that’s very top of Clinton administration; he just wrote the forward to a book by his Director of Communications, John Norris, and in the forward he says if you really want to understand what the thinking was of the top of Clinton administration this is the book you should read and take a look on John Norris’s book and what he says is that the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians. It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated. That’s from the highest level. Again, we could have guessed it, but I’ve never seen it said before. That it wasn’t because of the Kosovo Albanians, that we know. And this is a point of religious fanaticism that the West can’t talk about for interesting reasons having to do with Western culture, but there is just overwhelming documentation, impeccable documentation. Two big compilations of the State Department trying to justify the war, the OSCE records, NATO records, KIM Monitor records, long British Parliamentary inquiry which led into it. They all showed the same thing – and sort of what we knew, I mean it was an ugly place, there were atrocities there. DM: Given this clear documentary record I want to ask you about the elite Intellectual opinion, what you call… NC: In the United States. DM: …in the United States and in the West in general, because reviewing it you would get the impression – you would be forgiven for imagining that every critic of the NATO intervention was one of two things: either a “Milosevic sympathizer” or someone who doesn’t care about genocide. What does this mean? NC: First of all that’s a common feature of intellectual culture. One good U.S. critic, Harold Rosenberg once described intellectuals as the “herd of independent minds.” They think they are very independent but they are a stampede in a herd, which is true; when there is a party line, you have to adhere to it and the party line is systematic. The party line is subordination to state power and to state violence. Now you are allowed to criticize it but on a very narrow grounds. You can criticize it because it is not working or for some mistake or benign intentions that went astray or something, like you see right now in Iraq war, the tone of debate about Iraq war but take a look at it – it’s very similar to the debate in PRAVDA during the invasion of Afghanistan. Actually I brought this up to a Polish reporter recently and I asked him if he had been reading PRAVDA. He just laughed and said yeah it’s the same. Now you read PRAVDA in the nineteen eighties, it’s you know: “the travail of the Russian soldiers that are going to get killed and now there are these terrorists who prevent us from bringing justice and peace to the Afghans, we of course did not invade them, we intervened and helped them at the request of the legitimate government, the terrorists are preventing us from doing all good the things we wanted to do etc.” I have read Japanese counter-insurgency documents from the second WW, from the ninety thirties – the same, you know: “…we tried to bring them an earthly paradise, but the Chinese bandits are preventing it …” in fact I don’t know of any exception in history. If you want, British imperialism is the same, I mean even people of the highest moral integrity like John Stewart Mill were talking about, well we have to intervene in India and conquer India because the barbarians can’t control themselves, there are atrocities, we are to bring them the benefits of the British rule and civilization and so on. Now in the United States it’s the same. Now take bombing of Kosovo; that was an incredibly important event for American intellectuals and the reason it had to do it all was for what was going on during nineties. And the nineties are for the West, not just the U.S. and France and England were the worst – probably the low point in intellectual history for the West, I think. I mean it was like a comic strip mimicking a satire of Stalinism, literally. You take a look at the New York Times or read the French press, the British press, there was all full of talk about how there is a “normative revolution” that has swept through the West, for the first time in history, a state namely the United States, “the leader of the free world” is acting from “pure altruism”, …Clinton’s policy has entered into a “noble phase,” with a “saintly glow” on and on, I am quoting from the liberals. DM: Now, this particular humanitarian sharade was… NC: That’s pre Kosovo. DM: Right. And it was specific in a sense because it was based on the claim that it was preventing genocide. NC: Now this is, see there are no examples yet. DM: Let me just read something that you said in an interview around the time of the bombing. You said that “the term “genocide” as applied to Kosovo is an insult to the victims of Hitler. In fact, it’s revisionist to an extreme.” What did you mean by that? NC: First of all let me just fix the timing. The things I’ve been quoting are from the late nineties. DM: Before Kosovo. NC: Yeah. Now, they needed some event to justify this massive self-adulation, OK? Along came Kosovo fortunately and so now they had to stop genocide. What was the genocide in Kosovo? We know from the Western documentation what it was. In the year prior to the bombing, according to Western sources about two thousand people were killed, the killings were distributed, a lot of them were coming in fact according to British government, which was the most hawkish element of the Alliance, up until January 1999 a majority of killings came from the KLA guerillas who were coming in as they said, you know, to try to incite a harsh Serbian response, which they got, in order to appeal to Western humanitarians to bomb. We know from the Western records that nothing changed between January and March, in fact up until March 20 they indicate nothing. March 20th they indicate an increase in KLA attacks. But, it was ugly but by international standards it was almost invisible unfortunately and it was very distributed. If the British are correct, the majority was coming from the KLA guerillas. DM: And as it later turned out the KLA was also receiving financial and military support. NC: They were being supported by CIA in those months. And to call that genocide, is really to insult the victims of the holocaust, you know, if that’s genocide than the whole world is covered with genocide. In fact it’s kind of striking; right at the same time the Western intellectuals were praising themselves for their magnificent humanitarianism, much worse atrocities were going on right across the border, in Turkey. That’s inside NATO, not at the borders of NATO… “how can we allow this on the borders of NATO,”… but how about inside NATO where Turkey was carrying, had driven probably several million Kurds out of their homes, destroyed about 3500 villages laid waste the whole place, every conceivable form of torture and massacre you can imagine, killed nobody knows how many people, we don’t count our victims, tens of thousands of people, how they were able to do that? The reason is because they were getting 80% of their arms from Clinton and as the atrocities increased, the arms flow increased. In fact in one single year, 1997, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than the entire Cold War period combined! Up until the counter-insurgency. That was not reported in the West. You do not report your own crimes, that’s critical. And right in the midst of all of this, “how can we tolerate a couple of thousand people being killed in Kosovo, mixed guerillas and …” In fact the 50th Anniversary of NATO took place right in the middle of all of this. And there were lamentations about what was going on right across NATO’s border. Not a word about the much worse things going on inside NATO’s borders, thanks to the massive flow of arms from the United States. Now that’s only one case. Comparable things were going on all over where the U.S. were supportive of much worse, but this, you had to focus on this, that was the topic for “the herd of independent minds.” It played a crucial role in their self image because they had been going through a period of praising themselves for their magnificence in their “normative revolution” and their “noble phase” and so on and so forth, so it was a god-sent, and therefore you couldn’t ask any questions about it. Incidentally the same happened in the earlier phase of the Balkan wars. It was awful, and so on and so forth. However, but if you look at the coverage, for example there was one famous incident which has completely reshaped the Western opinion and that was the photograph of the thin man behind the barb-wire. DM: A fraudulent photograph, as it turned out. NC: You remember. The thin men behind the barb-wire so that was Auschwitz and ‘we can’t have Auschwitz again.’ The intellectuals went crazy and the French were posturing on television and the usual antics. Well, you know, it was investigated and carefully investigated. In fact it was investigated by the leading Western specialist on the topic, Philip Knightly, who is a highly respected media analyst and his specialty is photo journalism, probably the most famous Western and most respected Western analyst in this. He did a detailed analysis of it. And he determined that it was probably the reporters who were behind the barb-wire, and the place was ugly, but it was a refugee camp, I mean, people could leave if they wanted and, near the thin man was a fat man and so on, well and there was one tiny newspaper in England, probably three people, called LM which ran a critique of this, and the British (who haven’t a slightest concept of freedom of speech, that is a total fraud)…a major corporation, ITN, a big media corporation had publicized this, so the corporation sued the tiny newspaper for lible. Now the British lible laws were absolutely atrocious. The person accused has to prove that the, what he’s reporting is not done in malice and he can’t prove that. So and in fact when you have a huge corporation with batteries of lawyers and so on, carrying out a suit against the three people in the office, who probably don’t have the pocket-money, it’s obvious what is going to happen. Especially under these grotesque lible laws. So yes, they were able to prove the little newspaper…and couldn’t prove it wasn’t done out of malice, they were put out of business. There was just euphoria in the left liberal British press. You’ve read The Guardian and The Observer, they thought it was wonderful. DM: Mentioning The Guardian, what you describe is… NC: Sorry, incidentally…, after they put the newspaper out of business under this utterly grotesque legal case of the British laws, the left liberal newspapers, like The Guardian were just in a state of euphoria about this wonderful achievement. They had managed to destroy a tiny newspaper because it questioned some image that they had presented and they were very proud of themselves for it, which was probably misunderstood or misinterpreted. Well, Philip Knightly, he wrote a very harsh critique of the British media for behaving in this way, and tried to teach them an elementary lesson about freedom of speech. He also added that probably the photograph was misinterpreted. Couldn’t get published. Well, you know, that’s when Kosovo came along, it was the same thing. That you can not tell the truth about it, look I’ve gone through a ton of reporting on this, almost invariably they inverted the chronology. There were atrocities… DM: But after the bombing. NC: After the bombing. The way it’s presented is: the atrocities took place and then we had to bomb to prevent genocide, just inverted. DM: Let me ask you about the conduct of the actual war. You mentioned The Guardian, it’s interesting because you yourself had recently had an unpleasant experience… NC: Over this. DM: … when The Guardian misquoting you over Srebrenica. It misquoted you to make it appear as if you were questioning the Srebrenica massacre. But let me bring you back to the conduct of the actual war. That was another… NC: … the 1999 bombing. DM: The bombing, which was also overlooked or selectively covered by the Western media in general. Now, Amnesty International, among others, reported that “NATO committed serious violations of the rules of war during it’s campaign”, numerous human rights groups concur and document various war crimes. One of them had its anniversary two days ago, when the Radio Television Serbia was bombed, the national television, its headquarters, killing 16 people. First of all, why were these crimes completely unreported, and secondly, is there any prospects for there being any responsibility taken for these crimes? NC: I’d say the crimes were reported but they were cheered. It’s not that they were unknown, like the bombing of the radio station, yes, it was reported and the TV station, but it’s fine. Because the TV station was described as a propaganda outlet, so therefore it was right to bomb. That happens all the time. It just happened last year, in November 2004. One of the worst war crimes in Iraq… DM: Al Jazeera … NC: … was invasion of Falluja. Al Jazeera’s one thing, but there was worse. The invasion of Falluja was kind of similar to Srebrenica, if you look, but … They invaded Falluja; the first thing the invading troops did, U.S. troops, was to take over the general hospital and throw the patients on the floor, they were taken out their beds, put on the floor, hands tied on their backs, doctors thrown on the floor, hands on their backs, it was a picture of it in the front page of the The New York Times, they said it was wonderful. DM: The Geneva Convention forbids hospitals to be… NC: It’s a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and George Bush should be facing the death penalty for that, even under the U.S. law. But it was presented, no mention of the Geneva Conventions, and it was presented as a wonderful thing, because the Falluja general hospital was a “propaganda center,” namely it was releasing casualty figures, so therefore it was correct to carry out a massive war crime. Well, the bombing of the TV station was presented the same way. In fact, as I’m sure you recall, there was an offer from NATO that they would not bomb if they agreed to broadcast six hours of NATO propaganda. Well, this is considered quite right. How can it be dealt with? A group of international lawyers did appeal to the International Tribunal on the Yugoslavia. They presented a brief, saying they should look into NATO war crimes, but what they cited was reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and admissions by the NATO command. That was what they presented, the…I am forgetting, but I think it was Karla Del Ponte at the time; she would not look at it, in violation of the laws of the Tribunal, because she “had faith in NATO.” And that was the answer. Well, something else interesting happened after that: Yugoslavia did bring the case to the War Court… DM: Which also rejected the case. NC: The Court accepted it and in fact deliberated for a couple of years it may still be, but what is interesting is that the U.S. excused itself from the case and the Court accepted the excuse. Why? Because Yugoslavia had mentioned the Genocide Convention and the U.S. did sign the Genocide Convention (after forty years), it ratified it, but it ratified it with reservation, saying “inapplicable to the United States”. So in other words, the United States is entitled to commit genocide, therefore and that was the case that the U.S. Justice Department of President Clinton’s brought to the World Court and the Court had to agree. If a country does not accept World Court jurisdiction, it has to be excluded, so the U.S. was excluded from the trial, on the grounds that it grants itself the right to commit genocide. Do you think this was reported here? DM: The World Court, though, excused itself from hearing the case trying the illegality of the war, on the grounds that Yugoslavia was not a full member of the United Nations at the time when the case was brought to the… NC: Maybe they’ve finally reached that… DM: …they finally did that… NC: …for several years they were deliberating but that’s the sequence, does any of this get reported? You can ask your friends at Princeton, ask the faculty. They don’t know. I mean these… any more than… they will know that, they sort of probably remember the bombing, the capture of the General Hospital in Falluja but, was there any comment saying that was a war crime? DM: What struck me was that you compared the Srebrenica massacre with the Falluja invasion, why is that? NC: Because there are similarities. DM: Like what? NC: In the case of Srebrenica women and children were trucked out and then came, you know, the massacre. In the case of Falluja, the women and children were ordered out, they weren’t trucked out, they were ordered out, but the men weren’t allowed to leave and then came the attack. In fact, it turned out that the roads out were blocked. Well, I mean all things, it’s not the same story, but that part is similar. I actually mentioned that a couple of times. Storms of protest hysteria, you know. Incidentally this Guardian affair – part of it which was totally fraud is on the part of the editors, not the reporter. They blamed it on the reporter, but it was the editors. One other thing that they were infuriated about was that she asked me what about the thin man behind the barb-wire, isn’t that a horrible atrocity? I said well, you know, it’s not certain that it was correct. OK, that led to the hysteria. That’s when Philip Knightly tried to intervene to present once again his analysis and once again his critique of the media, but couldn’t. He is a very prominent, prestigious person. You just cannot break ranks; that’s not tolerated. I mean, we are lucky, we do not have censorship, it’s free society, but the self-censorship is overwhelming. Actually, Orwell once wrote about this, in something that nobody has read. Everyone has read Animal Farm and almost nobody has read the introduction to Animal Farm… DM: Unpublished. NC: Unpublished, came out in his unpublished papers, thirty years later. In it what he said is, Animal Farm is a satire of this totalitarian state, he said free England is not very different. In free England unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force and he gave examples. It’s very similar here. And it does not matter how extreme they are, I mean the Iraq invasion is a perfect example. There is not, you can not find anywhere in the main stream a suggestion that it is wrongful to invade another country. If you had invaded another country you have to pay reparations, you have to withdraw and the leadership has to be punished. I mean, and I don’t know if you have read the Nuremburg Judgments, but after the Nuremburg Judgments, Justice Jackson, Chief of Council of Prosecution of the U.S. Justice, made very, very eloquent statements about how we must…we are sentencing these people to death of the crimes for which they committed or crimes when anybody commits them, including when we commit them, we have to live up to that. He said “we are handing the defendants a poison chalice, and if we sipped from this chalice we must be treated the same way.” Can’t be more explicit! They also defined aggression. Aggression was defined in terms which just apply absolutely and without exception not only to the invasion of Iraq but to all sorts of other invasions, in Vietnam and many others, actually even terrorist war against Nicaragua, technically falls under the crime of aggression as defined in Nuremburg. DM: Does the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia? NC: Yes. And that’s not even questioned. In fact there is a, there was a so-called, an Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Kosovo bombing led by a very respected South African jurist – Justice Goldstone – and they concluded that the bombing was, in their words, “illegal but legitimate”. Illegal makes it a war crime. But they said it was legitimate because it was necessary to stop genocide. And then comes the usual inversion of the history. Actually, Justice Goldstone who was a respectable person, later recognized that the atrocities came after the bombing. And that they were furthermore the anticipated consequence, he did recognize that in a lecture in New York, couple of years ago, he said: “well, nevertheless we can take some comfort in the fact that Serbia was planning it anyway, and the proof for they were planning it is” guess what – “Operation Horse-Shoe”, – a probable intelligence fabrication that was publicized after the bombing, so even if it was true, it wouldn’t matter. And furthermore, even if that was true, it was a contingency plan. Now look, Israel has a contingency plans to drive all the Palestinians out of the West Bank if there is a conflict, so does that mean that Iran has the right to bomb Israel? Now, the U.S. has contingency plans to invade Canada, OK so does that mean that everybody has a right to bomb the United States? That’s the last straw of justification on the part of a respectable person. But for the “herd of independent minds” it just does not matter. The bombing was because of their “high values”, and their “nobility” and was to stop genocide. Say anything else, you know… tons of vilification and abuse comes. But it’s not just on this issue, it’s on every issue. So try to bring up the idea…take, say, the Vietnam War, a lot of time has passed, a huge amount of scholarship, tons of documentation, blew up the country… DM: Let me just interrupt, I’m sorry, we won’t have time to go into that… NC: OK. DM: I want to ask you about some of the present developments that are being used again to fabricate a lot of these issues. Slobodan Milosevic died last month. What is the significance of his death in your view? NC: Milosevic was, he committed many crimes, not a nice person, terrible person, but the charges against him would have never have held up. He was originally indicted on the Kosovo charges. The indictment was issued right in the middle of bombing which already nullifies it. It used British, it admittedly used British and the U.S. intelligence right in the middle of bombing, can’t possibly take it seriously. However if you look at the indictment, it was for crimes committed after the bombing. There was one exception: Racak. Let’s even grant that the claims are true, let’s put that aside. So, there was one exception, no evidence that he was involved or you know, it took place, But almost the entire indictment was for after the bombing. How are those charges going to stand up unless you put Bill Clinton and Tony Blair on the dock alongside? Then they realized that it was a weak case. So they added the early Balkan wars, OK? Lot of horrible things happened there. But the worst crime, the one that they were really going to charge him for that genocide was Srebrenica. Now, there is a little problem with that: namely there was an extensive, detailed inquiry into it by the Dutch Government, which was the responsible government, there were Dutch forces there, that’s a big, you know, hundreds of pages inquiry, and their conclusion is that Milosevic did not know anything about that, and that when it was discovered in Belgrade, they were horrified. Well, suppose that had entered into the testimony? DM: Does this mean that you are a “Milosevic sympathizer”? NC: No, he was terrible. In fact he should have been thrown out, in fact he probably would have been thrown out and in the early nineties if the Albanians had voted, it was pretty close. He did all sorts of terrible things but it wasn’t a totalitarian state, I mean, there were elections, there was the opposition, a lot of rotten things, but there are rotten things everywhere and I certainly wouldn’t want to have dinner with him or talk to him, and yes, he deserves to be tried for crimes, but this trial was never going to hold up, if it was even semi-honest. It was a farce; in fact they were lucky that he died. DM: In what sense? NC: Because they did not have to go through out the whole trial. Now they can, you can build up an image about how he would have been convicted as another Hitler. DM: Had he lived. NC: But now they don’t have to do it. DM: I just want to bring you back to the bombing of the RTS. Some have argued that this particular act of NATO’s in 1999 set precedants for targeting of media by the United States afterward – in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – that it set a precedant for legitimizing media houses and labeling them as propaganda in order to bomb them in U.S. invasions. Do you make any connection there? NC: Well, I mean, the chronology is correct. But I don’t think they need excuses. The point is: you bomb anybody you want to. Let’s take 1998, so it was before. Now in 1998, here’s another thing you’re not allowed to say in the States and the West that leads to hysteria, but I’ll say it – in 1998 Clinton bombed the major pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, OK? That was, this is the plant that’s using the most of the pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines for poor African country that’s under embargo, can’t replace it. What’s that going to do? Obviously they killed unknown numbers of people, in fact the U.S. barred an investigation by the UN so we don’t know and of course you don’t want to investigate your own crimes, but there were some evidence. So the German Ambassador, who is a fellow at the Harvard University to Sudan wrote an article in Harvard International Review in which he estimated the casualties in the tens of thousands of deaths. The research of the Head of the Near East Foundation, a very respectable foundation, their regional director had field work in Somalia and in Sudan, he did the study, he came out with the same conclusions, probably tens of thousands of dead. Right after the bombing, within weeks, Human Rights Watch issued a warning that it was going to be a humanitarian catastrophe and gave examples of aid workers being pulled out from areas where people were dying and so on. You can not mention this. Any mention of this brings the same hysteria, as criticizing the bombing of the TV station. So it’s unmentionable, it is a Western crime and therefore it was legitimate. Let’s just suppose that Al Quaida blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S., or England or Israel or any country in which people lived. Human beings, not ants, people. Fine. Can you imagine the reaction, we’d probably have a nuclear war, but when we do it to a poor African country – didn’t happen! Not discussed, in fact the only issue that is discussed if there is discussion is whether the intelligence was correct when it claimed that it was also producing chemical weapons. That is the only question. Mention anything else, the usual hysteria, and tirades…This is a very disciplined, Western intellectual culture is extremely disciplined. And rigid. You can not go beyond fixed bounds. It’s not, you know, it’s not censored, it’s all voluntary but it’s true and it’s not, incidentally, not free societies like this. In fact the third world countries are different. So take, say, Turkey, half third world; I mean in Turkey, the intellectuals, the leading intellectuals, now best known writers, academics, journalists, artists I mean they not only protest atrocities about the Kurdish massacre, they protest it constantly, but they were also constant in carrying out civil disobedience against them. I also participated with them sometimes. And they go publish banned writings which reported presented them to the Prosecutor’s Office, demand they were prosecuted. It’s not a joke, you know, facing… sometimes they are sent to prison, that’s no joke. There’s nothing like that in the West. Inconceivable. When I am in Western Europe I hear them telling me Turkey is not civilized enough to enter the European Union. I burst out laughing! It’s the other way round. DM: Speaking of democratic movements, there was a… [crew]: This is the last question. DM: OK, two more quick questions; one: you mentioned the democratic movements in various countries. There was of course a promising democratic movement in Serbia before and, of course, during the bombing. And people like Wesley Clark had claimed that this bombing would be of benefit to the anti-Milosevic forces, when it of course turned out to be a disaster. Was this a sincere evaluation on behalf of NATO? NC: Well, I can’t look into their minds. When you commit a crime it is extremely easy to find a justification for it. That’s true of personal life; it’s true of international affairs. So yes, maybe they believed it. I mean, I think there’s convincing evidence that the Japanese fascists believed that they were doing good when they carried out things in the Second World War. John Stewart Mill surely believed he was being honorable and noble when he was calling for the conquest of India right after some of the worst atrocities which I mentioned, you can easily believe you are noble. I mean, to me it’s obvious that it was going to harm the democratic movement, I heard about it and I couldn’t get much information but it was obvious that it was going to happen. I mean it is happening right now in Iran. There is a democratic movement in Iran, they are pleading with the United States not to maintain a harsh embargo, certainly not to attack, it is harming them, and it strengthens the most reactionary violent elements in the society, of course. DM: Let me ask you one final question about the future. Negotiations over Kosovo’s final status are under way right now, the United States is backing Agim Ceku, who was someone involved in ethnic cleansing not only in… NC: Not someone. He was a war criminal himself. What about the Krajina expulsion, which he was…. DM: First of all, what do you see as an appropriate, realistic solution for the final status of Kosovo and how does that differ from what the United States is now promoting? NC: My feeling has been for a long time that the only realistic solution is one that in fact was offered by the President of Serbia I think back round 1993 [Chomsky is referring to the proposal of former Serbian President of Yugoslavia, Dobrica Cosic], namely some kind of partition, with the Serbian, by now very few Serbs left but the, what were the Serbian areas being part of Serbia and the rest be what they called “independent” which means it’ll join Albania. I just don’t see…I didn’t see any other feasible solution ten years ago. DM: Shall we wrap up? Professor Chomsky, thank you very much. (Room ambience, room tone, reaction shots …) 273 Shares CHOMSKY.INFO _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 14:30:14 2018 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:30:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right In-Reply-To: <4A65DBA7-E64E-460E-A240-11AFDB85102F@illinois.edu> References: <1562697972.-66084228@salsa4.salsa4DB.mail.salsalabs.com> <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> <4A65DBA7-E64E-460E-A240-11AFDB85102F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <1437571080.8950284.1520346614526@mail.yahoo.com> The fantasizing, such as it is, is about Americans pressuring their own government to promote a just settlement, which may not be "possible" in the current political context, but is at least possible in the sense of being subject to the concerted actions of American citizens.  Regarding settlements, it's been shown to my satisfaction by both Norman Finkelstein and Gershon Shafir, on the basis of Palestinian geographers, that moderate adjustment of the 1967 borders would require the relocation of something like 27,000 Jewish families to create a viable Palestinians state. In the past, thousands of Israeli settlers have been required or forced to leave both the Sinai (Egypt) and Gaza, albeit, admittedly, to focus the settlement project on the West Bank. That said, Levy is amazing, and he also did a good interview with The Real News. But where is Jewish Voice for Peace, an American group, in regards to directing its attention at a liberal Jewish audience that would be receptive at this historical moment to a better understanding of the issue? DG On ‎Monday‎, ‎March‎ ‎5‎, ‎2018‎ ‎10‎:‎59‎:‎44‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CST, Brussel, Morton K wrote: Levy answered that question, noting the “impossibility” of getting all those colonies removed from the west bank. Moreover, the U.S. would never force the Israelis to remove all those colonies. As Levy says, the U.S. never was, or would be, serious about a just two state solution (with the state of the world as it exists). So, you are fantasizing… On Mar 5, 2018, at 9:36 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: It's a compelling talk, of course. He does not pull any punches. But if the U.S. govt. wanted to seriously promote a 2-state solution, it would happen. It is impossible if it's left just to Israel, the PA, and the BDS tactic. DG On ‎Sunday‎, ‎March‎ ‎4‎, ‎2018‎ ‎09‎:‎12‎:‎12‎ ‎PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: He, Gideon Levy, notes that he used to be for a two state solution, but now thinks that it's impossible. His is a pretty grim picture of the state of israel. Begin forwarded message: From:The Real News Network Subject:Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Date:March 4, 2018 at 11:30:46 AM CST To:mkb3 at mac.com Reply-To:noreply at therealnews.com Please add newsletter at therealnews.com to your email contacts to make sure you get our daily email. | | | | | | | The Real News Daily, Sunday March 4, 2018  | | | | | | MAKE A DONATION | | | Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Gideon Levy speaking at the Naitonal Press Club in Washington DC on the eve of the official AIPAC conference. Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Israeli daily Haaretz, says when you shoot a fifteen year old in the head and say he fell from his bicycle no zionist questions it, there is no room for debate and discussion, no room for the right and the left in Israel | | | Israel's Deepening Involvement in the Syrian War Israel has recently been intensifying air strikes and the arming of anti-government forces in Syria, some of which are close to Al Qaeda. Professor As'ad AbuKhalil explains how Israel's activity in Syria is part of a larger pattern of its overall foreign policy engagement around the world | | The Black Disinvestment Crisis Pt 3: Gentrification without Representation School Closings and Food Deserts in the African American community of West Dayton while tax incentives are given to build luxury housing downtown are the focus of a conversation with activists from Racial Justice NOW! | | | | Baltimore Councilman Compares Tax Break to 'Tropical Fruit That I Can't Pronounce' The glib remark came during a serious debate over the real cost of tax breaks to developers as the city moves forward with new incentives while state analysts warn the final price tag of these expansive private subsidies is unknown by Stephen Janis and Taya Graham | | Join The Dots Ep 5 - The Air We Breathe In this episode of Join The Dots, Real Media discusses the health effects of and possible solutions to air pollution as London breaks its annual air pollution limit in just the first month of 2018 | | | | Brazil's Military Takeover in Rio Sparks Authoritarian Fears Deeply unpopular Brazilian President Michel Temer issued a decree to put the military in charge of security in Rio de Janeiro instead of police, dubiously claiming the purpose is to crack down on crime. But many Brazilians worry that it's the first stage in a return to military rule, explains journalist Brian Mier | Featured Videos | | Is the Oil Industry Canada's 'Deep State'? | | | | | | | Honduras: the Never-Ending Coup | | | | | | | Chuck Schumer: War Hawk or Progressive? | | | | | | | | | | | Latest Columns | | | The Powerful Global Spy Alliance You Never Knew Existed | | | | | | | | Oil Market Fears: War, Default And Nuclear Weapons  | | | | | | | | Arizona “Ground Zero” for Koch Attack on Public Education | | | | | | | | Billionaire vs. Billionaire: Illinois Governors Race Breaking All State Campaign Finance Records | | | | | | | | What Could a Left Presidency Look Like in Mexico? | | | | | | | | China’s dilemma: Balancing support for militants with struggle against political violence | | | | | | | | Public-sector unions prepare to be kneecapped at the Supreme Court | | | | | | | | 'Really extreme' global weather event leaves scientists aghast | | | | | | | | Gulf crisis upends fiction of a separation of sports and politics  | | | | | | | | | We Support The Real News Network | | Emma Thompson | Kendrick Sampson | Gabriel Byrne | Nina Turner | Ralph Nader | Danny Glover | | | | | 231 Holliday Street Baltimore MD 21202 1 866 396 4231MAKE A DONATIONSUBSCRIBE | UNSUBSCRIBE | EMAIL PREFERENCES  Problems unsubscribing? Please contact us 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 davegreen84 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 14:30:14 2018 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:30:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right In-Reply-To: <4A65DBA7-E64E-460E-A240-11AFDB85102F@illinois.edu> References: <1562697972.-66084228@salsa4.salsa4DB.mail.salsalabs.com> <1177761364.8750222.1520307362171@mail.yahoo.com> <4A65DBA7-E64E-460E-A240-11AFDB85102F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <1437571080.8950284.1520346614526@mail.yahoo.com> The fantasizing, such as it is, is about Americans pressuring their own government to promote a just settlement, which may not be "possible" in the current political context, but is at least possible in the sense of being subject to the concerted actions of American citizens.  Regarding settlements, it's been shown to my satisfaction by both Norman Finkelstein and Gershon Shafir, on the basis of Palestinian geographers, that moderate adjustment of the 1967 borders would require the relocation of something like 27,000 Jewish families to create a viable Palestinians state. In the past, thousands of Israeli settlers have been required or forced to leave both the Sinai (Egypt) and Gaza, albeit, admittedly, to focus the settlement project on the West Bank. That said, Levy is amazing, and he also did a good interview with The Real News. But where is Jewish Voice for Peace, an American group, in regards to directing its attention at a liberal Jewish audience that would be receptive at this historical moment to a better understanding of the issue? DG On ‎Monday‎, ‎March‎ ‎5‎, ‎2018‎ ‎10‎:‎59‎:‎44‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CST, Brussel, Morton K wrote: Levy answered that question, noting the “impossibility” of getting all those colonies removed from the west bank. Moreover, the U.S. would never force the Israelis to remove all those colonies. As Levy says, the U.S. never was, or would be, serious about a just two state solution (with the state of the world as it exists). So, you are fantasizing… On Mar 5, 2018, at 9:36 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: It's a compelling talk, of course. He does not pull any punches. But if the U.S. govt. wanted to seriously promote a 2-state solution, it would happen. It is impossible if it's left just to Israel, the PA, and the BDS tactic. DG On ‎Sunday‎, ‎March‎ ‎4‎, ‎2018‎ ‎09‎:‎12‎:‎12‎ ‎PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: He, Gideon Levy, notes that he used to be for a two state solution, but now thinks that it's impossible. His is a pretty grim picture of the state of israel. Begin forwarded message: From:The Real News Network Subject:Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Date:March 4, 2018 at 11:30:46 AM CST To:mkb3 at mac.com Reply-To:noreply at therealnews.com Please add newsletter at therealnews.com to your email contacts to make sure you get our daily email. | | | | | | | The Real News Daily, Sunday March 4, 2018  | | | | | | MAKE A DONATION | | | Gideon Levy: The Zionist Tango: Step Left, Step Right Gideon Levy speaking at the Naitonal Press Club in Washington DC on the eve of the official AIPAC conference. Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Israeli daily Haaretz, says when you shoot a fifteen year old in the head and say he fell from his bicycle no zionist questions it, there is no room for debate and discussion, no room for the right and the left in Israel | | | Israel's Deepening Involvement in the Syrian War Israel has recently been intensifying air strikes and the arming of anti-government forces in Syria, some of which are close to Al Qaeda. Professor As'ad AbuKhalil explains how Israel's activity in Syria is part of a larger pattern of its overall foreign policy engagement around the world | | The Black Disinvestment Crisis Pt 3: Gentrification without Representation School Closings and Food Deserts in the African American community of West Dayton while tax incentives are given to build luxury housing downtown are the focus of a conversation with activists from Racial Justice NOW! | | | | Baltimore Councilman Compares Tax Break to 'Tropical Fruit That I Can't Pronounce' The glib remark came during a serious debate over the real cost of tax breaks to developers as the city moves forward with new incentives while state analysts warn the final price tag of these expansive private subsidies is unknown by Stephen Janis and Taya Graham | | Join The Dots Ep 5 - The Air We Breathe In this episode of Join The Dots, Real Media discusses the health effects of and possible solutions to air pollution as London breaks its annual air pollution limit in just the first month of 2018 | | | | Brazil's Military Takeover in Rio Sparks Authoritarian Fears Deeply unpopular Brazilian President Michel Temer issued a decree to put the military in charge of security in Rio de Janeiro instead of police, dubiously claiming the purpose is to crack down on crime. But many Brazilians worry that it's the first stage in a return to military rule, explains journalist Brian Mier | Featured Videos | | Is the Oil Industry Canada's 'Deep State'? | | | | | | | Honduras: the Never-Ending Coup | | | | | | | Chuck Schumer: War Hawk or Progressive? | | | | | | | | | | | Latest Columns | | | The Powerful Global Spy Alliance You Never Knew Existed | | | | | | | | Oil Market Fears: War, Default And Nuclear Weapons  | | | | | | | | Arizona “Ground Zero” for Koch Attack on Public Education | | | | | | | | Billionaire vs. Billionaire: Illinois Governors Race Breaking All State Campaign Finance Records | | | | | | | | What Could a Left Presidency Look Like in Mexico? | | | | | | | | China’s dilemma: Balancing support for militants with struggle against political violence | | | | | | | | Public-sector unions prepare to be kneecapped at the Supreme Court | | | | | | | | 'Really extreme' global weather event leaves scientists aghast | | | | | | | | Gulf crisis upends fiction of a separation of sports and politics  | | | | | | | | | We Support The Real News Network | | Emma Thompson | Kendrick Sampson | Gabriel Byrne | Nina Turner | Ralph Nader | Danny Glover | | | | | 231 Holliday Street Baltimore MD 21202 1 866 396 4231MAKE A DONATIONSUBSCRIBE | UNSUBSCRIBE | EMAIL PREFERENCES  Problems unsubscribing? Please contact us 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 6 14:35:40 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 08:35:40 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians In-Reply-To: References: <640748DD-9F61-4FB6-91FC-1780D4C19469@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8E5E3B9C-6F67-4C08-BD37-0D18C187FBC9@gmail.com> Francis— What’s your take on Chomsky and Srebrenica? Regards, CGE > > On Mar 6, 2018, at 7:16 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > My apologies to Prof. Boyle, as I think he’d like to drop the conversation, given the trivial criticisms by our armchair warriors. > > Did either Noam Chomsky or Diana Johnstone, spend considerable time in the Balkans at that time, as did Prof. Boyle? Did either of them spend time in the Hague, or with US Diplomats attempting to halt the potential massacre that occurred? > > We’re not talking about a “soldier” in the field, or an “embedded” journalist, with myopic vision. We’re talking about the International lawyer who spent years of his own time there, doing everything he could to prevent the massacre. > > He has made it clear, one of our largest military bases resides now in the Balkans. He has written a book documenting the genocide, you might wish to read, then you can critique his statements with authority. > > > "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.” > > > > > > >> On Mar 5, 2018, at 19:15, 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: Monday, March 05, 2018 9:13 PM >> To: 'C G Estabrook' >; Brussel, Morton K > >> Cc: Karen Aram > >> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians >> >> Yeah well the International Court of Justice--the World Court of the United Nations System--agreed with me repeatedly. >> 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) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 7:53 PM >> To: Brussel, Morton K > >> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ) >; Karen Aram > >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians >> >> >>> On Mar 5, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunate that Francis Boyle relies on the Yugoslav conflict to >>> buttress his arguments against Israel. I give more credence to Diana Johnstone’s analysis of what went on there… The conflict was more an effort by the U.S. and NATO to destroy Yugoslavia. >>> >> >> I think Mort is quite right about this. See the following account from a dozen years ago. —CGE >> >> =========================== >> On the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia >> Noam Chomsky interviewed by Danilo Mandic April 25, 2006... >> >> DM: Last month marked the seventh anniversary of the beginning of the bombing of Yugoslavia. Why did NATO wage that war or I should say why did the United States wage that war? >> >> NC: Actually, we have for the first time a very authoratative comment on that from the highest level of Clinton administration, which is something that one could have surmised before, but now it is asserted. This is from Strobe Talbott who was in charge of the…he ran the Pentagon/State Department intelligence Joint Committee on the diplomacy during the whole affair including the bombing, so that’s very top of Clinton administration; he just wrote the forward to a book by his Director of Communications, John Norris, and in the forward he says if you really want to understand what the thinking was of the top of Clinton administration this is the book you should read and take a look on John Norris’s book and what he says is that the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians. It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated. That’s from the highest level. >> >> Again, we could have guessed it, but I’ve never seen it said before. That it wasn’t because of the Kosovo Albanians, that we know. And this is a point of religious fanaticism that the West can’t talk about for interesting reasons having to do with Western culture, but there is just overwhelming documentation, impeccable documentation. Two big compilations of the State Department trying to justify the war, the OSCE records, NATO records, KIM Monitor records, long British Parliamentary inquiry which led into it. They all showed the same thing – and sort of what we knew, I mean it was an ugly place, there were atrocities there. >> >> DM: Given this clear documentary record I want to ask you about the elite Intellectual opinion, what you call… >> >> NC: In the United States. >> >> DM: …in the United States and in the West in general, because reviewing it you would get the impression – you would be forgiven for imagining that every critic of the NATO intervention was one of two things: either a “Milosevic sympathizer” or someone who doesn’t care about genocide. What does this mean? >> >> NC: First of all that’s a common feature of intellectual culture. One good U.S. critic, Harold Rosenberg once described intellectuals as the “herd of independent minds.” They think they are very independent but they are a stampede in a herd, which is true; when there is a party line, you have to adhere to it and the party line is systematic. The party line is subordination to state power and to state violence. Now you are allowed to criticize it but on a very narrow grounds. You can criticize it because it is not working or for some mistake or benign intentions that went astray or something, like you see right now in Iraq war, the tone of debate about Iraq war but take a look at it – it’s very similar to the debate in PRAVDA during the invasion of Afghanistan. Actually I brought this up to a Polish reporter recently and I asked him if he had been reading PRAVDA. He just laughed and said yeah it’s the same. Now you read PRAVDA in the nineteen eighties, it’s you know: “the travail of the Russian soldiers that are going to get killed and now there are these terrorists who prevent us from bringing justice and peace to the Afghans, we of course did not invade them, we intervened and helped them at the request of the legitimate government, the terrorists are preventing us from doing all good the things we wanted to do etc.” I have read Japanese counter-insurgency documents from the second WW, from the ninety thirties – the same, you know: “…we tried to bring them an earthly paradise, but the Chinese bandits are preventing it …” in fact I don’t know of any exception in history. If you want, British imperialism is the same, I mean even people of the highest moral integrity like John Stewart Mill were talking about, well we have to intervene in India and conquer India because the barbarians can’t control themselves, there are atrocities, we are to bring them the benefits of the British rule and civilization and so on. >> >> Now in the United States it’s the same. Now take bombing of Kosovo; that was an incredibly important event for American intellectuals and the reason it had to do it all was for what was going on during nineties. And the nineties are for the West, not just the U.S. and France and England were the worst – probably the low point in intellectual history for the West, I think. I mean it was like a comic strip mimicking a satire of Stalinism, literally. You take a look at the New York Times or read the French press, the British press, there was all full of talk about how there is a “normative revolution” that has swept through the West, for the first time in history, a state namely the United States, “the leader of the free world” is acting from “pure altruism”, …Clinton’s policy has entered into a “noble phase,” with a “saintly glow” on and on, I am quoting from the liberals. >> >> DM: Now, this particular humanitarian sharade was… >> >> NC: That’s pre Kosovo. >> >> DM: Right. And it was specific in a sense because it was based on the claim that it was preventing genocide. >> >> NC: Now this is, see there are no examples yet. >> >> DM: Let me just read something that you said in an interview around the time of the bombing. You said that “the term “genocide” as applied to Kosovo is an insult to the victims of Hitler. In fact, it’s revisionist to an extreme.” What did you mean by that? >> >> NC: First of all let me just fix the timing. The things I’ve been quoting are from the late nineties. >> >> DM: Before Kosovo. >> >> NC: Yeah. Now, they needed some event to justify this massive self-adulation, OK? Along came Kosovo fortunately and so now they had to stop genocide. What was the genocide in Kosovo? We know from the Western documentation what it was. In the year prior to the bombing, according to Western sources about two thousand people were killed, the killings were distributed, a lot of them were coming in fact according to British government, which was the most hawkish element of the Alliance, up until January 1999 a majority of killings came from the KLA guerillas who were coming in as they said, you know, to try to incite a harsh Serbian response, which they got, in order to appeal to Western humanitarians to bomb. We know from the Western records that nothing changed between January and March, in fact up until March 20 they indicate nothing. March 20th they indicate an increase in KLA attacks. But, it was ugly but by international standards it was almost invisible unfortunately and it was very distributed. If the British are correct, the majority was coming from the KLA guerillas. >> >> DM: And as it later turned out the KLA was also receiving financial and military support. >> >> NC: They were being supported by CIA in those months. And to call that genocide, is really to insult the victims of the holocaust, you know, if that’s genocide than the whole world is covered with genocide. >> >> In fact it’s kind of striking; right at the same time the Western intellectuals were praising themselves for their magnificent humanitarianism, much worse atrocities were going on right across the border, in Turkey. That’s inside NATO, not at the borders of NATO… “how can we allow this on the borders of NATO,”… but how about inside NATO where Turkey was carrying, had driven probably several million Kurds out of their homes, destroyed about 3500 villages laid waste the whole place, every conceivable form of torture and massacre you can imagine, killed nobody knows how many people, we don’t count our victims, tens of thousands of people, how they were able to do that? The reason is because they were getting 80% of their arms from Clinton and as the atrocities increased, the arms flow increased. In fact in one single year, 1997, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than the entire Cold War period combined! Up until the counter-insurgency. >> >> That was not reported in the West. You do not report your own crimes, that’s critical. And right in the midst of all of this, “how can we tolerate a couple of thousand people being killed in Kosovo, mixed guerillas and …” In fact the 50th Anniversary of NATO took place right in the middle of all of this. And there were lamentations about what was going on right across NATO’s border. Not a word about the much worse things going on inside NATO’s borders, thanks to the massive flow of arms from the United States. Now that’s only one case. Comparable things were going on all over where the U.S. were supportive of much worse, but this, you had to focus on this, that was the topic for “the herd of independent minds.” It played a crucial role in their self image because they had been going through a period of praising themselves for their magnificence in their “normative revolution” and their “noble phase” and so on and so forth, so it was a god-sent, and therefore you couldn’t ask any questions about it. Incidentally the same happened in the earlier phase of the Balkan wars. It was awful, and so on and so forth. However, but if you look at the coverage, for example there was one famous incident which has completely reshaped the Western opinion and that was the photograph of the thin man behind the barb-wire. >> >> DM: A fraudulent photograph, as it turned out. >> >> NC: You remember. The thin men behind the barb-wire so that was Auschwitz and ‘we can’t have Auschwitz again.’ The intellectuals went crazy and the French were posturing on television and the usual antics. Well, you know, it was investigated and carefully investigated. In fact it was investigated by the leading Western specialist on the topic, Philip Knightly, who is a highly respected media analyst and his specialty is photo journalism, probably the most famous Western and most respected Western analyst in this. He did a detailed analysis of it. And he determined that it was probably the reporters who were behind the barb-wire, and the place was ugly, but it was a refugee camp, I mean, people could leave if they wanted and, near the thin man was a fat man and so on, well and there was one tiny newspaper in England, probably three people, called LM which ran a critique of this, and the British (who haven’t a slightest concept of freedom of speech, that is a total fraud)…a major corporation, ITN, a big media corporation had publicized this, so the corporation sued the tiny newspaper for lible. Now the British lible laws were absolutely atrocious. The person accused has to prove that the, what he’s reporting is not done in malice and he can’t prove that. So and in fact when you have a huge corporation with batteries of lawyers and so on, carrying out a suit against the three people in the office, who probably don’t have the pocket-money, it’s obvious what is going to happen. Especially under these grotesque lible laws. >> >> So yes, they were able to prove the little newspaper…and couldn’t prove it wasn’t done out of malice, they were put out of business. There was just euphoria in the left liberal British press. You’ve read The Guardian and The Observer, they thought it was wonderful. >> >> DM: Mentioning The Guardian, what you describe is… >> >> NC: Sorry, incidentally…, after they put the newspaper out of business under this utterly grotesque legal case of the British laws, the left liberal newspapers, like The Guardian were just in a state of euphoria about this wonderful achievement. They had managed to destroy a tiny newspaper because it questioned some image that they had presented and they were very proud of themselves for it, which was probably misunderstood or misinterpreted. >> >> Well, Philip Knightly, he wrote a very harsh critique of the British media for behaving in this way, and tried to teach them an elementary lesson about freedom of speech. He also added that probably the photograph was misinterpreted. Couldn’t get published. Well, you know, that’s when Kosovo came along, it was the same thing. That you can not tell the truth about it, look I’ve gone through a ton of reporting on this, almost invariably they inverted the chronology. There were atrocities… >> >> DM: But after the bombing. >> >> NC: After the bombing. The way it’s presented is: the atrocities took place and then we had to bomb to prevent genocide, just inverted. >> >> DM: Let me ask you about the conduct of the actual war. You mentioned The Guardian, it’s interesting because you yourself had recently had an unpleasant experience… >> >> NC: Over this. >> >> DM: … when The Guardian misquoting you over Srebrenica. It misquoted you to make it appear as if you were questioning the Srebrenica massacre. But let me bring you back to the conduct of the actual war. That was another… >> >> NC: … the 1999 bombing. >> >> DM: The bombing, which was also overlooked or selectively covered by the Western media in general. Now, Amnesty International, among others, reported that “NATO committed serious violations of the rules of war during it’s campaign”, numerous human rights groups concur and document various war crimes. One of them had its anniversary two days ago, when the Radio Television Serbia was bombed, the national television, its headquarters, killing 16 people. First of all, why were these crimes completely unreported, and secondly, is there any prospects for there being any responsibility taken for these crimes? >> >> NC: I’d say the crimes were reported but they were cheered. It’s not that they were unknown, like the bombing of the radio station, yes, it was reported and the TV station, but it’s fine. Because the TV station was described as a propaganda outlet, so therefore it was right to bomb. That happens all the time. It just happened last year, in November 2004. One of the worst war crimes in Iraq… >> >> DM: Al Jazeera … >> >> NC: … was invasion of Falluja. Al Jazeera’s one thing, but there was worse. The invasion of Falluja was kind of similar to Srebrenica, if you look, but … They invaded Falluja; the first thing the invading troops did, U.S. troops, was to take over the general hospital and throw the patients on the floor, they were taken out their beds, put on the floor, hands tied on their backs, doctors thrown on the floor, hands on their backs, it was a picture of it in the front page of the The New York Times, they said it was wonderful. >> >> DM: The Geneva Convention forbids hospitals to be… >> >> NC: It’s a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and George Bush should be facing the death penalty for that, even under the U.S. law. But it was presented, no mention of the Geneva Conventions, and it was presented as a wonderful thing, because the Falluja general hospital was a “propaganda center,” namely it was releasing casualty figures, so therefore it was correct to carry out a massive war crime. >> >> Well, the bombing of the TV station was presented the same way. In fact, as I’m sure you recall, there was an offer from NATO that they would not bomb if they agreed to broadcast six hours of NATO propaganda. Well, this is considered quite right. >> >> How can it be dealt with? >> >> A group of international lawyers did appeal to the International Tribunal on the Yugoslavia. They presented a brief, saying they should look into NATO war crimes, but what they cited was reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and admissions by the NATO command. That was what they presented, the…I am forgetting, but I think it was Karla Del Ponte at the time; she would not look at it, in violation of the laws of the Tribunal, because she “had faith in NATO.” And that was the answer. >> >> Well, something else interesting happened after that: Yugoslavia did bring the case to the War Court… >> >> DM: Which also rejected the case. >> >> NC: The Court accepted it and in fact deliberated for a couple of years it may still be, but what is interesting is that the U.S. excused itself from the case and the Court accepted the excuse. Why? >> >> Because Yugoslavia had mentioned the Genocide Convention and the U.S. did sign the Genocide Convention (after forty years), it ratified it, but it ratified it with reservation, saying “inapplicable to the United States”. So in other words, the United States is entitled to commit genocide, therefore and that was the case that the U.S. Justice Department of President Clinton’s brought to the World Court and the Court had to agree. If a country does not accept World Court jurisdiction, it has to be excluded, so the U.S. was excluded from the trial, on the grounds that it grants itself the right to commit genocide. Do you think this was reported here? >> >> DM: The World Court, though, excused itself from hearing the case trying the illegality of the war, on the grounds that Yugoslavia was not a full member of the United Nations at the time when the case was brought to the… >> >> NC: Maybe they’ve finally reached that… >> >> DM: …they finally did that… >> >> NC: …for several years they were deliberating but that’s the sequence, does any of this get reported? You can ask your friends at Princeton, ask the faculty. They don’t know. I mean these… any more than… they will know that, they sort of probably remember the bombing, the capture of the General Hospital in Falluja but, was there any comment saying that was a war crime? >> >> DM: What struck me was that you compared the Srebrenica massacre with the Falluja invasion, why is that? >> >> NC: Because there are similarities. >> >> DM: Like what? >> >> NC: In the case of Srebrenica women and children were trucked out and then came, you know, the massacre. In the case of Falluja, the women and children were ordered out, they weren’t trucked out, they were ordered out, but the men weren’t allowed to leave and then came the attack. In fact, it turned out that the roads out were blocked. >> >> Well, I mean all things, it’s not the same story, but that part is similar. I actually mentioned that a couple of times. Storms of protest hysteria, you know. Incidentally this Guardian affair – part of it which was totally fraud is on the part of the editors, not the reporter. They blamed it on the reporter, but it was the editors. >> >> One other thing that they were infuriated about was that she asked me what about the thin man behind the barb-wire, isn’t that a horrible atrocity? I said well, you know, it’s not certain that it was correct. OK, that led to the hysteria. That’s when Philip Knightly tried to intervene to present once again his analysis and once again his critique of the media, but couldn’t. He is a very prominent, prestigious person. You just cannot break ranks; that’s not tolerated. I mean, we are lucky, we do not have censorship, it’s free society, but the self-censorship is overwhelming. Actually, Orwell once wrote about this, in something that nobody has read. Everyone has read Animal Farm and almost nobody has read the introduction to Animal Farm… >> >> DM: Unpublished. >> >> NC: Unpublished, came out in his unpublished papers, thirty years later. In it what he said is, Animal Farm is a satire of this totalitarian state, he said free England is not very different. In free England unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force and he gave examples. It’s very similar here. And it does not matter how extreme they are, I mean the Iraq invasion is a perfect example. >> >> There is not, you can not find anywhere in the main stream a suggestion that it is wrongful to invade another country. If you had invaded another country you have to pay reparations, you have to withdraw and the leadership has to be punished. I mean, and I don’t know if you have read the Nuremburg Judgments, but after the Nuremburg Judgments, Justice Jackson, Chief of Council of Prosecution of the U.S. Justice, made very, very eloquent statements about how we must…we are sentencing these people to death of the crimes for which they committed or crimes when anybody commits them, including when we commit them, we have to live up to that. He said “we are handing the defendants a poison chalice, and if we sipped from this chalice we must be treated the same way.” Can’t be more explicit! >> >> They also defined aggression. Aggression was defined in terms which just apply absolutely and without exception not only to the invasion of Iraq but to all sorts of other invasions, in Vietnam and many others, actually even terrorist war against Nicaragua, technically falls under the crime of aggression as defined in Nuremburg. >> >> DM: Does the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia? >> >> NC: Yes. And that’s not even questioned. In fact there is a, there was a so-called, an Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Kosovo bombing led by a very respected South African jurist – Justice Goldstone – and they concluded that the bombing was, in their words, “illegal but legitimate”. Illegal makes it a war crime. But they said it was legitimate because it was necessary to stop genocide. And then comes the usual inversion of the history. >> >> Actually, Justice Goldstone who was a respectable person, later recognized that the atrocities came after the bombing. And that they were furthermore the anticipated consequence, he did recognize that in a lecture in New York, couple of years ago, he said: “well, nevertheless we can take some comfort in the fact that Serbia was planning it anyway, and the proof for they were planning it is” guess what – “Operation Horse-Shoe”, – a probable intelligence fabrication that was publicized after the bombing, so even if it was true, it wouldn’t matter. And furthermore, even if that was true, it was a contingency plan. Now look, Israel has a contingency plans to drive all the Palestinians out of the West Bank if there is a conflict, so does that mean that Iran has the right to bomb Israel? Now, the U.S. has contingency plans to invade Canada, OK so does that mean that everybody has a right to bomb the United States? >> >> That’s the last straw of justification on the part of a respectable person. But for the “herd of independent minds” it just does not matter. The bombing was because of their “high values”, and their “nobility” and was to stop genocide. Say anything else, you know… tons of vilification and abuse comes. But it’s not just on this issue, it’s on every issue. So try to bring up the idea…take, say, the Vietnam War, a lot of time has passed, a huge amount of scholarship, tons of documentation, blew up the country… >> >> DM: Let me just interrupt, I’m sorry, we won’t have time to go into that… >> >> NC: OK. >> >> DM: I want to ask you about some of the present developments that are being used again to fabricate a lot of these issues. Slobodan Milosevic died last month. What is the significance of his death in your view? >> >> NC: Milosevic was, he committed many crimes, not a nice person, terrible person, but the charges against him would have never have held up. He was originally indicted on the Kosovo charges. The indictment was issued right in the middle of bombing which already nullifies it. It used British, it admittedly used British and the U.S. intelligence right in the middle of bombing, can’t possibly take it seriously. However if you look at the indictment, it was for crimes committed after the bombing. There was one exception: Racak. Let’s even grant that the claims are true, let’s put that aside. So, there was one exception, no evidence that he was involved or you know, it took place, >> >> But almost the entire indictment was for after the bombing. How are those charges going to stand up unless you put Bill Clinton and Tony Blair on the dock alongside? Then they realized that it was a weak case. So they added the early Balkan wars, OK? Lot of horrible things happened there. But the worst crime, the one that they were really going to charge him for that genocide was Srebrenica. >> >> Now, there is a little problem with that: namely there was an extensive, detailed inquiry into it by the Dutch Government, which was the responsible government, there were Dutch forces there, that’s a big, you know, hundreds of pages inquiry, and their conclusion is that Milosevic did not know anything about that, and that when it was discovered in Belgrade, they were horrified. Well, suppose that had entered into the testimony? >> >> DM: Does this mean that you are a “Milosevic sympathizer”? >> >> NC: No, he was terrible. In fact he should have been thrown out, in fact he probably would have been thrown out and in the early nineties if the Albanians had voted, it was pretty close. He did all sorts of terrible things but it wasn’t a totalitarian state, I mean, there were elections, there was the opposition, a lot of rotten things, but there are rotten things everywhere and I certainly wouldn’t want to have dinner with him or talk to him, and yes, he deserves to be tried for crimes, but this trial was never going to hold up, if it was even semi-honest. It was a farce; in fact they were lucky that he died. >> >> DM: In what sense? >> >> NC: Because they did not have to go through out the whole trial. Now they can, you can build up an image about how he would have been convicted as another Hitler. >> >> DM: Had he lived. >> >> NC: But now they don’t have to do it. >> >> DM: I just want to bring you back to the bombing of the RTS. Some have argued that this particular act of NATO’s in 1999 set precedants for targeting of media by the United States afterward – in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – that it set a precedant for legitimizing media houses and labeling them as propaganda in order to bomb them in U.S. invasions. Do you make any connection there? >> >> NC: Well, I mean, the chronology is correct. But I don’t think they need excuses. The point is: you bomb anybody you want to. Let’s take 1998, so it was before. Now in 1998, here’s another thing you’re not allowed to say in the States and the West that leads to hysteria, but I’ll say it – in 1998 Clinton bombed the major pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, OK? That was, this is the plant that’s using the most of the pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines for poor African country that’s under embargo, can’t replace it. What’s that going to do? Obviously they killed unknown numbers of people, in fact the U.S. barred an investigation by the UN so we don’t know and of course you don’t want to investigate your own crimes, but there were some evidence. So the German Ambassador, who is a fellow at the Harvard University to Sudan wrote an article in Harvard International Review in which he estimated the casualties in the tens of thousands of deaths. The research of the Head of the Near East Foundation, a very respectable foundation, their regional director had field work in Somalia and in Sudan, he did the study, he came out with the same conclusions, probably tens of thousands of dead. >> >> Right after the bombing, within weeks, Human Rights Watch issued a warning that it was going to be a humanitarian catastrophe and gave examples of aid workers being pulled out from areas where people were dying and so on. You can not mention this. Any mention of this brings the same hysteria, as criticizing the bombing of the TV station. So it’s unmentionable, it is a Western crime and therefore it was legitimate. >> >> Let’s just suppose that Al Quaida blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S., or England or Israel or any country in which people lived. Human beings, not ants, people. Fine. Can you imagine the reaction, we’d probably have a nuclear war, but when we do it to a poor African country – didn’t happen! Not discussed, in fact the only issue that is discussed if there is discussion is whether the intelligence was correct when it claimed that it was also producing chemical weapons. That is the only question. Mention anything else, the usual hysteria, and tirades…This is a very disciplined, Western intellectual culture is extremely disciplined. And rigid. You can not go beyond fixed bounds. It’s not, you know, it’s not censored, it’s all voluntary but it’s true and it’s not, incidentally, not free societies like this. In fact the third world countries are different. >> >> So take, say, Turkey, half third world; I mean in Turkey, the intellectuals, the leading intellectuals, now best known writers, academics, journalists, artists I mean they not only protest atrocities about the Kurdish massacre, they protest it constantly, but they were also constant in carrying out civil disobedience against them. I also participated with them sometimes. And they go publish banned writings which reported presented them to the Prosecutor’s Office, demand they were prosecuted. It’s not a joke, you know, facing… sometimes they are sent to prison, that’s no joke. There’s nothing like that in the West. Inconceivable. >> >> When I am in Western Europe I hear them telling me Turkey is not civilized enough to enter the European Union. I burst out laughing! It’s the other way round. >> >> DM: Speaking of democratic movements, there was a… >> >> [crew]: This is the last question. >> >> DM: OK, two more quick questions; one: you mentioned the democratic movements in various countries. There was of course a promising democratic movement in Serbia before and, of course, during the bombing. And people like Wesley Clark had claimed that this bombing would be of benefit to the anti-Milosevic forces, when it of course turned out to be a disaster. Was this a sincere evaluation on behalf of NATO? >> >> NC: Well, I can’t look into their minds. When you commit a crime it is extremely easy to find a justification for it. That’s true of personal life; it’s true of international affairs. So yes, maybe they believed it. I mean, I think there’s convincing evidence that the Japanese fascists believed that they were doing good when they carried out things in the Second World War. John Stewart Mill surely believed he was being honorable and noble when he was calling for the conquest of India right after some of the worst atrocities which I mentioned, you can easily believe you are noble. I mean, to me it’s obvious that it was going to harm the democratic movement, I heard about it and I couldn’t get much information but it was obvious that it was going to happen. I mean it is happening right now in Iran. There is a democratic movement in Iran, they are pleading with the United States not to maintain a harsh embargo, certainly not to attack, it is harming them, and it strengthens the most reactionary violent elements in the society, of course. >> >> DM: Let me ask you one final question about the future. Negotiations over Kosovo’s final status are under way right now, the United States is backing Agim Ceku, who was someone involved in ethnic cleansing not only in… >> >> NC: Not someone. He was a war criminal himself. What about the Krajina expulsion, which he was…. >> >> DM: First of all, what do you see as an appropriate, realistic solution for the final status of Kosovo and how does that differ from what the United States is now promoting? >> >> NC: My feeling has been for a long time that the only realistic solution is one that in fact was offered by the President of Serbia I think back round 1993 [Chomsky is referring to the proposal of former Serbian President of Yugoslavia, Dobrica Cosic], namely some kind of partition, with the Serbian, by now very few Serbs left but the, what were the Serbian areas being part of Serbia and the rest be what they called “independent” which means it’ll join Albania. I just don’t see…I didn’t see any other feasible solution ten years ago. >> >> DM: Shall we wrap up? Professor Chomsky, thank you very much. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Tue Mar 6 14:49:25 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 08:49:25 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] War in Popular Culture Message-ID: We talked about anti-war themes in semi-recent popular culture on Sunday .  I mentioned the movie War Dogs. I mixed up the plot with another similar movie which name I cannot remember. War Dogs stars Jonah Hill and Miles Teller with a plot from real life. I hope the attachment works.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Karen Aram via Peace-discussDate: Mon, Mar 5, 2018 6:59 AMTo: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] Forgotten History       - Many Americans would be surprised to learn that the USA, along with Britain, France, and Japan, fought a  in Russia just after the Great War (World War I). The primary objective of this action was the re-establishment of an Eastern Front following the collapse of the Russian government during the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, but Allied fear of communist ambitions in other countries also played into the intervention as will be seen below. The overall campaign was named the Polar Bear Expedition, but was also known as the Northern Russian Expedition, the American North Russia Expeditionary Force - ANREF or the American Expeditionary Force North Russia - AEFNR. These efforts are not mentioned in most history survey courses, and few texts even mention that US troops (or those of any other nation) fought against the Bolsheviks during this period. The presence of US Army units from Michigan in Vladivostok, Archangel, and other Russian locations is rarely noted although the University of Michigan maintains an archive of photographs and other primary evidence relating to the period. From the Louis E. Schicker collection in the University of Michigan's Polar Bear archives Troops were sent to Russia near the close of World War I for several reasons, all of which were related to the instability of the Russian government. First, the Russian army's disastrous defeat at the hands of the Germans resulted in the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. Initially his government was replaced by an interim democratic administration (the only democratic regime that has ever existed in Russia) under the leadership of Alexander Kerensky. This change in government structure caused president Woodrow Wilson to change his mind about participation in the war. He had initially refused to commit the US to an alliance with the despotic Tsarist government. Thus, US troops were mustered for action on the Western Front. However, in October 1917 the Bolshevik revolution replaced the Kerensky government with communist rule under Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. This resulted in the withdrawl of Russian troops from the Eastern front as the new government negotiated a separate peace with Germany under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Loss of the Eastern Front placed additional pressure on Allied troops from the US, France, Britain, and other countries fighting on the Western Front. The Germans were able to move troops from Eastern borders to French battlefields, thus strengthening their hand. The change of government also left at risk vast amounts of military materiel and armaments provided by Britain to the Kerensky government. There was concern that these supplies would be captured by the Germans or (worse) the Bolsheviks. This was unacceptable, both from a military and economic standpoint. There was also a concern that the armaments might be used against other European powers once the newly established communist government built up the newly minted red Army's power. Western nations greatly feared Marxism, which taught that industrial powers would eventually be overthrown in "peoples' revolutions" as the "proletariat" took their rightful place. The idea of a heavily armed communist state was, as a result, extremely unpalatable to most Western governments. The various Allies are estimated to have sent the following strength of troops to the Russian campaign (from Wikipedia): 50,000 [4] (along the Trans-Siberian railway) 28,000 Japanese (later increased to 70,000[5], all in the Vladivostok region) 24,000 Greeks (n  Note: All information contained in these pages is © 2008 Richard E. Joltes. Excerpts may be used where proper credit is given and permission is obtained in advance. All rights reserved. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: No subject.eml Type: application/octet-stream Size: 538 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Mar 6 15:28:23 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 15:28:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Srebrenica Genocide: Prof. Francis Boyle: Is Bosnia the end of the road for the UN? In-Reply-To: References: <8BE350612EA5B44080309A071C89583103707DA2@quoll.law.uiuc.edu> <007a01c8ebc6$fe41db80$8200a8c0@trend.local> <8BE350612EA5B44080309A071C89583103708013@quoll.law.uiuc.edu> Message-ID: I gave this interview on June 23, 1995, when I was doing everything humanly possible to prevent the oncoming massacre/genocide at Srebrenica, an officially designated "safe area" by the United Nations Security Council. RIP. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (Voice) 217-244-1478 (Fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: msanews at msanews.mynet.net [mailto:msanews at msanews.mynet.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 2:01 PM To: msanews at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu Subject: Prof. Francis Boyle: Is Bosnia the end of the road for the UN? ________________________________________________________________________ ____ __ __________ _ _______ ______ / |/ / __/ _ | / |/ / __/ | /| / / __/ / /|_/ /\ \/ __ |/ / _/ | |/ |/ /\ \ /_/ /_/___/_/ |_/_/|_/___/ |__/|__/___/ Support MSANEWS, a project of learning and enlightenment "A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste" [ see footer for contact and other pertinent information ] ________________________________________________________________________ ____ Source: Direct Submission Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 13:36:03 -0500 Title: Is Bosnia the End of the UN? Yes! By: Prof. Francis Boyle Email: TEXT: Is Bosnia the end of the road for the UN? There have been many voices calling for the restructure of the United Nations, particularly of the representation of the non-First World states within the General Assembly, and the operations of the Security Council consisting of the permanent five that largely utilise the UN for its own political and capital interests. The inept management of the conflicts in Bosnia by the UN have made those voices more vociferous, with some calling for the end of the United Nations. Francis Boyle is the Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, served as the Legal Adviser to Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic and Foreign Minister Haris Silajdzic during the Owen-Stoltenburg negotiations in Geneva, and represented the Bosnian Government at the international court of justice. He won two World Court Orders to Bosnia which the UN Security Council refused to enforce, due to the manipulations of Britain, Russia, France, and the US at the diplomatic table. In this recent interview he outlines the background to the diplomatic negotiations in Bosnia, the corruption and amorality of the great powers, and how the greed and capital interest of the West, and its anti-Muslim actions will spell the end of the post-World War II political order. Initially the scenario existed where the international players, or the so-called great players, wanted to keep Yugoslavia intact, but when it became obvious that this wasn't going to be the case, the West introduced a number of conferences and plans; first, the International Conference on Yugoslavia at the Hague, the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan, the Washington Plan, the Five-Nation Contact Group Plan. If these plans violated established Human Rights, Racial Discrimination, and Apartheid Conventions and are perceived to be illegal according to international law, why have they been poorly conceived and attempted to be implemented? The great powers have basically concluded that the Bosnians have lost the war, and of course, the reason the Bosnians lost the war was that the great powers at the Security Council imposed the arms embargo upon them. So when the signal was given by President Milosevic to attack Bosnia--and remember that he also took General Ratko Mladic who had destroyed Croatia and Vukovar, and put him in charge of the Bosnia operation--the Bosnian people were totally defenceless. So from the great power perspective, the Bosnians have lost the war and, as they see it, they need to work out some type of deal that will effectively recognise this. Hence, the creation of the plans and schemes that violate every known principle of international law. When I was instructed by the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic to sue Britain in November 1993, I put out a statement at the UN announcing that the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan violated the Genocide, Racial Discrimination, and Apartheid Conventions--it clearly did. Anyone who knew anything at all about that plan would have understood that--and Cyrus Vance is an international lawyer, he should have known better. So any of the permanent members of the Security Council can be sued--and the Bosnian government is aware of this--for violating the Genocide Convention, the Racial Discrimination Convention and the Apartheid Convention. And I have no problems at all in suing all of them on the basis of these three conventions and I'm sure of winning those law suits. It's an open and shut case. But the problem was that when President Izetbegovic instructed me to sue Britain, the Bosnians were threatened. The then Bosnian Foreign Minister Ljubijankic, who was later assassinated, was called in, basically threatened, and told that if the Bosnian government was to continue with the law suit, the humanitarian assistance that was being provided to the Bosnian people would be cut. They were pressured by the French, the Germans, and the Americans, as well as Owen and Stoltenburg, to drop the whole case. So that's the problem, where the great powers of Europe threaten to cut off humanitarian assistance to civilians--and the Bosnian people can only survive because of food brought in by the world community. When Bosnia goes to court to sort out its rights, which it has a perfect right to do, the so-called protecting powers threaten starvation for their people. Unfortunately, the Bosnians had to go along with this as they always have. What are the historical connections between the Vance-Owen and Owen-Stoltenburg Plans and the Munich Pact from 1938? First, there needs to be an understanding of the historical evolution. The Vance-Owen Plan would have carved up Bosnia into ten cantons on an ethnic basic, but would not have destroyed Bosnia as a state. When the Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karazdic and his so-called parliament rejected the Vance-Owen Plan, the great powers then moved into the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan. The Owen-Stoltenburg Plan would have carved up the state itself--it would have destroyed the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent nation state. Therefore, this plan is the modern day equivalent of the Munich Pact. It was designed to carve up a UN member state, and would rob Bosnia-Herzegovina of its United Nations membership--the main difference was that the carve-up was not taking place at Hitler's lair at the Berchtesgarten but this time the carve-up was taking place in Geneva, at United Nations headquarters and under the auspices and supervision of the United Nations, the European Union and the United States Government. So this time all the major powers of Europe and the United States were in on the carve-up of a sovereign member state of the United Nations. The Vance-Owen Plan was bad, but the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan would have been the end of Bosnia's statehood and would have turned Bosnia into a new Lebanon. The Owen-Stoltenburg Plan would have been a total catastrophe--to carve up Bosnia into three pieces and rob it of its UN membership. It was clear that in Geneva during the so-called peace negotiations, that the whole purpose of the exercise was to destroy the Bosnian statehood so that the Muslim, Jewish and non-Serb or Croat population would simply be wiped out. In historical terms, back in the 1930s the Jews were wiped out because they did not have a state of their own, and the only thing that has kept the Bosnians from completely being wiped out, fully and completely, has been their statehood and their UN membership. Owen, Stoltenburg, the UN, and everyone else knew that the only thing that would keep these people from going the way of history was their UN membership and statehood, so they had to get rid of it. Indeed, Owen's lawyer admitted to me and our team--we have this on file with the World Court--that the suggestion to eliminate Bosnian statehood came from Karazdic, the war criminal. Karazdic suggested this notion to Owen and Stoltenburg and they approved it personally. Their lawyer then redrafted the documents to eliminate Bosnian statehood--we have all this on record, with witnesses, at the World Court. It reminded me of Hannah Arendt's comment on the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, about the banality of evil. That here were nameless, faceless bureaucrats operating in Geneva, destroying a sovereign member state of the United Nations, knowingly inflicting ethnic cleansing on a million-and-a-half to two million people and doing all of this by means of a word processor. And that is literally what was going on. And the plan today, the so-called Contact Group plan, carves Bosnia up into two pieces. It will preserve the shell of the Bosnian state, although, effectively Bosnia will be carved up. So, all of the discussions in the Security Council about respecting the territorial integrity and political independence of Bosnia is nonsense. These men at the Security Council know exactly what they are doing--that was my assessment in dealing with them personally. They're still trying to carve Bosnia up, and the land that they have allocated to the so-called federation will make Bosnia an appendage of Croatia. The Bosnian Muslims, and the Serbs, the Croats, and the Jews loyal to the Bosnian government, would have never survived the Owen-Stoltenburg carve-up if it had been implemented. The Contact Group carve-up was designed and drafted by the US State Department. It appears that if it were to be implemented, that those people would at least physically survive. But ultimately Bosnia would lose its independence. So it's a slight improvement but it still represents a violation of every known principle of international law including a violation of the UN Charter, a toleration of genocide and war crimes, condoning this type of behaviour and again, it would be tantamount to the Munich Pact. It raises the question then, and everyone must consider this: what good is the United Nations? If the UN is not going to be prepared to defend a member state, but instead carve it up and destroy it, then obviously the United Nations has lost its utility, just as the League of Nations did when it could not confront Mussolini over what he did in Abyssinia in 1935. I remembered, when I was in Geneva with President Izetbegovic, that it was Haile Selassie that had come to Geneva in the same building to make a plea for the powers to save Abyssinia from the Italian fascist invasion and they didn't listen to him. Abyssinia was taken over and eventually the League was destroyed because it could not protect small states like Austria, Czechoslovakia, Abyssinia, and Poland from fascist invasions. So if the UN is getting into the business of carving up UN member states then it's not a good sign for the integrity of the United Nations. It must be understood that this is all being supervised by the Secretary General of the UN--Boutros Boutros-Ghali--he knows what's going on--and at the direction of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Russia--they're all in on it. And in the background the Clinton administration is posturing, and saying 'oh, isn't it terrible what the Europeans are doing'. This is all public relations--the US government was in on the carve-up just like everyone else. The Washington Plan instigated a confederation between Croatia and Bosnia. Do the Serbs have a moral or legal right to set up a federation with Serbia proper--and this has been one of their complaints--if the Bosnian government can federate with Croatia, why can't the Bosnian Serbs federate with Serbia? This is public relations machinery at work again. The Washington Agreements were designed by the State Department to carve up Bosnia under the fiction of preserving the state of Bosnia, but effectively consigning these people to the control of Croatia. The federation with Croatia was imposed on the Bosnians--it's not something that they wanted. It was imposed on them, so the argument that the Serbs must have the same deal is just total hypocrisy. But the point is, that the Serbs have already been promised a confederation by the great powers. That's why the federation-confederation was set up between Croatia and Bosnia--to ultimately give the Serbs the same thing. The State Department and the Pentagon admitted that the Washington Plan was just a sophisticated carve-up under another name--I have the admissions on file. So the Washington Plan was another design for a carve-up, to a preservation of the fig-leaf of the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina while effectively carving it up into two. And Karadzic is still holding out for his independent Serb state. If he were smart--which he is not--he'd go along with the carve-up plans and he'd probably get his state in five, ten, fifteen years from now--and that is what the ultimate agenda is within the Washington Plan. Just read through the documents that are being drafted by State Department lawyers--all you have to do is read through them and it's very clear that this is what the deal is. But most people don't read these documents, they're long, and they're complicated. This highlights the problems within the management and respect of international law. You did win two world courts orders on behalf of the Bosnian government, but so far, neither respect nor implementation of those orders has occurred. What are the difficulties associated with the management and implementation of international law, and what are the ramifications for the international political order? I think that at this point, if the UN and the great powers are prepared to let Bosnia go down when there are two World Court orders overwhelmingly in Bosnia's favour on all points, then it seems to me that we're at an end of the international legal order that was set up in the aftermath at the end of World War II. "I think we've reached a historical era now where the West has proven its complete and total moral bankruptcy on Bosnia and has now forfeited any moral right to leadership that it might have had in terms of a commitment to principles like human rights, democracy, the rule of law, all of which they have subverted, undermined and destroyed in Bosnia." Francis Boyle When we have the UN carving up a UN member state and violating every known principle that the post-World War II order was expected to uphold, I believe that we're witnessing the eclipse of the international legal order, and I can assure everyone that that's the way that the Islamic world sees Bosnia. If Muslims had killed a quarter-of-a-million Christians and Jews, and Muslims had raped 30,000 Christian and Jewish women, this war would have been over three years ago. The West would have never tolerated it. But when it comes to Muslim people being massacred, every known principle of international law has been violated by the permanent members of the Security Council, by the United Nations organisation itself, and by all of Europe--they just do not care. Again, as I argued at the World Court, if the UN and the World Court cannot save Bosnia, then what good is the UN. What is left? I think that the answer is nothing. And the longer this goes on, the more that will become apparent. It's the same with NATO. What good is NATO? Again, the answer is nothing. Here we have the world's largest military alliance sitting around in Europe for 40 years with nothing to do. President Bush actually tried to revise the mandate of NATO to put it into a peace-keeping type operation to deal with regional threats in Eastern Europe. The first regional threat appears and what happens? Nothing. And it's destroying NATO from within, and without. I'm sure that we'll see more of this in-fighting at the UN and other types of international forum where the West has proven its total hypocrisy to the Third World and the Islamic world. For what reasons are the UN and the US distorting the mandates that have been provided to them and why has there been the lack of effective mediation and conflict resolution in Bosnia? It goes back to Machiavellian power politics, a situation that we saw a decade or so before World War I where there was a reestablishment of the triple entente between Russia, France and Britain. As they see it, Bosnia is not worth another world war. Of course, all three countries unquestionably suffered terribly during World War I. Paris was almost overrun by the Germans, the British lost an entire generation of men, and the Russian empire was dissolved. So their attitude is that the Bosnians are not worth fighting for, the UN Charter isn't worth fighting for, and above all, that as the Balkans is a nasty place there will need to be a strongman in charge of the Balkans. That strongman, of course, is Milosevic--the great powers can do business with Milosevic, and have done business with Milosevic and his predecessors, going back to Tito. Tito was the darling of the West as long as he was opposed to Stalin. This is the doctrine of the policeman, that every region of the world needs a policeman to keep it under control and Milosevic is the policeman in the Balkans. So we're going to have some hand-wringing and some tears for the Bosnians but they will be sacrificed on the altar of great-power politics. It's really a reversion to pre-World War I mentality and pre-World War II behaviour. Milosevic is perceived by the US and the West as someone that they can do business with. Is this in terms of the arms trade, or economics, or other geopolitical factors? In control and domination of the Balkans. And I'm not the only one saying this--you can read it in the pages of the newspapers, or on the Internet--they're all saying the West can do business with Milosevic, not only in respect to Bosnia, but in the whole region. He can keep it under his thumb and keep it under control. The Balkans is a volatile area--that's the assumption, and as far as the West is concerned there needs be someone there to keep it under control and Milosevic can do it. It's pretty much the replay of the Nixon doctrine. For example, the Shah of Iran was America's policeman in the Persian Gulf. That's the notion with Milosevic and whoever his successor might be. Putting aside the rhetoric, the continuity between the Bush and Clinton administrations is striking. When Yugoslavia was about to fall apart, George Bush sent his Secretary of State, Jim Baker, to meet with Milosevic and make the statement that the United States supports the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia. Why? The policeman theory--the US needs Belgrade to keep the Balkans under control and that statement by Baker effectively was the green light to Milosevic to invade Slovenia, then to invade Croatia, and then to invade Bosnia. And then the arms embargo was put on. If you read the negotiated history of resolution 713 at the UN Security Council, it was not Belgrade's suggestion to implement the arms embargo over the former Yugoslavia, it was the United States', Britain's, France's and Russia's suggestion in order to facilitate Milosevic in his control and domination of the Balkans. On the issue of the international arms embargo over the former Yugoslav republics, the UN General Assembly voted to lift the embargo, the US Congress voted to lift the embargo as well, yet it remains in place. Why has the international arms embargo not been lifted, and what is the relationship between the arms embargo, human rights and genocide according to the definition provided within the UN Charter? First of all, the arms embargo was never imposed on Bosnia. Resolution 713 outlining the arms embargo was imposed on the former Yugoslavia. There is no Security Council resolution at all that says that the independent Bosnia is subject to an arms embargo. The situation consisted of the British, and the French and the Americans deciding to prevent the government of Bosnia--a government which not only represents Muslims, but Serbs, and Croats and Jews and others--from defending themselves from a genocidal assault by the Serbs, led by Milosevic, by Karadzic, and by Mladic. This was a conscientious decision. It was the British Navy, the French Navy and the American Navy in the Adriatic and their Air Forces that made it quite clear that no weapons could go into Bosnia. They couldn't care less about the resolution--the resolution has nothing to do with it. Eventually Congress forced Clinton to pull out but the British and the French are still there policing this embargo. Again, this goes back to the Bush policy, which was to preserve Yugoslavia as an entity at all costs and if the Bosnians had to be sacrificed, then so be it. As the US sees it, they're just Muslims anyway, who cares--President Bush had just killed a quarter-of-a-million Muslims in Iraq and no-one cared, so why should anyone care about the dead Muslims in Bosnia. So, the great powers are working hand-in-glove with Belgrade. And with resolution 713, the great powers had to ask Belgrade to give them permission to put the arms embargo on because it was their idea, not Belgrade's. And Belgrade, after some procrastination, went along with this because they already had enough weapons. They had all the weapons that they would ever need and therefore the embargo was not going to hurt them, but hurt the Bosnians. That was the policy and all the great powers were in on this--the US, Russia, Britain, and France--they're all in on it and they all know exactly what they're doing. It's dirty. Again, when I was in Geneva with the Bosnian Presidency at the Owen-Stoltenburg carve-up, it was like a combination of Munich and Poland, and like watching the Jews go off to Auschwitz in cattle-cars. Even the State Department predicted that if the Owen-Stoltenburg Plan had been carried out, a million-and-a-half to two million Bosnians would be subjected to ethnic cleansing. And, despite this, the plan was still being pushed by Christopher. He and his Ambassador were there pressuring President Izetbegovic to go along with this carve-up. It was so bad that it led to three State Department officials to quit in protest over a thoroughly duplicitous and unprincipled policy that was being pursued by Christopher, and with the full knowledge and approval of Clinton. Christopher then made some statements about how if the Serbs continued to bombard Sarajevo and other Bosnian cities that there might be airstrikes. Now imagine this--there we were in Geneva trying to negotiate a peace plan, which for all intents and purposes was really a carve-up, and at the same time Serb artillery, tanks and anti-aircraft weapons were pouring fire down on Sarajevo, on Tuzla, Zenica, Gorazde, and all the other Bosnian cities. NATO airplanes were flying over Bosnia, watching all this going on, taking pictures and sending the reconnaissance photos back to NATO headquarters, to the UN and to Washington, London and Paris. Yet nothing is being done. And you can watch all this on CNN. Meanwhile, President Izetbegovic is told 'by the way, you have to sign this document that will carve Bosnia up and rob Bosnia of its UN membership'. This is what's going on here. During the so-called peace negotiations in Geneva, we sent a letter to President Clinton asking for airstrikes against the Serb artillery, tanks and anti-aircraft weapons that were then raining death and destruction upon the innocent people of Bosnia. Christopher had only threatened to use airstrikes, so I suggested that we send a letter to Clinton and specifically ask for airstrikes. So I drafted the letter which effectively asked 'how do you expect us to negotiate here when we are being bombarded. If you want reasonable good faith negotiations, then, at a minimum, we need airstrikes, we need some counter-power here because the Serb leaders aren't interested in negotiating with us'. I've been at peace negotiations--I was with the Palestinians in Washington and that was pretty bad, but nothing like this. These were not negotiations, these were diktats. There is no way that it can be anything but a diktat as long as the Bosnians cannot really do more to defend themselves than they currently are. And that's what the international community has been doing so far. The Owen-Stoltenburg Plan was a diktat. The Vance-Owen Plan was a diktat. The Contact Group plan was a diktat--all imposed on the Bosnians against their wishes. President Izetbegovic is not a Muslim fundamentalist who wants a mini-Muslim state in Bosnia. He is a very cultured, educated, old-world gentleman who would very much like to see a true European state. And he is up there in Geneva with the other members of the Bosnian presidency fighting for a true multi-cultural state. The irony for me is that the Bosnians are fighting for human rights, international law and democracy. That's what the Bosnians want--and the West, the US, Britain, Russia, and France are saying, 'you can't have that--we're not giving it to you. All you have is a little apartheid mini-Muslim state. That's all we're going to give you, there you go'. That's the greatest irony of all. Speaking to the people of Bosnia, predominantly, they blame two people for the crisis. One is Slobodan Milosevic, the other is Boutros Boutros-Ghali. The United Nations is an instrument, and in this sense, Boutros-Ghali is correct in stating that the UN can only act according to its mandate. He just does what the great powers tell him to do--this is not to excuse the UN at all--but the UN is doing exactly what the Russians, the British, the French and the Americans want them to do. But what Boutros-Ghali must be criticised for is for being so spineless and unprincipled for going along with the carve-up of Bosnia. And remember, his grandfather was the one who signed the treaty handing over Egypt to Britain, so Boutros-Ghali is in the pocket of the British and the Americans. They put him in that slot of Secretary-General against the wishes of the Africans. They wanted a black candidate, but the Americans and the British wanted someone that they could control, and that candidate was Boutros-Ghali. The UN is complicit through and through but again, he UN is just a tool and an instrument of the permanent members of the Security Council They are the ones behind this. In 1993 when Boutros-Ghali flew into Sarajevo he stated that he could think of at least ten other regions in the world that had more urgent needs and concerns than Sarajevo, and how Bosnia is basically a white persons' war. For what purposes would he have made these statements and, indeed, are there other arenas around the world that are more 'deserving' than Bosnia? There are many areas of conflict in the world that we in the West overlook. Bosnia was unique at that time because genocide was being perpetrated. This is the first case in the history of the post-World War II era where a formal determination of the existence of genocide was produced, and of the trigger of the Genocide Convention obligation. I won that World Court ruling on April 8, 1992 and no-one did anything about it despite the existence within the UN Convention of the obligation to stop genocide. Later on, of course, the same thing happened in Rwanda and nothing was done there either--the UN did nothing, the United States did nothing, and indeed the UN made it worse by pulling troops out and allowing the genocide to happen again. What we are witnessing now is a degradation of any international commitments to any principles at all. That even when genocide stares the great powers in the face, they refuse to do anything to stop it. Genocide evolved out of the consensus after World War II that what happened to the Jewish people was atrocious and should never happen again. Yet the same type of backsliding, denial, abnegation of will power that we saw with the Jewish people is happening with the Bosnians and now the Rwandans. I take it that what has happened in Bosnia and Rwanda is a sign to any dictator in the world that it's possible to commit mass murder and genocide and get away with it--no-one's really going to do anything to stop the action unless oil or capital interest is involved. As Haris Silajdzic said in Geneva, 'if you kill one person you're prosecuted; if you kill ten people, you're a celebrity; if you kill a quarter-of-a-million people, you're invited to a peace conference'. That's the lesson of Bosnia, and that's exactly what has happened with Karadzic. So the agenda for the United Nations in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia is not to intervene at any cost--a number of public statements by General Michael Rose and Yasushi Akashi deliberately confuse, contradict and compromise the actions of the UN in Bosnia... As a matter of fact, the UN has now withdrawn the air patrol over Bosnia that was imposed on the same day that I won the first World Court order. On that day it was announced that NATO was going to set up the air patrol over Bosnian air space. I was asked by the BBC what I thought about this and I stated that I hoped that those air planes weren't just going to fly over Bosnia and watch the raping, the killing, the murdering and the genocide that was going on, and just wave to the people without anything about it. Yet that is exactly what has happened. Again, it's not a question of inefficiency with the UN. They know what they're doing and exactly why they're doing it. These people at the UN are not dumb, they are not inefficient, and they are not incompetent. What is being done in Bosnia is being done for a reason. To give you an example, whenever it appeared that NATO might be instigating airstrikes under the impetus of the Clinton administration, General Rose would send some of his own troops to be captured by the Serbs in order to abort the airstrikes. Why were all the UN troops taken hostage in the last month after the first set of UN airstrikes--why weren't they protected? That's exactly what the UN wanted--they wanted them taken hostage so that further military action would be prevented, and then precipitate an excuse for the UN to pull out of Bosnia. That's why those UN peace-keepers were left at risk. And now, NATO has decided to pull back the patrol "If you kill one person, you're prosecuted. If you kill ten people, you're a celebrity; if you kill a quarter-of-a-million people, you're invited to a peace conference." Bosnian Prime Minister, Haris Silajdzic, referring to the invitation of Bosnian Serb representative Radovan Karadzic to the Vance-Owen Peace Plan negotiations. over Bosnian airspace. Now they are just patrolling on the Adriatic Sea. When the attack by the Serb airplanes occurred in Bosnia, nothing was done. Now NATO is pulling back what little ineffective military action they were taking. Apparently senior UN General Bernard Janvier has promised Karadzic that there will be no more NATO airstrikes and as a symbol of this understanding, the UN pulled back and effectively terminated the air patrol of Bosnia. And my guess is that the so-called Rapid Reaction Corps is being sent over there to extricate the UN--that's why Owen quit. Owen has always been a tool of the British Foreign Office and he has done exactly what his masters in London have wanted him to do. Now the great powers have decided that the time has come to pull out of Bosnia and have told Owen to get out of there. So Owen is out. Unless something remarkable happens between now and the end of this year, I suspect that the British and the French will probably withdraw from Bosnia. The operations of the War Crimes Tribunal have been along the same lines of ineptitude as the resolutions that have been passed through the Security Council and the General Assembly. What exactly is the purpose of the War Crimes Tribunal and what are the problems that exist within its legal framework? I don't mean to criticise any of the judges involved and I'm sure that they're men and women of good faith but essentially, the War Crimes Tribunal is an exercise in public relations by the Security Council. The CIA has made detailed reports, the State Department has made detailed reports, they have their reconnaissance satellites and their airplanes--they know all about the war crimes in Bosnia. But in an effort to try to deflect public pressure upon them, the Security Council decided to set up the so-called War Crimes Tribunal to make it appear as if something is being done about the problem, whereas in fact what they are doing is negotiating with the very people whom they know are responsible for the war crimes. That's pretty much like negotiating with Hitler, Himmler and Goring, during World War II. The assumption by the great powers is that these are the reasonable people, they're the ones in power, so we have to broker some type of peace settlement with them because they're the only ones that we can deal with. The tribunal was pushed by the Clinton administration. Again, total hypocrisy. Clinton took a very strong stand for Bosnia in the campaign. Once he assumed power he just continued the Bush policies. But there's a certain element of public relations. During the campaign he had to appeal to a certain constituency in the United States, the human rights lobby, and for them Bosnia is an important issue. So Clinton has to run around and make it appear as if something is really being done on Bosnia, and the installation of the tribunal gave this appearance. Again, I don't mean to criticise Justice Goldstone, I'm sure he's a well intentioned man. But it's the question of the parameters. There's no money for the tribunal, not much staff, there's not much investigation, so not much is going to happen. It's just like what happened with the Bassiouni commission to investigate war crimes. What happened? Sharif Bassiouni was put in charge of the commission to investigate war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. The UN gave him no money. He had to go out and find his own money. How can there be an effective investigation without money? Then he puts a report out that Boutros-Ghali buries in the ground. We haven't seen very much of that report. The UN buried the whole thing, on purpose. Then the UN put Bassiouni out of business. Why? Because he was doing an effective job even with all the financial obstacles. And of course, when it was proposed that Bassiouni should be the chief prosecutor, the British objected because they couldn't control him--he might do an effective job--he might do something silly like indict Milosevic. Bassiouni has more than enough evidence at the court on Milosevic--do you think that they're going to indict him when they're trying to negotiate with him? This will not happen. In Geneva during the peace negotiations, President Izetbegovic had to go in and shake hands with Karadzic. I walked right past him--I wasn't going to shake his hand because he's a mass murderer and a criminal. And he has been given visas to come and negotiate in Geneva. And in New York. The State Department let Karadzic come to New York to the Vance-Owen carve-up negotiations, with a US visa. The State Department was obliged under the Geneva Convention to apprehend Karadzic. Eagleburger had already identified him a suspected war criminal. The US had an absolute obligation to apprehend Karadzic if he showed up in New York, and to open an investigation, and to prosecute--instead, they're giving him a visa and secret service protection in New York. And the same happened in Geneva--they're giving protection to war criminals. People who commit genocide. That's who the great powers are dealing with. That's who they're negotiating with, and they know it. They know it full well. This is not a question of ineptitude and incompetence. Everyone knows exactly what they're doing and why they are doing it. So when Lawrence Eagleburger accused Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic of war crimes, and he is not the only one to make the accusations--the accusations have been made many times by leading political figures--is it another extension of the public relations and propaganda machine at work? Pretty much--to make it appear that if nothing is being done effectively to stop the genocide, then at least there can be some condemnation because there is some public pressure here in the United States to do something. At this time the first reports were coming out of the death camps by Roy Gutman, the courageous reporter from Newsday. The US knew about these death camps but they weren't saying anything about them, and they weren't going to do anything about them. Then Gutman broke the story and it went out all over the world. Finally, amid the hemming and hawing the US said 'oh yes, we guess it is happening, we should condemn it'. The same thing happen to the Jews which is what led to the Genocide Convention. The theory was that if genocide ever happened again, that the world had an absolute obligation to stop it. That's what the Genocide Convention is all about. And yet here in the United States, even Clinton refused to admit that genocide was going on in Bosnia. And that after I won the first World Court order determining that genocide was going on in Bosnia and that the Serbs must cease and desist, not only in Belgrade but also in Pale. The US and the UN refused to admit that genocide was going on even when they knew all about it. They didn't want to admit to the obligation to stop it. And why? Again, as the great powers see it, these people are Muslim, they're throw-away people. If these people were Christians or Jews or whatever--different story. But since they're Muslims, who cares. It's the same attitude that the world took towards the Jews a generation ago. And indeed that's pretty much how it looks with the Bosnians--it was a repeat of the attempt to save the Jews back in the 1930s, except this time the Bosnians will go down fighting. Unlike everyone else who predicted that they were going to throw in the towel, they're going to fight. I remember President Izetbegovic saying that he will die in Sarajevo. So if the Bosnians are going to go down, they're going to go down fighting. And that's what the inconvenience is for the great powers, that these little-bitty people are going to fight, they're not going to go quietly, and they're not going to sign some 'peace' document that puts them out of business completely. In current world political affairs, there is one consistent factor in the conflicts in Bosnia, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, the Gulf war--a toleration by the West of atrocities committed against Muslim populations. An overriding agenda in the West is to actively deter Islamic fundamentalism and create mass hysteria to surround any political domain that comprises a 'Muslim' leadership. Certainly if you look at it, that's what is happening, where the West seems to be going to war with the Muslim world. Just look around. The way that the Palestinians are being treated by the Israelis is tantamount to genocide--and indeed, I've offered to President Arafat to sue the Israelis at the World Court over this matter. Libya is being attacked and destabilised because of oil and the fact that Colonel Gaddafi will not take orders from the West. Iran is under assault by the United States primarily at the beckoned call of the Israelis lobby the US. The entire Gulf is under the control of the United States. The US sits on top of all that oil--50 percent of the world's oil supply. And the US is keeping Iraq in near genocidal conditions--I've also offered to the Iraqi government to sue the permanent members of the Security Council to break the economic embargo that's designed to destroy them. Chechnya again is a situation where more Muslim people are being wiped out. After the Russian invasion, I tried to get some of the Islamic states to let me sue Russia to try to stop this, but none of them were prepared to go after the Russians. So this is the consistent pattern by the West of hostility toward the Islamic world, and it's only going to get worse not better. Bosnia is simply part of it in the grander scheme of things. And we've also heard Owen and others say 'we don't want a Muslim state in Europe'. This is a continuation of the historic process of expulsion of Muslims from Europe going back to disintegration of the Ottoman empire and the subsequent mass transfers of people. This is the final cleansing and wiping out of a major concentrated population of Muslims in Europe and no-one really cares. In 1991, the Gulf war contained its own version of geo-political hypocrisy for the purpose of Western capital interests. However, this period did see a level of consultancy and agreement amongst the great powers that failed to exist for decades, and was regarded as the pinnacle of the United Nations' achievements. Four years after the Gulf war, the talk about the end of the United Nations is being circulated. Will the friction that exists between Muslim countries and Christian countries ultimately lead to the dissolution of the United Nations, in the same way that the League of Nations dissolved over 50 years ago? Of course, the Gulf war was simply an attempt by the United States to steal 50 percent of the world's oil resources using the UN as a pretext and a cover to do so. The problem with many of the Muslim nations is their leadership. It's not the Muslim people, it's their cowardly leaders. They know exactly what's going on. They are not prepared to take the West on behalf on any of these causes, they're divided, they're paralysed, they're corrupt, and they're bought off for the most part by the West. This became clear to me when I was in Geneva, meeting with some of the Ambassadors from the Islamic Conference Organisation during the Owen-Stoltenburg carve-up. I said to these Ambassadors 'gentlemen, your people will hold your leaders accountable if the Bosnians are carved-up and destroyed'. The Deputy Head of the ICO smiled and shrugged his shoulders and said 'but, what can we do?'. At that point it was clear to me that all the Muslim rulers around the world know exactly what's happening but are not prepared to take on the West over Bosnia, Palestine, Libya, Iraq, Chechnya, or anywhere else. And they have had the options available to them. In 1973 they had an oil embargo and the leverage that went with it. In the speeches that I've given in Malaysia and Turkey, I've stated to the Muslim nations that if they want to save the Bosnians, they should impose an oil embargo on the West. But they can't do it now because the situation has changed. Because the US troops are now stationed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar. These rulers are no longer free. So this is the problem for the leadership. But for the people of the Muslim world, Bosnia is a critical issue. They see the total hypocrisy of the West on human rights and international law, and the United Nations Charter and see that their leaders are not prepared to go to the matt on any of these issues. This is the typical colonial divide and conquer strategy, just as the Romans did, just as the British did, and what the Americans are doing today. What type of future do you see for the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina? The Bosnians are going to keep fighting. As for where this will lead to, I really can't say, but as long as the Bosnians keep fighting, the pillars of the post-World War II legal order are going to be shaken--the UN, NATO, and the World Court. With the total hypocrisy surrounding all of the international principles, these institutions will continue to be unmasked and will continue to be undermined. That's what I see happening if the current policies continue, but unfortunately it appears that this is going to be the case in the future. As for me, I am still prepared to return to the World Court and start suing the permanent members of the Security Council and break that arms embargo for the Bosnians. This is the most critical factor now as they need the heavy weapons to defend their people. This is their right under Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is also their obligation under the Genocide Convention. So I don't see the Bosnians going away when they are prepared to fight and die for human rights and democracy--that was my impression after talking with President Izetbegovic--he is not going to throw in the towel. So the conflict in Bosnia will continue and the longer it continues the more it is going to shake the foundations of the post-World War II order. What type of future is there for the United Nations? None. As I see it, if this continues the way that it's going, then the UN means nothing, and it would be better to put it out of its misery, than a continuation of the current hypocrisy. By now, it should be clear to everyone that the UN is nothing more than the agent, and the instrument of those four permanent members operating in the Security Council and that it really has no independent or outside existence. The UN is pretty meaningless, so let's strip away the facade and the veneer and get down to the fiasco that's really happening here. Could the United Nations become more meaningful and legally viable if there was reform in the Security Council itself? The Security Council should be put out of business and all the functions for any maintenance of international peace and security should be transferred to the General Assembly by two-thirds vote. In this sense, there would be the capacity to have some sort of democratic control but this suggestion is not on anyone's agenda. The Security Council is like a star-chamber these days, where they no longer even meet in public. All matters are now transacted in private. It's just a little club of the most powerful members of the world to order around everyone else. That's what the Muslims saw in the Gulf. We are seeing, in a historical perspective, the perversion--total perversion--of every known principle of international law, and the international organisations and institutions that were set up after World War II. Now that this is being turned on its head, and especially if the war in Bosnia continues, I really don't anticipate the current order staying. We've reached a historical era now where the West as it is, Europe, and the United States, has proven its moral bankruptcy--complete and total moral bankruptcy, initially in Bosnia and then later on Rwanda. The West has now forfeited any moral right to leadership that it might have had in terms of a commitment to principles like human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, all of which they have subverted, undermined and destroyed in Bosnia. The Bosnian crisis, whatever comes of it will be a turning point in the way people now perceive the West, and of course, that perception is that all the West is interested in its their own pocket books and controlling the world with weapons--the West produces the best weapons in the world and it has become obvious to the world that the West doesn't care about principles. All the West cares about is oil, standards of living and developing the weapons necessary to keep those standards of living. That's it. And that is becoming more and more clear to the Third World. How the Third World will act on is unknown but I think that we are certainly at a major turning point in international relations. 5.2\bosnia.un.WPDot Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue Champaign, Ill. 61820 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu ________________________________________________________________________ ______ __ __________ _ _______ ______ / |/ / __/ _ | / |/ / __/ | /| / / __/ / /|_/ /\ \/ __ |/ / _/ | |/ |/ /\ \ /_/ /_/___/_/ |_/_/|_/___/ |__/|__/___/ Views expressed on MSANEWS do not necessarily represent those of the MSANEWS editors, the Ohio State University or any of our associated staff and "watchers". Further distribution of material featured on this list may be restricted. In all cases, please obtain the necessary permission of the authors or rightful owners before forwarding any material to or from this list. This service is meant for the exchange of analyses and news, for both academic and activist usage. We depend on your input. However, this is not a discussion list. Thank you. To subscribe, send e-mail to: with the message body "subscribe MSANEWS Firstname Lastname". To unsubscribe, send e-mail to the above address, with the message body "unsubscribe MSANEWS". MSANEWS Home Page: Comments to the Editors: Submissions for MSANEWS: Problems with subscription: ________________________________________________________________________ ______ From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 16:30:58 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:30:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] War in Popular Culture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I saw Wardogs, they had it on Red Box, it was good. Funny, and accurate. Though I too get it mixed up with another similar whose name I don’t recall. Another is a former Netflix series, which though really gross and funny, was really good. I recommended them to those with AWARE, but they don’t watch anything mainstream. I recommended. On Mar 6, 2018, at 06:49, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: We talked about anti-war themes in semi-recent popular culture on Sunday . I mentioned the movie War Dogs. I mixed up the plot with another similar movie which name I cannot remember. War Dogs stars Jonah Hill and Miles Teller with a plot from real life. I hope the attachment works. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2018 6:59 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net); Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] Forgotten History - Many Americans would be surprised to learn that the USA, along with Britain, France, and Japan, fought a in Russia just after the Great War (World War I). The primary objective of this action was the re-establishment of an Eastern Front following the collapse of the Russian government during the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, but Allied fear of communist ambitions in other countries also played into the intervention as will be seen below. The overall campaign was named the Polar Bear Expedition, but was also known as the Northern Russian Expedition, the American North Russia Expeditionary Force - ANREF or the American Expeditionary Force North Russia - AEFNR. These efforts are not mentioned in most history survey courses, and few texts even mention that US troops (or those of any other nation) fought against the Bolsheviks during this period. The presence of US Army units from Michigan in Vladivostok, Archangel, and other Russian locations is rarely noted although the University of Michigan maintains an archive of photographs and other primary evidence relating to the period. [Russian Prisoners] From the Louis E. Schicker collection in the University of Michigan's Polar Bear archives Troops were sent to Russia near the close of World War I for several reasons, all of which were related to the instability of the Russian government. First, the Russian army's disastrous defeat at the hands of the Germans resulted in the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. Initially his government was replaced by an interim democratic administration (the only democratic regime that has ever existed in Russia) under the leadership of Alexander Kerensky. This change in government structure caused president Woodrow Wilson to change his mind about participation in the war. He had initially refused to commit the US to an alliance with the despotic Tsarist government. Thus, US troops were mustered for action on the Western Front. However, in October 1917 the Bolshevik revolution replaced the Kerensky government with communist rule under Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. This resulted in the withdrawl of Russian troops from the Eastern front as the new government negotiated a separate peace with Germany under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Loss of the Eastern Front placed additional pressure on Allied troops from the US, France, Britain, and other countries fighting on the Western Front. The Germans were able to move troops from Eastern borders to French battlefields, thus strengthening their hand. The change of government also left at risk vast amounts of military materiel and armaments provided by Britain to the Kerensky government. There was concern that these supplies would be captured by the Germans or (worse) the Bolsheviks. This was unacceptable, both from a military and economic standpoint. There was also a concern that the armaments might be used against other European powers once the newly established communist government built up the newly minted red Army's power. Western nations greatly feared Marxism, which taught that industrial powers would eventually be overthrown in "peoples' revolutions" as the "proletariat" took their rightful place. The idea of a heavily armed communist state was, as a result, extremely unpalatable to most Western governments. The various Allies are estimated to have sent the following strength of troops to the Russian campaign (from Wikipedia): * 50,000 [4] (along the Trans-Siberian railway) * 28,000 Japanese (later increased to 70,000[5], all in the Vladivostok region) * 24,000 Greeks (n Note: All information contained in these pages is © 2008 Richard E. Joltes. Excerpts may be used where proper credit is given and permission is obtained in advance. All rights reserved. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Mar 6 16:53:42 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:53:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians In-Reply-To: References: <640748DD-9F61-4FB6-91FC-1780D4C19469@gmail.com> Message-ID: <49256A0C-2B72-4F07-A0F5-E97AB767E855@illinois.edu> You don’t need to be “on the ground” to assess what is going on. You need to understand the geopolitics of the actors involved. Milosevic was the then current Putin. There was no genocide in Bosnia-H. (as I understand that word), although their were terrible events, killings, on all sides. Our man Izetbetkovic (sp?) was no angel, someone who wanted to carve out an Islamic state. And if one wants to understand the outcome, as you pointed out, the U.S. ended up with one of its biggest military bases in Kosovo, a failed state. How curious. —mkb On Mar 6, 2018, at 7:16 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: My apologies to Prof. Boyle, as I think he’d like to drop the conversation, given the trivial criticisms by our armchair warriors. Did either Noam Chomsky or Diana Johnstone, spend considerable time in the Balkans at that time, as did Prof. Boyle? Did either of them spend time in the Hague, or with US Diplomats attempting to halt the potential massacre that occurred? We’re not talking about a “soldier” in the field, or an “embedded” journalist, with myopic vision. We’re talking about the International lawyer who spent years of his own time there, doing everything he could to prevent the massacre. He has made it clear, one of our largest military bases resides now in the Balkans. He has written a book documenting the genocide, you might wish to read, then you can critique his statements with authority. "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.” On Mar 5, 2018, at 19:15, 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: Monday, March 05, 2018 9:13 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' >; Brussel, Morton K > Cc: Karen Aram > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians Yeah well the International Court of Justice--the World Court of the United Nations System--agreed with me repeatedly. 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) -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 7:53 PM To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians On Mar 5, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: Unfortunate that Francis Boyle relies on the Yugoslav conflict to buttress his arguments against Israel. I give more credence to Diana Johnstone’s analysis of what went on there… The conflict was more an effort by the U.S. and NATO to destroy Yugoslavia. I think Mort is quite right about this. See the following account from a dozen years ago. —CGE =========================== On the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia Noam Chomsky interviewed by Danilo Mandic April 25, 2006... DM: Last month marked the seventh anniversary of the beginning of the bombing of Yugoslavia. Why did NATO wage that war or I should say why did the United States wage that war? NC: Actually, we have for the first time a very authoratative comment on that from the highest level of Clinton administration, which is something that one could have surmised before, but now it is asserted. This is from Strobe Talbott who was in charge of the…he ran the Pentagon/State Department intelligence Joint Committee on the diplomacy during the whole affair including the bombing, so that’s very top of Clinton administration; he just wrote the forward to a book by his Director of Communications, John Norris, and in the forward he says if you really want to understand what the thinking was of the top of Clinton administration this is the book you should read and take a look on John Norris’s book and what he says is that the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians. It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated. That’s from the highest level. Again, we could have guessed it, but I’ve never seen it said before. That it wasn’t because of the Kosovo Albanians, that we know. And this is a point of religious fanaticism that the West can’t talk about for interesting reasons having to do with Western culture, but there is just overwhelming documentation, impeccable documentation. Two big compilations of the State Department trying to justify the war, the OSCE records, NATO records, KIM Monitor records, long British Parliamentary inquiry which led into it. They all showed the same thing – and sort of what we knew, I mean it was an ugly place, there were atrocities there. DM: Given this clear documentary record I want to ask you about the elite Intellectual opinion, what you call… NC: In the United States. DM: …in the United States and in the West in general, because reviewing it you would get the impression – you would be forgiven for imagining that every critic of the NATO intervention was one of two things: either a “Milosevic sympathizer” or someone who doesn’t care about genocide. What does this mean? NC: First of all that’s a common feature of intellectual culture. One good U.S. critic, Harold Rosenberg once described intellectuals as the “herd of independent minds.” They think they are very independent but they are a stampede in a herd, which is true; when there is a party line, you have to adhere to it and the party line is systematic. The party line is subordination to state power and to state violence. Now you are allowed to criticize it but on a very narrow grounds. You can criticize it because it is not working or for some mistake or benign intentions that went astray or something, like you see right now in Iraq war, the tone of debate about Iraq war but take a look at it – it’s very similar to the debate in PRAVDA during the invasion of Afghanistan. Actually I brought this up to a Polish reporter recently and I asked him if he had been reading PRAVDA. He just laughed and said yeah it’s the same. Now you read PRAVDA in the nineteen eighties, it’s you know: “the travail of the Russian soldiers that are going to get killed and now there are these terrorists who prevent us from bringing justice and peace to the Afghans, we of course did not invade them, we intervened and helped them at the request of the legitimate government, the terrorists are preventing us from doing all good the things we wanted to do etc.” I have read Japanese counter-insurgency documents from the second WW, from the ninety thirties – the same, you know: “…we tried to bring them an earthly paradise, but the Chinese bandits are preventing it …” in fact I don’t know of any exception in history. If you want, British imperialism is the same, I mean even people of the highest moral integrity like John Stewart Mill were talking about, well we have to intervene in India and conquer India because the barbarians can’t control themselves, there are atrocities, we are to bring them the benefits of the British rule and civilization and so on. Now in the United States it’s the same. Now take bombing of Kosovo; that was an incredibly important event for American intellectuals and the reason it had to do it all was for what was going on during nineties. And the nineties are for the West, not just the U.S. and France and England were the worst – probably the low point in intellectual history for the West, I think. I mean it was like a comic strip mimicking a satire of Stalinism, literally. You take a look at the New York Times or read the French press, the British press, there was all full of talk about how there is a “normative revolution” that has swept through the West, for the first time in history, a state namely the United States, “the leader of the free world” is acting from “pure altruism”, …Clinton’s policy has entered into a “noble phase,” with a “saintly glow” on and on, I am quoting from the liberals. DM: Now, this particular humanitarian sharade was… NC: That’s pre Kosovo. DM: Right. And it was specific in a sense because it was based on the claim that it was preventing genocide. NC: Now this is, see there are no examples yet. DM: Let me just read something that you said in an interview around the time of the bombing. You said that “the term “genocide” as applied to Kosovo is an insult to the victims of Hitler. In fact, it’s revisionist to an extreme.” What did you mean by that? NC: First of all let me just fix the timing. The things I’ve been quoting are from the late nineties. DM: Before Kosovo. NC: Yeah. Now, they needed some event to justify this massive self-adulation, OK? Along came Kosovo fortunately and so now they had to stop genocide. What was the genocide in Kosovo? We know from the Western documentation what it was. In the year prior to the bombing, according to Western sources about two thousand people were killed, the killings were distributed, a lot of them were coming in fact according to British government, which was the most hawkish element of the Alliance, up until January 1999 a majority of killings came from the KLA guerillas who were coming in as they said, you know, to try to incite a harsh Serbian response, which they got, in order to appeal to Western humanitarians to bomb. We know from the Western records that nothing changed between January and March, in fact up until March 20 they indicate nothing. March 20th they indicate an increase in KLA attacks. But, it was ugly but by international standards it was almost invisible unfortunately and it was very distributed. If the British are correct, the majority was coming from the KLA guerillas. DM: And as it later turned out the KLA was also receiving financial and military support. NC: They were being supported by CIA in those months. And to call that genocide, is really to insult the victims of the holocaust, you know, if that’s genocide than the whole world is covered with genocide. In fact it’s kind of striking; right at the same time the Western intellectuals were praising themselves for their magnificent humanitarianism, much worse atrocities were going on right across the border, in Turkey. That’s inside NATO, not at the borders of NATO… “how can we allow this on the borders of NATO,”… but how about inside NATO where Turkey was carrying, had driven probably several million Kurds out of their homes, destroyed about 3500 villages laid waste the whole place, every conceivable form of torture and massacre you can imagine, killed nobody knows how many people, we don’t count our victims, tens of thousands of people, how they were able to do that? The reason is because they were getting 80% of their arms from Clinton and as the atrocities increased, the arms flow increased. In fact in one single year, 1997, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than the entire Cold War period combined! Up until the counter-insurgency. That was not reported in the West. You do not report your own crimes, that’s critical. And right in the midst of all of this, “how can we tolerate a couple of thousand people being killed in Kosovo, mixed guerillas and …” In fact the 50th Anniversary of NATO took place right in the middle of all of this. And there were lamentations about what was going on right across NATO’s border. Not a word about the much worse things going on inside NATO’s borders, thanks to the massive flow of arms from the United States. Now that’s only one case. Comparable things were going on all over where the U.S. were supportive of much worse, but this, you had to focus on this, that was the topic for “the herd of independent minds.” It played a crucial role in their self image because they had been going through a period of praising themselves for their magnificence in their “normative revolution” and their “noble phase” and so on and so forth, so it was a god-sent, and therefore you couldn’t ask any questions about it. Incidentally the same happened in the earlier phase of the Balkan wars. It was awful, and so on and so forth. However, but if you look at the coverage, for example there was one famous incident which has completely reshaped the Western opinion and that was the photograph of the thin man behind the barb-wire. DM: A fraudulent photograph, as it turned out. NC: You remember. The thin men behind the barb-wire so that was Auschwitz and ‘we can’t have Auschwitz again.’ The intellectuals went crazy and the French were posturing on television and the usual antics. Well, you know, it was investigated and carefully investigated. In fact it was investigated by the leading Western specialist on the topic, Philip Knightly, who is a highly respected media analyst and his specialty is photo journalism, probably the most famous Western and most respected Western analyst in this. He did a detailed analysis of it. And he determined that it was probably the reporters who were behind the barb-wire, and the place was ugly, but it was a refugee camp, I mean, people could leave if they wanted and, near the thin man was a fat man and so on, well and there was one tiny newspaper in England, probably three people, called LM which ran a critique of this, and the British (who haven’t a slightest concept of freedom of speech, that is a total fraud)…a major corporation, ITN, a big media corporation had publicized this, so the corporation sued the tiny newspaper for lible. Now the British lible laws were absolutely atrocious. The person accused has to prove that the, what he’s reporting is not done in malice and he can’t prove that. So and in fact when you have a huge corporation with batteries of lawyers and so on, carrying out a suit against the three people in the office, who probably don’t have the pocket-money, it’s obvious what is going to happen. Especially under these grotesque lible laws. So yes, they were able to prove the little newspaper…and couldn’t prove it wasn’t done out of malice, they were put out of business. There was just euphoria in the left liberal British press. You’ve read The Guardian and The Observer, they thought it was wonderful. DM: Mentioning The Guardian, what you describe is… NC: Sorry, incidentally…, after they put the newspaper out of business under this utterly grotesque legal case of the British laws, the left liberal newspapers, like The Guardian were just in a state of euphoria about this wonderful achievement. They had managed to destroy a tiny newspaper because it questioned some image that they had presented and they were very proud of themselves for it, which was probably misunderstood or misinterpreted. Well, Philip Knightly, he wrote a very harsh critique of the British media for behaving in this way, and tried to teach them an elementary lesson about freedom of speech. He also added that probably the photograph was misinterpreted. Couldn’t get published. Well, you know, that’s when Kosovo came along, it was the same thing. That you can not tell the truth about it, look I’ve gone through a ton of reporting on this, almost invariably they inverted the chronology. There were atrocities… DM: But after the bombing. NC: After the bombing. The way it’s presented is: the atrocities took place and then we had to bomb to prevent genocide, just inverted. DM: Let me ask you about the conduct of the actual war. You mentioned The Guardian, it’s interesting because you yourself had recently had an unpleasant experience… NC: Over this. DM: … when The Guardian misquoting you over Srebrenica. It misquoted you to make it appear as if you were questioning the Srebrenica massacre. But let me bring you back to the conduct of the actual war. That was another… NC: … the 1999 bombing. DM: The bombing, which was also overlooked or selectively covered by the Western media in general. Now, Amnesty International, among others, reported that “NATO committed serious violations of the rules of war during it’s campaign”, numerous human rights groups concur and document various war crimes. One of them had its anniversary two days ago, when the Radio Television Serbia was bombed, the national television, its headquarters, killing 16 people. First of all, why were these crimes completely unreported, and secondly, is there any prospects for there being any responsibility taken for these crimes? NC: I’d say the crimes were reported but they were cheered. It’s not that they were unknown, like the bombing of the radio station, yes, it was reported and the TV station, but it’s fine. Because the TV station was described as a propaganda outlet, so therefore it was right to bomb. That happens all the time. It just happened last year, in November 2004. One of the worst war crimes in Iraq… DM: Al Jazeera … NC: … was invasion of Falluja. Al Jazeera’s one thing, but there was worse. The invasion of Falluja was kind of similar to Srebrenica, if you look, but … They invaded Falluja; the first thing the invading troops did, U.S. troops, was to take over the general hospital and throw the patients on the floor, they were taken out their beds, put on the floor, hands tied on their backs, doctors thrown on the floor, hands on their backs, it was a picture of it in the front page of the The New York Times, they said it was wonderful. DM: The Geneva Convention forbids hospitals to be… NC: It’s a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and George Bush should be facing the death penalty for that, even under the U.S. law. But it was presented, no mention of the Geneva Conventions, and it was presented as a wonderful thing, because the Falluja general hospital was a “propaganda center,” namely it was releasing casualty figures, so therefore it was correct to carry out a massive war crime. Well, the bombing of the TV station was presented the same way. In fact, as I’m sure you recall, there was an offer from NATO that they would not bomb if they agreed to broadcast six hours of NATO propaganda. Well, this is considered quite right. How can it be dealt with? A group of international lawyers did appeal to the International Tribunal on the Yugoslavia. They presented a brief, saying they should look into NATO war crimes, but what they cited was reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and admissions by the NATO command. That was what they presented, the…I am forgetting, but I think it was Karla Del Ponte at the time; she would not look at it, in violation of the laws of the Tribunal, because she “had faith in NATO.” And that was the answer. Well, something else interesting happened after that: Yugoslavia did bring the case to the War Court… DM: Which also rejected the case. NC: The Court accepted it and in fact deliberated for a couple of years it may still be, but what is interesting is that the U.S. excused itself from the case and the Court accepted the excuse. Why? Because Yugoslavia had mentioned the Genocide Convention and the U.S. did sign the Genocide Convention (after forty years), it ratified it, but it ratified it with reservation, saying “inapplicable to the United States”. So in other words, the United States is entitled to commit genocide, therefore and that was the case that the U.S. Justice Department of President Clinton’s brought to the World Court and the Court had to agree. If a country does not accept World Court jurisdiction, it has to be excluded, so the U.S. was excluded from the trial, on the grounds that it grants itself the right to commit genocide. Do you think this was reported here? DM: The World Court, though, excused itself from hearing the case trying the illegality of the war, on the grounds that Yugoslavia was not a full member of the United Nations at the time when the case was brought to the… NC: Maybe they’ve finally reached that… DM: …they finally did that… NC: …for several years they were deliberating but that’s the sequence, does any of this get reported? You can ask your friends at Princeton, ask the faculty. They don’t know. I mean these… any more than… they will know that, they sort of probably remember the bombing, the capture of the General Hospital in Falluja but, was there any comment saying that was a war crime? DM: What struck me was that you compared the Srebrenica massacre with the Falluja invasion, why is that? NC: Because there are similarities. DM: Like what? NC: In the case of Srebrenica women and children were trucked out and then came, you know, the massacre. In the case of Falluja, the women and children were ordered out, they weren’t trucked out, they were ordered out, but the men weren’t allowed to leave and then came the attack. In fact, it turned out that the roads out were blocked. Well, I mean all things, it’s not the same story, but that part is similar. I actually mentioned that a couple of times. Storms of protest hysteria, you know. Incidentally this Guardian affair – part of it which was totally fraud is on the part of the editors, not the reporter. They blamed it on the reporter, but it was the editors. One other thing that they were infuriated about was that she asked me what about the thin man behind the barb-wire, isn’t that a horrible atrocity? I said well, you know, it’s not certain that it was correct. OK, that led to the hysteria. That’s when Philip Knightly tried to intervene to present once again his analysis and once again his critique of the media, but couldn’t. He is a very prominent, prestigious person. You just cannot break ranks; that’s not tolerated. I mean, we are lucky, we do not have censorship, it’s free society, but the self-censorship is overwhelming. Actually, Orwell once wrote about this, in something that nobody has read. Everyone has read Animal Farm and almost nobody has read the introduction to Animal Farm… DM: Unpublished. NC: Unpublished, came out in his unpublished papers, thirty years later. In it what he said is, Animal Farm is a satire of this totalitarian state, he said free England is not very different. In free England unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force and he gave examples. It’s very similar here. And it does not matter how extreme they are, I mean the Iraq invasion is a perfect example. There is not, you can not find anywhere in the main stream a suggestion that it is wrongful to invade another country. If you had invaded another country you have to pay reparations, you have to withdraw and the leadership has to be punished. I mean, and I don’t know if you have read the Nuremburg Judgments, but after the Nuremburg Judgments, Justice Jackson, Chief of Council of Prosecution of the U.S. Justice, made very, very eloquent statements about how we must…we are sentencing these people to death of the crimes for which they committed or crimes when anybody commits them, including when we commit them, we have to live up to that. He said “we are handing the defendants a poison chalice, and if we sipped from this chalice we must be treated the same way.” Can’t be more explicit! They also defined aggression. Aggression was defined in terms which just apply absolutely and without exception not only to the invasion of Iraq but to all sorts of other invasions, in Vietnam and many others, actually even terrorist war against Nicaragua, technically falls under the crime of aggression as defined in Nuremburg. DM: Does the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia? NC: Yes. And that’s not even questioned. In fact there is a, there was a so-called, an Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Kosovo bombing led by a very respected South African jurist – Justice Goldstone – and they concluded that the bombing was, in their words, “illegal but legitimate”. Illegal makes it a war crime. But they said it was legitimate because it was necessary to stop genocide. And then comes the usual inversion of the history. Actually, Justice Goldstone who was a respectable person, later recognized that the atrocities came after the bombing. And that they were furthermore the anticipated consequence, he did recognize that in a lecture in New York, couple of years ago, he said: “well, nevertheless we can take some comfort in the fact that Serbia was planning it anyway, and the proof for they were planning it is” guess what – “Operation Horse-Shoe”, – a probable intelligence fabrication that was publicized after the bombing, so even if it was true, it wouldn’t matter. And furthermore, even if that was true, it was a contingency plan. Now look, Israel has a contingency plans to drive all the Palestinians out of the West Bank if there is a conflict, so does that mean that Iran has the right to bomb Israel? Now, the U.S. has contingency plans to invade Canada, OK so does that mean that everybody has a right to bomb the United States? That’s the last straw of justification on the part of a respectable person. But for the “herd of independent minds” it just does not matter. The bombing was because of their “high values”, and their “nobility” and was to stop genocide. Say anything else, you know… tons of vilification and abuse comes. But it’s not just on this issue, it’s on every issue. So try to bring up the idea…take, say, the Vietnam War, a lot of time has passed, a huge amount of scholarship, tons of documentation, blew up the country… DM: Let me just interrupt, I’m sorry, we won’t have time to go into that… NC: OK. DM: I want to ask you about some of the present developments that are being used again to fabricate a lot of these issues. Slobodan Milosevic died last month. What is the significance of his death in your view? NC: Milosevic was, he committed many crimes, not a nice person, terrible person, but the charges against him would have never have held up. He was originally indicted on the Kosovo charges. The indictment was issued right in the middle of bombing which already nullifies it. It used British, it admittedly used British and the U.S. intelligence right in the middle of bombing, can’t possibly take it seriously. However if you look at the indictment, it was for crimes committed after the bombing. There was one exception: Racak. Let’s even grant that the claims are true, let’s put that aside. So, there was one exception, no evidence that he was involved or you know, it took place, But almost the entire indictment was for after the bombing. How are those charges going to stand up unless you put Bill Clinton and Tony Blair on the dock alongside? Then they realized that it was a weak case. So they added the early Balkan wars, OK? Lot of horrible things happened there. But the worst crime, the one that they were really going to charge him for that genocide was Srebrenica. Now, there is a little problem with that: namely there was an extensive, detailed inquiry into it by the Dutch Government, which was the responsible government, there were Dutch forces there, that’s a big, you know, hundreds of pages inquiry, and their conclusion is that Milosevic did not know anything about that, and that when it was discovered in Belgrade, they were horrified. Well, suppose that had entered into the testimony? DM: Does this mean that you are a “Milosevic sympathizer”? NC: No, he was terrible. In fact he should have been thrown out, in fact he probably would have been thrown out and in the early nineties if the Albanians had voted, it was pretty close. He did all sorts of terrible things but it wasn’t a totalitarian state, I mean, there were elections, there was the opposition, a lot of rotten things, but there are rotten things everywhere and I certainly wouldn’t want to have dinner with him or talk to him, and yes, he deserves to be tried for crimes, but this trial was never going to hold up, if it was even semi-honest. It was a farce; in fact they were lucky that he died. DM: In what sense? NC: Because they did not have to go through out the whole trial. Now they can, you can build up an image about how he would have been convicted as another Hitler. DM: Had he lived. NC: But now they don’t have to do it. DM: I just want to bring you back to the bombing of the RTS. Some have argued that this particular act of NATO’s in 1999 set precedants for targeting of media by the United States afterward – in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – that it set a precedant for legitimizing media houses and labeling them as propaganda in order to bomb them in U.S. invasions. Do you make any connection there? NC: Well, I mean, the chronology is correct. But I don’t think they need excuses. The point is: you bomb anybody you want to. Let’s take 1998, so it was before. Now in 1998, here’s another thing you’re not allowed to say in the States and the West that leads to hysteria, but I’ll say it – in 1998 Clinton bombed the major pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, OK? That was, this is the plant that’s using the most of the pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines for poor African country that’s under embargo, can’t replace it. What’s that going to do? Obviously they killed unknown numbers of people, in fact the U.S. barred an investigation by the UN so we don’t know and of course you don’t want to investigate your own crimes, but there were some evidence. So the German Ambassador, who is a fellow at the Harvard University to Sudan wrote an article in Harvard International Review in which he estimated the casualties in the tens of thousands of deaths. The research of the Head of the Near East Foundation, a very respectable foundation, their regional director had field work in Somalia and in Sudan, he did the study, he came out with the same conclusions, probably tens of thousands of dead. Right after the bombing, within weeks, Human Rights Watch issued a warning that it was going to be a humanitarian catastrophe and gave examples of aid workers being pulled out from areas where people were dying and so on. You can not mention this. Any mention of this brings the same hysteria, as criticizing the bombing of the TV station. So it’s unmentionable, it is a Western crime and therefore it was legitimate. Let’s just suppose that Al Quaida blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S., or England or Israel or any country in which people lived. Human beings, not ants, people. Fine. Can you imagine the reaction, we’d probably have a nuclear war, but when we do it to a poor African country – didn’t happen! Not discussed, in fact the only issue that is discussed if there is discussion is whether the intelligence was correct when it claimed that it was also producing chemical weapons. That is the only question. Mention anything else, the usual hysteria, and tirades…This is a very disciplined, Western intellectual culture is extremely disciplined. And rigid. You can not go beyond fixed bounds. It’s not, you know, it’s not censored, it’s all voluntary but it’s true and it’s not, incidentally, not free societies like this. In fact the third world countries are different. So take, say, Turkey, half third world; I mean in Turkey, the intellectuals, the leading intellectuals, now best known writers, academics, journalists, artists I mean they not only protest atrocities about the Kurdish massacre, they protest it constantly, but they were also constant in carrying out civil disobedience against them. I also participated with them sometimes. And they go publish banned writings which reported presented them to the Prosecutor’s Office, demand they were prosecuted. It’s not a joke, you know, facing… sometimes they are sent to prison, that’s no joke. There’s nothing like that in the West. Inconceivable. When I am in Western Europe I hear them telling me Turkey is not civilized enough to enter the European Union. I burst out laughing! It’s the other way round. DM: Speaking of democratic movements, there was a… [crew]: This is the last question. DM: OK, two more quick questions; one: you mentioned the democratic movements in various countries. There was of course a promising democratic movement in Serbia before and, of course, during the bombing. And people like Wesley Clark had claimed that this bombing would be of benefit to the anti-Milosevic forces, when it of course turned out to be a disaster. Was this a sincere evaluation on behalf of NATO? NC: Well, I can’t look into their minds. When you commit a crime it is extremely easy to find a justification for it. That’s true of personal life; it’s true of international affairs. So yes, maybe they believed it. I mean, I think there’s convincing evidence that the Japanese fascists believed that they were doing good when they carried out things in the Second World War. John Stewart Mill surely believed he was being honorable and noble when he was calling for the conquest of India right after some of the worst atrocities which I mentioned, you can easily believe you are noble. I mean, to me it’s obvious that it was going to harm the democratic movement, I heard about it and I couldn’t get much information but it was obvious that it was going to happen. I mean it is happening right now in Iran. There is a democratic movement in Iran, they are pleading with the United States not to maintain a harsh embargo, certainly not to attack, it is harming them, and it strengthens the most reactionary violent elements in the society, of course. DM: Let me ask you one final question about the future. Negotiations over Kosovo’s final status are under way right now, the United States is backing Agim Ceku, who was someone involved in ethnic cleansing not only in… NC: Not someone. He was a war criminal himself. What about the Krajina expulsion, which he was…. DM: First of all, what do you see as an appropriate, realistic solution for the final status of Kosovo and how does that differ from what the United States is now promoting? NC: My feeling has been for a long time that the only realistic solution is one that in fact was offered by the President of Serbia I think back round 1993 [Chomsky is referring to the proposal of former Serbian President of Yugoslavia, Dobrica Cosic], namely some kind of partition, with the Serbian, by now very few Serbs left but the, what were the Serbian areas being part of Serbia and the rest be what they called “independent” which means it’ll join Albania. I just don’t see…I didn’t see any other feasible solution ten years ago. DM: Shall we wrap up? Professor Chomsky, thank you very much. (Room ambience, room tone, reaction shots …) 273 Shares CHOMSKY.INFO _______________________________________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Tue Mar 6 17:52:04 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (Anne Bjornson) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:52:04 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [peace-discuss] Re: War Popular Culture Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 17:56:44 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 17:56:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians In-Reply-To: <49256A0C-2B72-4F07-A0F5-E97AB767E855@illinois.edu> References: <640748DD-9F61-4FB6-91FC-1780D4C19469@gmail.com> <49256A0C-2B72-4F07-A0F5-E97AB767E855@illinois.edu> Message-ID: The VDO was a talk on Israel and Palestinians, not Yugoslavia. One shouldn’t expect full details on Yugoslavia, within a limited discussion on another topic. I want you and Carl, to be clear as to what your point is, when you are so quick to criticize. One might get the impression that Francis is not critical of the US and Nato for what took place in Yugoslavia. I know he is. I made my point that one need not be on the ground to assess what is going on, but there are details that those involved in a situation at the time, that many of us are not aware. Again, not to scape goat the US in any way, but just as my knowledge of how the Thai government works, and what they want, how they manipulate the USG, doesn’t scapegoat the US role in Thailand, but the Thai’s like most Asians, are not helpless creatures being totally manipulated by the West, either. On Mar 6, 2018, at 08:53, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: You don’t need to be “on the ground” to assess what is going on. You need to understand the geopolitics of the actors involved. Milosevic was the then current Putin. There was no genocide in Bosnia-H. (as I understand that word), although their were terrible events, killings, on all sides. Our man Izetbetkovic (sp?) was no angel, someone who wanted to carve out an Islamic state. And if one wants to understand the outcome, as you pointed out, the U.S. ended up with one of its biggest military bases in Kosovo, a failed state. How curious. —mkb On Mar 6, 2018, at 7:16 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: My apologies to Prof. Boyle, as I think he’d like to drop the conversation, given the trivial criticisms by our armchair warriors. Did either Noam Chomsky or Diana Johnstone, spend considerable time in the Balkans at that time, as did Prof. Boyle? Did either of them spend time in the Hague, or with US Diplomats attempting to halt the potential massacre that occurred? We’re not talking about a “soldier” in the field, or an “embedded” journalist, with myopic vision. We’re talking about the International lawyer who spent years of his own time there, doing everything he could to prevent the massacre. He has made it clear, one of our largest military bases resides now in the Balkans. He has written a book documenting the genocide, you might wish to read, then you can critique his statements with authority. "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.” On Mar 5, 2018, at 19:15, 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: Monday, March 05, 2018 9:13 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' >; Brussel, Morton K > Cc: Karen Aram > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians Yeah well the International Court of Justice--the World Court of the United Nations System--agreed with me repeatedly. 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) -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 7:53 PM To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Video from Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians On Mar 5, 2018, at 7:42 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: Unfortunate that Francis Boyle relies on the Yugoslav conflict to buttress his arguments against Israel. I give more credence to Diana Johnstone’s analysis of what went on there… The conflict was more an effort by the U.S. and NATO to destroy Yugoslavia. I think Mort is quite right about this. See the following account from a dozen years ago. —CGE =========================== On the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia Noam Chomsky interviewed by Danilo Mandic April 25, 2006... DM: Last month marked the seventh anniversary of the beginning of the bombing of Yugoslavia. Why did NATO wage that war or I should say why did the United States wage that war? NC: Actually, we have for the first time a very authoratative comment on that from the highest level of Clinton administration, which is something that one could have surmised before, but now it is asserted. This is from Strobe Talbott who was in charge of the…he ran the Pentagon/State Department intelligence Joint Committee on the diplomacy during the whole affair including the bombing, so that’s very top of Clinton administration; he just wrote the forward to a book by his Director of Communications, John Norris, and in the forward he says if you really want to understand what the thinking was of the top of Clinton administration this is the book you should read and take a look on John Norris’s book and what he says is that the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians. It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated. That’s from the highest level. Again, we could have guessed it, but I’ve never seen it said before. That it wasn’t because of the Kosovo Albanians, that we know. And this is a point of religious fanaticism that the West can’t talk about for interesting reasons having to do with Western culture, but there is just overwhelming documentation, impeccable documentation. Two big compilations of the State Department trying to justify the war, the OSCE records, NATO records, KIM Monitor records, long British Parliamentary inquiry which led into it. They all showed the same thing – and sort of what we knew, I mean it was an ugly place, there were atrocities there. DM: Given this clear documentary record I want to ask you about the elite Intellectual opinion, what you call… NC: In the United States. DM: …in the United States and in the West in general, because reviewing it you would get the impression – you would be forgiven for imagining that every critic of the NATO intervention was one of two things: either a “Milosevic sympathizer” or someone who doesn’t care about genocide. What does this mean? NC: First of all that’s a common feature of intellectual culture. One good U.S. critic, Harold Rosenberg once described intellectuals as the “herd of independent minds.” They think they are very independent but they are a stampede in a herd, which is true; when there is a party line, you have to adhere to it and the party line is systematic. The party line is subordination to state power and to state violence. Now you are allowed to criticize it but on a very narrow grounds. You can criticize it because it is not working or for some mistake or benign intentions that went astray or something, like you see right now in Iraq war, the tone of debate about Iraq war but take a look at it – it’s very similar to the debate in PRAVDA during the invasion of Afghanistan. Actually I brought this up to a Polish reporter recently and I asked him if he had been reading PRAVDA. He just laughed and said yeah it’s the same. Now you read PRAVDA in the nineteen eighties, it’s you know: “the travail of the Russian soldiers that are going to get killed and now there are these terrorists who prevent us from bringing justice and peace to the Afghans, we of course did not invade them, we intervened and helped them at the request of the legitimate government, the terrorists are preventing us from doing all good the things we wanted to do etc.” I have read Japanese counter-insurgency documents from the second WW, from the ninety thirties – the same, you know: “…we tried to bring them an earthly paradise, but the Chinese bandits are preventing it …” in fact I don’t know of any exception in history. If you want, British imperialism is the same, I mean even people of the highest moral integrity like John Stewart Mill were talking about, well we have to intervene in India and conquer India because the barbarians can’t control themselves, there are atrocities, we are to bring them the benefits of the British rule and civilization and so on. Now in the United States it’s the same. Now take bombing of Kosovo; that was an incredibly important event for American intellectuals and the reason it had to do it all was for what was going on during nineties. And the nineties are for the West, not just the U.S. and France and England were the worst – probably the low point in intellectual history for the West, I think. I mean it was like a comic strip mimicking a satire of Stalinism, literally. You take a look at the New York Times or read the French press, the British press, there was all full of talk about how there is a “normative revolution” that has swept through the West, for the first time in history, a state namely the United States, “the leader of the free world” is acting from “pure altruism”, …Clinton’s policy has entered into a “noble phase,” with a “saintly glow” on and on, I am quoting from the liberals. DM: Now, this particular humanitarian sharade was… NC: That’s pre Kosovo. DM: Right. And it was specific in a sense because it was based on the claim that it was preventing genocide. NC: Now this is, see there are no examples yet. DM: Let me just read something that you said in an interview around the time of the bombing. You said that “the term “genocide” as applied to Kosovo is an insult to the victims of Hitler. In fact, it’s revisionist to an extreme.” What did you mean by that? NC: First of all let me just fix the timing. The things I’ve been quoting are from the late nineties. DM: Before Kosovo. NC: Yeah. Now, they needed some event to justify this massive self-adulation, OK? Along came Kosovo fortunately and so now they had to stop genocide. What was the genocide in Kosovo? We know from the Western documentation what it was. In the year prior to the bombing, according to Western sources about two thousand people were killed, the killings were distributed, a lot of them were coming in fact according to British government, which was the most hawkish element of the Alliance, up until January 1999 a majority of killings came from the KLA guerillas who were coming in as they said, you know, to try to incite a harsh Serbian response, which they got, in order to appeal to Western humanitarians to bomb. We know from the Western records that nothing changed between January and March, in fact up until March 20 they indicate nothing. March 20th they indicate an increase in KLA attacks. But, it was ugly but by international standards it was almost invisible unfortunately and it was very distributed. If the British are correct, the majority was coming from the KLA guerillas. DM: And as it later turned out the KLA was also receiving financial and military support. NC: They were being supported by CIA in those months. And to call that genocide, is really to insult the victims of the holocaust, you know, if that’s genocide than the whole world is covered with genocide. In fact it’s kind of striking; right at the same time the Western intellectuals were praising themselves for their magnificent humanitarianism, much worse atrocities were going on right across the border, in Turkey. That’s inside NATO, not at the borders of NATO… “how can we allow this on the borders of NATO,”… but how about inside NATO where Turkey was carrying, had driven probably several million Kurds out of their homes, destroyed about 3500 villages laid waste the whole place, every conceivable form of torture and massacre you can imagine, killed nobody knows how many people, we don’t count our victims, tens of thousands of people, how they were able to do that? The reason is because they were getting 80% of their arms from Clinton and as the atrocities increased, the arms flow increased. In fact in one single year, 1997, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than the entire Cold War period combined! Up until the counter-insurgency. That was not reported in the West. You do not report your own crimes, that’s critical. And right in the midst of all of this, “how can we tolerate a couple of thousand people being killed in Kosovo, mixed guerillas and …” In fact the 50th Anniversary of NATO took place right in the middle of all of this. And there were lamentations about what was going on right across NATO’s border. Not a word about the much worse things going on inside NATO’s borders, thanks to the massive flow of arms from the United States. Now that’s only one case. Comparable things were going on all over where the U.S. were supportive of much worse, but this, you had to focus on this, that was the topic for “the herd of independent minds.” It played a crucial role in their self image because they had been going through a period of praising themselves for their magnificence in their “normative revolution” and their “noble phase” and so on and so forth, so it was a god-sent, and therefore you couldn’t ask any questions about it. Incidentally the same happened in the earlier phase of the Balkan wars. It was awful, and so on and so forth. However, but if you look at the coverage, for example there was one famous incident which has completely reshaped the Western opinion and that was the photograph of the thin man behind the barb-wire. DM: A fraudulent photograph, as it turned out. NC: You remember. The thin men behind the barb-wire so that was Auschwitz and ‘we can’t have Auschwitz again.’ The intellectuals went crazy and the French were posturing on television and the usual antics. Well, you know, it was investigated and carefully investigated. In fact it was investigated by the leading Western specialist on the topic, Philip Knightly, who is a highly respected media analyst and his specialty is photo journalism, probably the most famous Western and most respected Western analyst in this. He did a detailed analysis of it. And he determined that it was probably the reporters who were behind the barb-wire, and the place was ugly, but it was a refugee camp, I mean, people could leave if they wanted and, near the thin man was a fat man and so on, well and there was one tiny newspaper in England, probably three people, called LM which ran a critique of this, and the British (who haven’t a slightest concept of freedom of speech, that is a total fraud)…a major corporation, ITN, a big media corporation had publicized this, so the corporation sued the tiny newspaper for lible. Now the British lible laws were absolutely atrocious. The person accused has to prove that the, what he’s reporting is not done in malice and he can’t prove that. So and in fact when you have a huge corporation with batteries of lawyers and so on, carrying out a suit against the three people in the office, who probably don’t have the pocket-money, it’s obvious what is going to happen. Especially under these grotesque lible laws. So yes, they were able to prove the little newspaper…and couldn’t prove it wasn’t done out of malice, they were put out of business. There was just euphoria in the left liberal British press. You’ve read The Guardian and The Observer, they thought it was wonderful. DM: Mentioning The Guardian, what you describe is… NC: Sorry, incidentally…, after they put the newspaper out of business under this utterly grotesque legal case of the British laws, the left liberal newspapers, like The Guardian were just in a state of euphoria about this wonderful achievement. They had managed to destroy a tiny newspaper because it questioned some image that they had presented and they were very proud of themselves for it, which was probably misunderstood or misinterpreted. Well, Philip Knightly, he wrote a very harsh critique of the British media for behaving in this way, and tried to teach them an elementary lesson about freedom of speech. He also added that probably the photograph was misinterpreted. Couldn’t get published. Well, you know, that’s when Kosovo came along, it was the same thing. That you can not tell the truth about it, look I’ve gone through a ton of reporting on this, almost invariably they inverted the chronology. There were atrocities… DM: But after the bombing. NC: After the bombing. The way it’s presented is: the atrocities took place and then we had to bomb to prevent genocide, just inverted. DM: Let me ask you about the conduct of the actual war. You mentioned The Guardian, it’s interesting because you yourself had recently had an unpleasant experience… NC: Over this. DM: … when The Guardian misquoting you over Srebrenica. It misquoted you to make it appear as if you were questioning the Srebrenica massacre. But let me bring you back to the conduct of the actual war. That was another… NC: … the 1999 bombing. DM: The bombing, which was also overlooked or selectively covered by the Western media in general. Now, Amnesty International, among others, reported that “NATO committed serious violations of the rules of war during it’s campaign”, numerous human rights groups concur and document various war crimes. One of them had its anniversary two days ago, when the Radio Television Serbia was bombed, the national television, its headquarters, killing 16 people. First of all, why were these crimes completely unreported, and secondly, is there any prospects for there being any responsibility taken for these crimes? NC: I’d say the crimes were reported but they were cheered. It’s not that they were unknown, like the bombing of the radio station, yes, it was reported and the TV station, but it’s fine. Because the TV station was described as a propaganda outlet, so therefore it was right to bomb. That happens all the time. It just happened last year, in November 2004. One of the worst war crimes in Iraq… DM: Al Jazeera … NC: … was invasion of Falluja. Al Jazeera’s one thing, but there was worse. The invasion of Falluja was kind of similar to Srebrenica, if you look, but … They invaded Falluja; the first thing the invading troops did, U.S. troops, was to take over the general hospital and throw the patients on the floor, they were taken out their beds, put on the floor, hands tied on their backs, doctors thrown on the floor, hands on their backs, it was a picture of it in the front page of the The New York Times, they said it was wonderful. DM: The Geneva Convention forbids hospitals to be… NC: It’s a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and George Bush should be facing the death penalty for that, even under the U.S. law. But it was presented, no mention of the Geneva Conventions, and it was presented as a wonderful thing, because the Falluja general hospital was a “propaganda center,” namely it was releasing casualty figures, so therefore it was correct to carry out a massive war crime. Well, the bombing of the TV station was presented the same way. In fact, as I’m sure you recall, there was an offer from NATO that they would not bomb if they agreed to broadcast six hours of NATO propaganda. Well, this is considered quite right. How can it be dealt with? A group of international lawyers did appeal to the International Tribunal on the Yugoslavia. They presented a brief, saying they should look into NATO war crimes, but what they cited was reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and admissions by the NATO command. That was what they presented, the…I am forgetting, but I think it was Karla Del Ponte at the time; she would not look at it, in violation of the laws of the Tribunal, because she “had faith in NATO.” And that was the answer. Well, something else interesting happened after that: Yugoslavia did bring the case to the War Court… DM: Which also rejected the case. NC: The Court accepted it and in fact deliberated for a couple of years it may still be, but what is interesting is that the U.S. excused itself from the case and the Court accepted the excuse. Why? Because Yugoslavia had mentioned the Genocide Convention and the U.S. did sign the Genocide Convention (after forty years), it ratified it, but it ratified it with reservation, saying “inapplicable to the United States”. So in other words, the United States is entitled to commit genocide, therefore and that was the case that the U.S. Justice Department of President Clinton’s brought to the World Court and the Court had to agree. If a country does not accept World Court jurisdiction, it has to be excluded, so the U.S. was excluded from the trial, on the grounds that it grants itself the right to commit genocide. Do you think this was reported here? DM: The World Court, though, excused itself from hearing the case trying the illegality of the war, on the grounds that Yugoslavia was not a full member of the United Nations at the time when the case was brought to the… NC: Maybe they’ve finally reached that… DM: …they finally did that… NC: …for several years they were deliberating but that’s the sequence, does any of this get reported? You can ask your friends at Princeton, ask the faculty. They don’t know. I mean these… any more than… they will know that, they sort of probably remember the bombing, the capture of the General Hospital in Falluja but, was there any comment saying that was a war crime? DM: What struck me was that you compared the Srebrenica massacre with the Falluja invasion, why is that? NC: Because there are similarities. DM: Like what? NC: In the case of Srebrenica women and children were trucked out and then came, you know, the massacre. In the case of Falluja, the women and children were ordered out, they weren’t trucked out, they were ordered out, but the men weren’t allowed to leave and then came the attack. In fact, it turned out that the roads out were blocked. Well, I mean all things, it’s not the same story, but that part is similar. I actually mentioned that a couple of times. Storms of protest hysteria, you know. Incidentally this Guardian affair – part of it which was totally fraud is on the part of the editors, not the reporter. They blamed it on the reporter, but it was the editors. One other thing that they were infuriated about was that she asked me what about the thin man behind the barb-wire, isn’t that a horrible atrocity? I said well, you know, it’s not certain that it was correct. OK, that led to the hysteria. That’s when Philip Knightly tried to intervene to present once again his analysis and once again his critique of the media, but couldn’t. He is a very prominent, prestigious person. You just cannot break ranks; that’s not tolerated. I mean, we are lucky, we do not have censorship, it’s free society, but the self-censorship is overwhelming. Actually, Orwell once wrote about this, in something that nobody has read. Everyone has read Animal Farm and almost nobody has read the introduction to Animal Farm… DM: Unpublished. NC: Unpublished, came out in his unpublished papers, thirty years later. In it what he said is, Animal Farm is a satire of this totalitarian state, he said free England is not very different. In free England unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force and he gave examples. It’s very similar here. And it does not matter how extreme they are, I mean the Iraq invasion is a perfect example. There is not, you can not find anywhere in the main stream a suggestion that it is wrongful to invade another country. If you had invaded another country you have to pay reparations, you have to withdraw and the leadership has to be punished. I mean, and I don’t know if you have read the Nuremburg Judgments, but after the Nuremburg Judgments, Justice Jackson, Chief of Council of Prosecution of the U.S. Justice, made very, very eloquent statements about how we must…we are sentencing these people to death of the crimes for which they committed or crimes when anybody commits them, including when we commit them, we have to live up to that. He said “we are handing the defendants a poison chalice, and if we sipped from this chalice we must be treated the same way.” Can’t be more explicit! They also defined aggression. Aggression was defined in terms which just apply absolutely and without exception not only to the invasion of Iraq but to all sorts of other invasions, in Vietnam and many others, actually even terrorist war against Nicaragua, technically falls under the crime of aggression as defined in Nuremburg. DM: Does the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia? NC: Yes. And that’s not even questioned. In fact there is a, there was a so-called, an Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Kosovo bombing led by a very respected South African jurist – Justice Goldstone – and they concluded that the bombing was, in their words, “illegal but legitimate”. Illegal makes it a war crime. But they said it was legitimate because it was necessary to stop genocide. And then comes the usual inversion of the history. Actually, Justice Goldstone who was a respectable person, later recognized that the atrocities came after the bombing. And that they were furthermore the anticipated consequence, he did recognize that in a lecture in New York, couple of years ago, he said: “well, nevertheless we can take some comfort in the fact that Serbia was planning it anyway, and the proof for they were planning it is” guess what – “Operation Horse-Shoe”, – a probable intelligence fabrication that was publicized after the bombing, so even if it was true, it wouldn’t matter. And furthermore, even if that was true, it was a contingency plan. Now look, Israel has a contingency plans to drive all the Palestinians out of the West Bank if there is a conflict, so does that mean that Iran has the right to bomb Israel? Now, the U.S. has contingency plans to invade Canada, OK so does that mean that everybody has a right to bomb the United States? That’s the last straw of justification on the part of a respectable person. But for the “herd of independent minds” it just does not matter. The bombing was because of their “high values”, and their “nobility” and was to stop genocide. Say anything else, you know… tons of vilification and abuse comes. But it’s not just on this issue, it’s on every issue. So try to bring up the idea…take, say, the Vietnam War, a lot of time has passed, a huge amount of scholarship, tons of documentation, blew up the country… DM: Let me just interrupt, I’m sorry, we won’t have time to go into that… NC: OK. DM: I want to ask you about some of the present developments that are being used again to fabricate a lot of these issues. Slobodan Milosevic died last month. What is the significance of his death in your view? NC: Milosevic was, he committed many crimes, not a nice person, terrible person, but the charges against him would have never have held up. He was originally indicted on the Kosovo charges. The indictment was issued right in the middle of bombing which already nullifies it. It used British, it admittedly used British and the U.S. intelligence right in the middle of bombing, can’t possibly take it seriously. However if you look at the indictment, it was for crimes committed after the bombing. There was one exception: Racak. Let’s even grant that the claims are true, let’s put that aside. So, there was one exception, no evidence that he was involved or you know, it took place, But almost the entire indictment was for after the bombing. How are those charges going to stand up unless you put Bill Clinton and Tony Blair on the dock alongside? Then they realized that it was a weak case. So they added the early Balkan wars, OK? Lot of horrible things happened there. But the worst crime, the one that they were really going to charge him for that genocide was Srebrenica. Now, there is a little problem with that: namely there was an extensive, detailed inquiry into it by the Dutch Government, which was the responsible government, there were Dutch forces there, that’s a big, you know, hundreds of pages inquiry, and their conclusion is that Milosevic did not know anything about that, and that when it was discovered in Belgrade, they were horrified. Well, suppose that had entered into the testimony? DM: Does this mean that you are a “Milosevic sympathizer”? NC: No, he was terrible. In fact he should have been thrown out, in fact he probably would have been thrown out and in the early nineties if the Albanians had voted, it was pretty close. He did all sorts of terrible things but it wasn’t a totalitarian state, I mean, there were elections, there was the opposition, a lot of rotten things, but there are rotten things everywhere and I certainly wouldn’t want to have dinner with him or talk to him, and yes, he deserves to be tried for crimes, but this trial was never going to hold up, if it was even semi-honest. It was a farce; in fact they were lucky that he died. DM: In what sense? NC: Because they did not have to go through out the whole trial. Now they can, you can build up an image about how he would have been convicted as another Hitler. DM: Had he lived. NC: But now they don’t have to do it. DM: I just want to bring you back to the bombing of the RTS. Some have argued that this particular act of NATO’s in 1999 set precedants for targeting of media by the United States afterward – in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – that it set a precedant for legitimizing media houses and labeling them as propaganda in order to bomb them in U.S. invasions. Do you make any connection there? NC: Well, I mean, the chronology is correct. But I don’t think they need excuses. The point is: you bomb anybody you want to. Let’s take 1998, so it was before. Now in 1998, here’s another thing you’re not allowed to say in the States and the West that leads to hysteria, but I’ll say it – in 1998 Clinton bombed the major pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, OK? That was, this is the plant that’s using the most of the pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines for poor African country that’s under embargo, can’t replace it. What’s that going to do? Obviously they killed unknown numbers of people, in fact the U.S. barred an investigation by the UN so we don’t know and of course you don’t want to investigate your own crimes, but there were some evidence. So the German Ambassador, who is a fellow at the Harvard University to Sudan wrote an article in Harvard International Review in which he estimated the casualties in the tens of thousands of deaths. The research of the Head of the Near East Foundation, a very respectable foundation, their regional director had field work in Somalia and in Sudan, he did the study, he came out with the same conclusions, probably tens of thousands of dead. Right after the bombing, within weeks, Human Rights Watch issued a warning that it was going to be a humanitarian catastrophe and gave examples of aid workers being pulled out from areas where people were dying and so on. You can not mention this. Any mention of this brings the same hysteria, as criticizing the bombing of the TV station. So it’s unmentionable, it is a Western crime and therefore it was legitimate. Let’s just suppose that Al Quaida blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S., or England or Israel or any country in which people lived. Human beings, not ants, people. Fine. Can you imagine the reaction, we’d probably have a nuclear war, but when we do it to a poor African country – didn’t happen! Not discussed, in fact the only issue that is discussed if there is discussion is whether the intelligence was correct when it claimed that it was also producing chemical weapons. That is the only question. Mention anything else, the usual hysteria, and tirades…This is a very disciplined, Western intellectual culture is extremely disciplined. And rigid. You can not go beyond fixed bounds. It’s not, you know, it’s not censored, it’s all voluntary but it’s true and it’s not, incidentally, not free societies like this. In fact the third world countries are different. So take, say, Turkey, half third world; I mean in Turkey, the intellectuals, the leading intellectuals, now best known writers, academics, journalists, artists I mean they not only protest atrocities about the Kurdish massacre, they protest it constantly, but they were also constant in carrying out civil disobedience against them. I also participated with them sometimes. And they go publish banned writings which reported presented them to the Prosecutor’s Office, demand they were prosecuted. It’s not a joke, you know, facing… sometimes they are sent to prison, that’s no joke. There’s nothing like that in the West. Inconceivable. When I am in Western Europe I hear them telling me Turkey is not civilized enough to enter the European Union. I burst out laughing! It’s the other way round. DM: Speaking of democratic movements, there was a… [crew]: This is the last question. DM: OK, two more quick questions; one: you mentioned the democratic movements in various countries. There was of course a promising democratic movement in Serbia before and, of course, during the bombing. And people like Wesley Clark had claimed that this bombing would be of benefit to the anti-Milosevic forces, when it of course turned out to be a disaster. Was this a sincere evaluation on behalf of NATO? NC: Well, I can’t look into their minds. When you commit a crime it is extremely easy to find a justification for it. That’s true of personal life; it’s true of international affairs. So yes, maybe they believed it. I mean, I think there’s convincing evidence that the Japanese fascists believed that they were doing good when they carried out things in the Second World War. John Stewart Mill surely believed he was being honorable and noble when he was calling for the conquest of India right after some of the worst atrocities which I mentioned, you can easily believe you are noble. I mean, to me it’s obvious that it was going to harm the democratic movement, I heard about it and I couldn’t get much information but it was obvious that it was going to happen. I mean it is happening right now in Iran. There is a democratic movement in Iran, they are pleading with the United States not to maintain a harsh embargo, certainly not to attack, it is harming them, and it strengthens the most reactionary violent elements in the society, of course. DM: Let me ask you one final question about the future. Negotiations over Kosovo’s final status are under way right now, the United States is backing Agim Ceku, who was someone involved in ethnic cleansing not only in… NC: Not someone. He was a war criminal himself. What about the Krajina expulsion, which he was…. DM: First of all, what do you see as an appropriate, realistic solution for the final status of Kosovo and how does that differ from what the United States is now promoting? NC: My feeling has been for a long time that the only realistic solution is one that in fact was offered by the President of Serbia I think back round 1993 [Chomsky is referring to the proposal of former Serbian President of Yugoslavia, Dobrica Cosic], namely some kind of partition, with the Serbian, by now very few Serbs left but the, what were the Serbian areas being part of Serbia and the rest be what they called “independent” which means it’ll join Albania. I just don’t see…I didn’t see any other feasible solution ten years ago. DM: Shall we wrap up? Professor Chomsky, thank you very much. (Room ambience, room tone, reaction shots …) 273 Shares CHOMSKY.INFO _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Mar 7 12:27:54 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 12:27:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] SJP UIUC DIVEST VOTING DAY SPECIAL ISSUE In-Reply-To: <4465a3a1c41a6293a42daf477.c42fa3c685.20180307072830.a7fa5ade38.ec4a9a1f@mail248.suw121.mcdlv.net> References: <4465a3a1c41a6293a42daf477.c42fa3c685.20180307072830.a7fa5ade38.ec4a9a1f@mail248.suw121.mcdlv.net> Message-ID: Non students do not vote, but AWARE and other groups opposing war, opposing discrimination should support this organization in their efforts. . On Mar 6, 2018, at 23:28, SJP UIUC > wrote: This is a quick update for SJP's upcoming week events. Make sure to come out and show your support! Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/4465a3a1c41a6293a42daf477/images/28e4013e-c3a3-4183-9d30-bee27d1cef2a.png] Students for Justice in Palestine SP18, March 7, 2018 || Vol. 11 [UIUC DIVEST VOTING DAY SI] UIUC DIVEST VOTING DAY Hello all fellow comrades, the time has come. Voting Day is here and it is time to VOTE YES TO DIVEST. UIUC Divest Referendum Question: Shall the University divest, or withdraw investments, from specified companies in the University’s BlackRock portfolio that actively normalize, engage in, or fund human rights violations as defined by the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Explanatory Statement: This referendum calls upon the Board of Trustees to exclusively pull its investments from specific companies in the University’s BlackRock portfolio that normalize, engage in, or fund human rights violations, per the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, perpetrated against the Palestinian people and all peoples marginalized worldwide on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexuality, gender, class, and ability. WE NEED EVERYONE* TO VOTE YES TO DIVEST ON MARCH 7 AND MARCH 8 THROUGH THE LINK BELOW: VOTE YES TO DIVEST *ONLY current UIUC undergraduate and graduate students can vote! Need more convincing? Here's a video about the importance of this campaign through the outlook of many different organizatioins. Also, if you have not already, join our SJP UIUC Facebook Group and follow us on all our social media (linked below). In Solidarity SJP UIUC UPCOMING EVENTS ABOUT UIUC's SJP Chapter SJP UIUC is a student organization which works to educate the student body on the issues surrounding Palestine and which advocates for all forms of justice for the Palestinian people through direct action efforts and nonviolent resistance Follow on Twitter | Facebook Page | Forward to Friend Copyright © 2018 Students for Justice in Palestine, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have previously subscribed to our mailing list. Our mailing address is: Students for Justice in Palestine 1401 W. Green St. M/C 384 284 Illini Union #16 Urbana, Il 61801 Add us to your address book [Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 7 12:55:32 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 12:55:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Military intervention into Burma, by proxy Australia? Message-ID: current edition:US edition The Guardian - Back to home Make a contributionSubscribeFind a job Sign in Search * News * Opinion * Sport * Culture * Lifestyle ShowMore * World * Europe * US * Americas * Asia * Australia * Middle East * Africa * Inequality * Cities * Global development Australia news Australia to train Myanmar military despite ethnic cleansing accusations Defence department spend continues despite claims treatment of Rohingya bears ‘hallmarks of a genocide’ Elise Thomas Mon 5 Mar 2018 12.00 ESTLast modified on Mon 5 Mar 2018 12.02 EST * * * * View more sharing options Shares 5,108 [Myanmar soldiers patrol the Bangladesh border] Myanmar soldiers patrol the Bangladesh border, over which 688,000 Rohingya refugees have fled since August. Photograph: Munir Uz Zaman/AFP/Getty Images The Australian defence department plans to spend almost $400,000 on English lessons, event attendances and training courses for members of the Myanmarmilitary in 2017-18, documents released under freedom of information laws show. Myanmar’s armed forces, also known as the Tatmadaw, has faced international condemnation and accusations of ethnic cleansing in recent months for perpetrating a fresh wave of attacks against the country’s minority Rohingyapopulation. About 688,000 Rohingya refugees have fled over the border to Bangladesh since August 2017. Yanghee Lee, a UN human rights investigator, has said the situation bears “the hallmarks of a genocide”. In 2017-18 the defence department will spend $398,000 (a $126,000 increase on last year’s spending) on English lessons and on funding Myanmar’s participation in the Pirap Jabiru multilateral military exercises in the region that Australia cohosts with Thailand. [https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/e75888c426fbea4ae32847fdb4e21545e2ba9ce2/720_755_4208_2525/master/4208.jpg?w=460&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=06c376c4b73dcf92c9286a9868736de1] Massacre at Tula Toli: Rohingya recall horror of Myanmar army attack Read more Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s leader, is due to visit Sydney this month for the Asean-Australia special summit. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said on Thursday the Myanmar government’s treatment of the Rohingya people is expected to be discussed. Australian allies including the US, UK, Canada, France and the EU have cut ties with Myanmar’s military over the violence. The US and Canada have imposed targeted sanctions against Myanmar military leaders. In recent months the Myanmar military has also courted controversy through purchases of fighter jets from Russia and ballistic missiles from North Korea. A briefing note produced by the defence department says: “Defence has a modest program of engagement with Myanmar in non-combat areas, with a focus on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, peacekeeping training and English language training. This engagement is designed to expose the Tatmadaw to the ways of a modern, professional defence force and highlight the importance of adhering to international humanitarian law.” The briefing note, anticipating a challenge on why the UK and the US have acted differently, says: “Each country needs to make its own decision on engagement with the Tatmadaw.” [https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/88c0e6dc8a5f66f2606f8b0877e4b00ca4234380/354_648_4473_2685/master/4473.jpg?w=460&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=39b60f85890a5c9bc06a5aea83a6cfee] North Korea supplied arms to Syria and Myanmar, UN sanctions report finds Read more While an arms embargo, introduced in 1991, remains in place, Australia has so far diverged from its allies and resisted calls from groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to suspend military cooperation with Myanmar. Australia held its first bilateral defence cooperation talks with Myanmar in 2017, and plans to hold further talks this year. “Australia’s bilateral defence engagement with Myanmar is limited to humanitarian and non-combat areas such as disaster relief, peacekeeping, aviation safety and English-language training,” a defence department spokesperson said. “Maintaining this engagement has enabled senior Australian military officials to directly raise concerns on Rakhine with their Myanmar counterparts.” Last year the defence department offered Tatmadaw officers English lessons and study places in Australia for courses on aviation safety, maritime security, operational law, joint warfare and peacekeeping. One Tatmadaw officer received a scholarship from the defence department to study for a master of peace and conflict at the University of Sydney. In June 2017 Australia gave Myanmar advice on how to carry out an air accident investigation following the deaths of 122 people when a Y-8 military plane crashed. [https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/20f487db28d273821fab06196b4880898588b6fb/40_0_782_469/master/782.jpg?w=460&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=9159a2b8bf1472c28c1c38684f7b1251] Myanmar: bodies found after plane crashes into sea with 122 on board Read more The spokesperson gave the example of Lieut Gen Angus Campbell’s meeting with Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw army, at the Pacific armies chiefs conference in Seoul in September 2017. Diana Sayed, Amnesty International’s crisis campaigns coordinator, said the Australian government’s strategy of continued engagement and careful diplomacy cannot be justified given the extent and extremity of the crisis. “This business as usual approach is unacceptable, and is only going to further damage Australia’s international reputation, especially as Australia takes up its seat on the UN human rights council,” Sayed says. “The decisions of the US, the UK and the EU to cut military ties, and the recent sanctions imposed by Canada all show that Australia is out of touch with the rest of the world when it comes to this crisis.” Advertisement It is not known if members of the Tatmadaw who are directly implicated in the violence against the Rohingyacould benefit from Australian-funded training. The defence spokesperson said subject to course requirements and visa processes, “the Tatmadaw nominates personnel to fill Australia-based training positions”. The department did not provide a response to questions about what steps the department is taking to identify individuals implicated in perpetrating the violence. Talking points written for the Australian defence minister Marise Payne’s meeting with her Myanmar counterpart Lieut Gen Sein Win in October 2017 advise her to acknowledge the Myanmar government’s narrative that “the current violence was sparked by attacks on government forces”. [https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/e1661a333347eb53c01b7195f96835d61a65c59a/0_0_4000_2399/master/4000.jpg?w=460&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=b2a39a4a099b61f37341e6a9953d5b0d] Sign up for Guardian Today Australian edition: the stories you need to read, in one handy email Read more The minister is advised that Australia “strongly condemns” the attacks on security outposts by Rohingya militants, in which 11 police officers were killed, but stops short of condemning the government’s own violence against the Rohingya people in which an estimated 6,700 civilians were killed in only the first month. Instead the talking points express Australia’s “deep concern” over the displacement of Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh, saying that “these reports divert attention away from the legitimate security threat posed by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army [and] harm the Myanmar military’s international reputation”. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Mar 7 17:13:26 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 11:13:26 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Day 10 Graduate Empoyees Union strike - occupation of administration building Message-ID: <017701d3b637$9be13300$d3a39900$@comcast.net> Day 10 Graduate Employees Union strike - occupation of administration building An update on day 10 of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Graduate Employees Union ( GEO ) strike. The longest strike in the history of the University of Illinois. Yesterday evening March 6th after a march on the residence of the President of the University of Illinois, a group of about 100 GEO Union members occupied the Henry administration building on the U of I campus. Police were immediately called and they locked down the building to prevent any additional Union members or community supporters from joining the occupation. No arrests have yet been made. A rally in support of the GEO and the occupation is scheduled to begin at 12 Noon U.S. central time today March 7th. Stay tuned for further details. If you have not already donated to the GEO Union strike fund, please do so at ; www.uigeo.org OR, You can mail a check to ; GEO , 809 S. 5th St. McKinley foundation, Champaign, IL 61820 Please make your check payable to " Graduate Employees Organization ". David Johnson World Labor Hour Radio WRFU 104.5 FM and live worldwide at ; www.wrfu.net Urbana, IL. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 7 17:52:21 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 11:52:21 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fear and nuclear radiation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/07/injustice-at-sea-the-irradiated-sailors-of-the-uss-reagan/ > On Mar 2, 2018, at 7:41 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I append part of an informative article from this source: > > https://thebulletin.org/how-unlucky-lucky-dragon-birthed-era-nuclear-fear11546 > > Those worried about the effects of Fukushima should be interested. > The Japanese word for fear is kyoufu. Ironically, while the modern world’s kyoufu of radiation essentially began with the Lucky Dragon incident and Kuboyama’s death, another Japanese experience—the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—has taught us that radiation is nowhere near as dangerous as we have come to assume. A total of 86,600 hibakusha have been followed with regular medical examinations for 71 years and compared to 23,000 Japanese who were not exposed to radiation. It stuns most people to learn this (it sure stunned me), but the overall increased radiation-induced cancer death rate among atomic bomb survivors—thousands of whom instantly received high doses of radiation from the bombs themselves, then experienced extended exposure to fallout in their air, water, and food—is less than one percent. “Atomic bomb disease” has killed a total of only 586 of those 86,600 survivors. At lower but still substantial doses –doses far higher than those caused to the public by the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl in 1986 or Fukushima in 2011—radiation has caused no change in disease rates compared to the normal rates among the control population. The children of the hibakusha have also been followed and studied, and show no multi-generational genetic damage passed down from their parents, though children born to pregnant women among the hibakusha did suffer a higher rate of birth defects. (The 70-plus year-long study of the atomic bomb survivors continues, conducted by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima.) > > Based on this hard-won knowledge, experts can say with confidence that the increased lifetime cancer mortality rate from Chernobyl will be just 3 to 4 percent above normal cancer death rates for the affected population, according to a 2006 World Health Organization study. The Fukushima nuclear accident is unlikely to raise the rate of any disease associated with radiation above normal. The doses to which people were exposed at Fukushima were nothing near those experienced by the hibakusha closest to the blast in 1945, and nothing like the intense doses received by the crew of the Lucky Dragon. > > But though the information from health experts is reassuring, fear of radiation from Fukushima persists. It persists in the tens of thousands of people evacuated as a precaution when no one knew what was going to happen, who now won’t move back even though radiation doses are low enough in most areas to allow them to safely do so. Families and entire communities have been decimated. Rates of unemployment, alcoholism, depression, and stress-related illnesses are elevated compared to other areas of Japan. As was sadly true for the hibakusha before them, some children from Fukushima prefecture are shunned and stigmatized when they travel. > > The fear persists across Japan, where sales of agricultural products from the Fukushima prefecture are lagging, echoing past fears of contaminated tuna from the Lucky Dragon, even though we now know that the actual risk from the infinitesimal doses around Fukushima is practically zero. > > It persists with the hundreds of billions of yen being spent to collect water running through the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant site. The water picks up a radioactive molecule called tritium, which the world’s top experts all agree causes such a low dose to anyone exposed that it poses no threat to human health. (Some of the red and green exit lights in theaters, designed to stay on when the power fails, are filled with tritium.) Japanese authorities will probably release all that tritium-tainted water into the ocean. Though this would pose no threat to the environment, the very idea is facing fierce resistance, fed by excessive fear of anything connected to the word “radiation.” > > Finally, kyoufu of radiation persists across Japan and elsewhere in the form of opposition to nuclear energy. Nuclear power produces neither greenhouse gasses, which contribute to climate change, nor particulate pollution, which sickens or kills tens of millions of people around the world every year. Having shut down its nuclear power fleet because of fear of radiation following Fukushima, Japan is now burning more fossil fuels to produce electricity, contributing to short- and long-term health threats that are vastly greater than those posed by radiation. (So is Germany, and so are several US states.) Due to fear of radiation, some Japanese don’t want to allow TEPCO, the electric company, to restart their Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear complex, where millions have been spent upgrading safety since Fukushima. Without revenue from that plant, TEPCO has to continue to borrow Japanese taxpayer money to pay for the clean-up at Fukushima, a multibillion-dollar effort to capture radioactive material that experts agree poses no threat to public or environmental health. > > The fact that deep nuclear fear has persisted for so long, despite solid evidence that the risk isn’t as great as we thought it was back in 1954, is perhaps the Daigo Fukuryu Maru Exhibition Hall’s most profound lesson. The museum helps us understand the events and historic context that gave birth to our fear of radiation, and why it is so deeply engrained. It helps us realize how fear with such deep emotional roots is not readily overcome by objective consideration of the facts alone. It helps us see how easily fear can overpower reason, even when fear of a risk does more harm than the risk itself. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 19:26:50 2018 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 19:26:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Intelligence operatives running for Congress References: <255565889.9590591.1520450810075.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <255565889.9590591.1520450810075@mail.yahoo.com> Jon Ebel was likely counted as a member of this category: "The World Socialist Web Site has reviewed Federal Election Commission reports filed by all the Democratic candidates in these 102 competitive districts, focusing on those candidates who reported by the latest filing date, December 31, 2017, that they had raised at least $100,000 for their campaigns, giving them a financial war chest sufficient to run in a competitive primary contest. In addition, there a few cases where a candidate had less than the $100,000 cutoff, but was unchallenged for the nomination, or where last-minute retirement or resignation has led to late entry of high-profile candidates without an FEC report on file. These have also been included. The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts is 219. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather than something to conceal." The CIA Democrats | | | | | | | | | | | The CIA Democrats Patrick Martin Dozens of former CIA and military operatives are running as Democratic candidates for Congress in 2018. | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 7 23:30:15 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 17:30:15 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Accident? Message-ID: <251D2471-8134-4A53-998D-108AFD804B82@gmail.com> https://www.rt.com/news/420711-belgium-nuclear-iodine-free/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 8 12:55:27 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 12:55:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nuclear War Profiteers Message-ID: As Trump Threats Stir Global Arms Race, New Report Details the Nuclear War Profiteers "If you have been wondering who benefits from Donald Trump's threats of nuclear war, this report has that answer." by Andrea Germanos, staff writer * * * * * * * 9 Comments [https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/headlines/ican-pax-dont-bank-bomb.jpg?itok=5HW2ksor] The new report "names those that are still okay with trying to make a profit from producing nuclear weapons." (Photo: ippnw Deutschland/flickr/cc) A new report offers a comprehensive look at who's profiting from the new nuclear arms race. "If you have been wondering who benefits from Donald Trump's threats of nuclear war, this report has that answer," said Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), winner of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize. ICAN, along with Netherlands-based peace group Pax, released the report, entitled "Don't Bank on the Bomb," on Wednesday. It shows that 329 financial institutions in 24 countries invested $525 billion into the top 20 companies involved in the production, maintenance, and modernization of nuclear weapons from January 2014 through October 2017. "When the world is closer to nuclear war than ever, we need to make sure that no one should profit from this terror." —Beatrice Fihn, ICANThe good news is that the number of investors marks 30 fewer institutions than in last year's report. Yet despite the shorter list, the institutions are investing about $81 billion more in these companies that make weapons of mass destruction. The increased funds, added with the fact that the nuclear-armed states are "modernizing" their arsenals as well as bellicose rhetoric from world leaders like Trump, make clear the need for the global public to campaign for divestment, the groups argue. The report's "Hall of Shame" shows the top 10 financial institutions with the biggest investments in nuclear weapons manufacturing—all U.S. firms—are: BlackRock, Capital Group, Vanguard, State Street, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Evercore, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs. These institutions accounted for nearly half ($253 billion) of the total investments made. The top three nuclear weapons producers, by investments, are also all based in the U.S.: Boeing, Honeywell International, and Lockheed Martin. Those corporations, and the 17 others that are most heavily involved in nuclear weapons making, stated Fihn, "are the companies that stand to profit from indiscriminate mass murder of civilians. We grow less safe while they cash in on chaos by banking on Armageddon." The report offers more than doom-and-gloom, however, as it describes the landmark Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as being a catalyst for positive change. Since its adoption last year, ABP, the fifth largest pension fund, and the Norwegian Government Pension Fund, globally the 2nd largest pension fund, announced they would no longer put their assets into nuclear weapons-making companies. Another sign of hope, the report states, are the 22 institutions listed on the "Hall of Fame" that have policies preventing investments in nuclear weapon producers. The list includes for the first time a U.S.-based institution called Green Century, a sustainability-geared investment firm that has roughly $525 million in assets under management. All the other hall-of-famers are based in Europe. According to report author Susi Snyder, the "Nuclear Ban Treaty has sparked momentum towards divestment, shown by 10 percent fewer investors in nuclear weapon producers, and an increase in financial institutions comprehensively prohibiting any investment. Investments are not neutral, these companies should be congratulated for standing on the side of humanity." The big picture from all the data, the report says, is this: "By divesting from nuclear weapon producers, we can make it harder for those that profit from weapons of mass destruction and encourage them to cut the production of nuclear weapons from their business strategies. Producing, possessing, and modernizing nuclear weapons is not something to be proud of and 'Don't Bank on the Bomb' names those that are still okay with trying to make a profit from producing nuclear weapons, our job is to shame them." The report urges the public to take action, whether by just raising public awareness of financial instituitions' role in abetting nuclear arms production or by organizing protests. "When the world is closer to nuclear war than ever, " Fihn writes, "we need to make sure that no one should profit from this terror." This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 8 13:02:34 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:02:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour Message-ID: Saturday the 10th of March, on the “Labor Hour” WRUF 11:00am - 1:00pm “ University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle will be a guest, discussing the current and historic facts since 9-11 2001 about U.S. military intervention and destabilization. “ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 8 13:26:51 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:26:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The Labor Hour In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 7:03 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; peace Subject: [Peace] The Labor Hour Saturday the 10th of March, on the “Labor Hour” WRUF 11:00am - 1:00pm “ University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle will be a guest, discussing the current and historic facts since 9-11 2001 about U.S. military intervention and destabilization. “ It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this analysis the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Mar 8 14:10:08 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 08:10:08 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Healthcare Bait-and-Switch: From the Clintons to Obama and Back Again Message-ID: <007d01d3b6e7$2b6d7290$824857b0$@comcast.net> The Healthcare Bait-and-Switch: From the Clintons to Obama and Back Again Glen Ford, BAR executive editor 08 Mar 2018 The Healthcare Bait-and-Switch: From the Clintons to Obama and Back Again The Healthcare Bait-and-Switch: From the Clintons to Obama and Back Again "Cory Booker and others are joining the pro-single payer bandwagon to weaken it from the inside." On the campaign trail in January of 2016, Hillary Clinton told Iowa voters that Bernie Sanders' single payer health care proposal was an idea whose time would never come. "People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass ," said the presumed shoo-in for president. Two years later, one-third of Democrats in the Senate have endorsed Sanders' Medicare for All Act and half the Democrats in the U.S. House have signed on to Rep. John Conyers' Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, HR 676 . Polls show 75 percent of Democrats favor "expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American," and 31 percent of the public at-large wants health care to be the first problem the Democrats tackled if they win the White House in 2020. Predictably, however, Hillary Clinton's favorite think tank is still trying to make sure single payer health care never happens. The lavishly funded Center for American Progress (CAP) last week unveiled their counterfeit, sound-alike health care plan, dubbed Medicare Extra for All, whose sole purpose is to distract and confuse a public that is demonstrably "ready" for single payer. The CAP scheme, like Obamacare, keeps the private insurance corporations at the center of the money-stream, doesn't cover everyone, charges fees, co-pays and premiums, doesn't save much money, and would fail to provide millions with adequate coverage. "CAP's plan maintains the current tiered system in which some people have private health insurance, those with the greatest needs have public health insurance, some people will have inadequate coverage and others will have no coverage at all," writes Dr. Margaret Flowers , of Health Over Profit. "By offering a solution that sounds good to the uninformed -- 'Medicare Extra for All' --but continues to benefit their Wall Street donors," said Flowers, "Democrats hope to fool people or buy enough support to undermine efforts for NIMA," or National Improved Medicare for All, the comprehensive single payer plan supported by the activists like Flowers. "CAP's plan maintains the current tiered system in which some people have private health insurance, those with the greatest needs have public health insurance, some people will have inadequate coverage and others will have no coverage at all." National Improved Medicare for All would save half a trillion dollars a year on administrative costs and another $100 billion on reduced drug costs, according to Flowers. "The CAP plan maintains the complicated multi-payer system that we have today," she said. "At best, it will only achieve 16% of the administrative savings of a single payer system and it will have less power to reign in the high costs of care." The CAP scheme would leave the link between employment and health coverage intact, keeping workers ultimately dependent on the whims of their bosses for healthcare coverage. "When people who have private health insurance lose their job or move, they risk losing their health insurance," said Flowers. "NIMA creates a health system that covers everyone no matter where they are in the United States and its territories." The Obama-Scam, Repackaged The Center for American Progress is running the same bait-and-switch con that Barack Obama played in the set-up to his Affordable Care Act. Bruce Dixon and I were introduced to Obama's healthcare scam in June of 2003 when we engaged the then candidate for the U.S. Senate in a month-long telephone and email conversation, at The Black Commentator . At the time, Obama was trailing the field of candidates and in need of every Black vote in Illinois. Dixon and I had just learned that Obama had joined the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the corporate money-bag operation for the right wing of the party founded by white southern Democrats including Bill Clinton and Al Gore. On top of that, he'd recently removed his 2002 (mildly) anti-war speech from his campaign website, apparently to get in line with George Bush's triumphal " Mission Accomplished " speech, the previous month. Obama denied that he'd become a member of the DLC, and claimed his website was undergoing "routine" updating. (Years later, when the war was clearly lost, Obama's team would resurrect "The Speech" as proof of his early anti-war credentials.) "Obama's definition of 'universal' health care meant only that all American would be required to enroll in an insurance program." Dixon and I decided that the best way to determine if Obama should be in the DLC or not, would be to put him to a three-question "bright line" test on the issues of war, health care and U.S. membership in the NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. If the candidate answered all three questions correctly, then he should not be a member of the DLC. If he failed, then the DLC was where he belonged, and voters should make their decisions, accordingly. We presented our bright line questions to Obama in the June 19, 2003 , Cover Story of the publication: 1. Do you favor the withdrawal of the United States from NAFTA? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end? 2. Do you favor the adoption of a single payer system of universal health care to extend the availability of quality health care to all persons in this country? Will you in the Senate introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end? 3. Would you have voted against the October 10 congressional resolution allowing the president to use unilateral force against Iraq? Note that we specified "a single payer system of universal health care." Obama used weasel-language to fudge his answers to the Iraq War and NAFTA questions. On health care, he wrote: "I favor universal health care for all Americans, and intend to introduce or sponsor legislation toward that end in the U.S. Senate, just as I have at the state level. My campaign is also developing a series of interim proposals - such as an expansion of the successful SCHIP program - so that we can immediately provide more coverage to uninsured children and their families." Obama left out the words "single payer." Only after he became president, six years later, would it become clear that his definition of "universal" health care meant only that all Americans would be required to enroll in an insurance program - just as states require that all drivers be insured. Despite his use of weasel-wording in all three answers, we at The Black Commentator gave Obama a passing grade. "BC is not seeking to martyr Barack Obama on a left-leaning cross," we wrote. (Our actual motive in 2003 was fear of being labeled "crabs in a barrel" for undermining the prospects of such an attractive, progressive-sounding, young Black up-and-coming politician-a failure of political nerve for which I will forever be ashamed.) A year and a half later, in the week before Obama was sworn into the Senate, he told me that the country was not "ready" for single payer. But, if he really believed that, he would not have spent the next four years misleading the people through his calculated misuse of the term "universal." "Obama banished single payer advocates like Rep. Conyers from the White House." "Universal" was Obama's bait-and-switch to confuse the public, much of which continued to wishfully assumed that he favored some kind of single payer plan. Once he got in office-and after announcing that "all entitlements, including Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, would be " on the table" for cutting under his administration-Obama banished single payer advocates like Rep. Conyers from the White House and quite publicly allowed the for-profit healthcare corporations to write his Affordable Care Act, with its "universal" mandate that added many of millions of new "customers" for the industry. The Democratic Leadership Council disbanded near the end of Obama's first term in office. Faux-progressives claimed a victory. "One of the things that's happening right now in Democratic politics is that progressives are winning the battle for the party," said Progressive Congress president Darcy Burner. "The corporate-focused DLC type of politics isn't working inside the Democratic party." That was nonsense. The DLC went out of business because it had won its battle for corporate hegemony in the party. By 2011, Obama had revealed himself as a full-blooded austerity (and war) president, and was still seeking his "Grand Bargain" with the Republicans. The "progressives" were defenestrated (thrown out of the White House windows) and humiliated in his first year, and were not to rise again until Bernie Sanders, the nominally non-Democrat, made his bid for the White House in 2016-with single payer healthcare at the tip of his spear. "The DLC went out of business because it had won its battle for corporate hegemony in the party." Sanders' version of single payer is " highly flawed ," said Health Over Profit's Margaret Flowers, who is also co-director of Popular Resistance , but, "the fact that the Democrats are proposing something that sounds like NIMA means we are gaining power." The legislation "calls for a four-year transition period, during which the newly improved Medicare would first insure all children and adults 55 or older, then expand gradually to cover all adults," writes the Huffington Post . The Sanders bill's endorsers in the Senate include a number of obvious Trojan Horses, such as Cory Booker, a deeply reactionary politician who could have been the "first Obama" had he won prominent office just a few years sooner (see The Black Commentator, April 4, 2002, " Fruit of the Poisoned Tree .") He was among 13 Democrats that voted against creating a reserve fund to allow Americans to import cheaper drugs from Canada, lamely claiming that it didn't address consumer protection issues. Booker and others are joining the pro-single payer bandwagon to weaken it from the inside, while his allies in the Clinton camp and their Center for American Progress scheme to extend the life of for-profit healthcare under the Medicare brand. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is the greatest negative motivator for single payer. He last month proposed new rules that would allow sale of short-term insurance policies that omit "essential health benefits"-what Sen. Ron Wyden calls "junk insurance"-to allow the market to work its miracles. But the people are learning that the market will kill you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 168880 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Mar 8 14:45:25 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 08:45:25 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WORLD LABOR HOUR SAT. MARCH 10th References: <00b801d3b6eb$bc57b230$35071690$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <001101d3b6ec$19aa3ac0$4cfeb040$@comcast.net> WORLD LABOR HOUR SATURDAY MARCH 10th 11 AM - 1 PM U.S. Central Time 104.5 FM and webcast LIVE worldwide at ; www.wrfu.net WEEK TWO OF THE GRADUATE EMPLOYEES UNION STRIKE- OCCUPATION UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW PROFESSOR FRANCIS BOYLE - U.S. WARS UPDATE FROM TEACHERS STRIKE IN WEST VIRGINIA UPCOMING MONDAY PROTEST IN CHICAGO BY RAILROAD WORKERS A full program beginning with a report about week two of the University of Illinois Graduate Employees Union ( GEO ) strike and now OCCUPATION of TWO administration buildings. U of I Law Professor Francis Boyle discussing the history and motives since Sept. 11th 2001 behind the never ending and expanding U.S. government's wars of ; destabilization, invasion, and occupation. An update from former World Labor Hour Host Jason Kozlowski in Morganstown West Virginia about the West Virginia Teachers strike. Carey Dall of the Brotherhood of Maintenance and Way Railroad Workers Union will call in to discuss an upcoming protest in Chicago on Monday March 12th against Railroad company executives who are attempting to cut Railroad Workers healthcare benefits and deregulate railroad safety rules that will put the general public at greater risk. WRFU 104.5 FM - Radio Free Urbana - listener supported corporate free community radio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Mar 8 14:52:08 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 08:52:08 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5C1E0C0F-070F-4249-88A7-82A23E2C8C2E@illinois.edu> ISOLATIONISM V. EXCEPTIONALISM: TRUMP V. OBAMA/CLINTON [The following article by Noam Chomsky appeared in ‘Truthout', October 6, 2013; it challenges the observation by the late Alex Cockburn that the website should be called ‘Truth-left-out’] The recent [2013] Obama-Putin tiff over American exceptionalism reignited an ongoing debate over the Obama Doctrine: Is the president veering toward isolationism? Or will he proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? The debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality “realist” school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a “transcendent purpose” that it “must defend and promote” throughout the world: “the establishment of equality in freedom.” The competing concepts “exceptionalism” and “isolationism” both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application. One extreme was vigorously defended by President Obama in his Sept. 10 address to the nation: “What makes America different,” he declared, “what makes us exceptional,” is that we are dedicated to act, “with humility, but with resolve,” when we detect violations somewhere. “For nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security,” a role that “has meant more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them.” The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. But that is mere abuse of reality. It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” >: > On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > […] > > Saturday the 10th of March, on the “Labor Hour” > WRFU 11:00am - 1:00pm > > > “ University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle will be a guest, discussing the current and historic facts since 9-11 2001 about U.S. military intervention and destabilization. “ > > It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… > > Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. > > By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. > > Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this analysis the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. > > Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. > > This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): > > The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. > > Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. > > Francis A. Boyle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 8 15:19:56 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:19:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour In-Reply-To: <5C1E0C0F-070F-4249-88A7-82A23E2C8C2E@illinois.edu> References: <5C1E0C0F-070F-4249-88A7-82A23E2C8C2E@illinois.edu> Message-ID: As I recently told the retired President of the University of Chicago where Morgenthau spent his career teaching: Morgenthau was a German Jew who had to flee the Nazis and was taken in by this country. As is the case with other Jews I have studied with at the University of Chicago and Harvard who fled the Nazis and were taken in by this country, they are eternally grateful to the United States of America for taking them in and giving them shelter from the Nazis. So consequently they are more naïve and idealistic about the United States of America compared to native born Americans such as Chomsky and me. And I did reference both Chomsky and me to the retired UChicago President. Fab. Louis B. Zimmer’s The Vietnam War Debate: Hans J. Morgenthau and the Attempt to Halt the Drift into Disaster (Lexington Books: 2011). by Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Hans Morgenthau was my teacher, mentor and friend. He recommended me for my law professorship. It was my great honor and distinct pleasure to have studied with Morgenthau while he was heroically leading the forces of opposition to the genocidal Vietnam War at great personal cost to himself and his family. Morgenthau’s stellar example of brilliance in the service of courage, integrity and principles has inspired and motivated me now for over four decades. After reading Zimmer’s compelling book, Morgenthau will do the same for you. Zimmer vividly brings back to life Morgenthau, his epic battle against the Vietnam War, and those tumultuous and tragic events that shaped my generation and determined the destinies of two nations only now beginning to reconcile -- a volte-face preternaturally predicted by Morgenthau during the darkest days of the wars. This book is required reading for all those seeking to pursue peace with justice in today’s increasingly troubled and endangered world. Humanity desperately needs more like Morgenthau in order to survive. Zimmer explains why. A real tour de force of engaged historical research and scholarship. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Carl G. Estabrook Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:52 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour ISOLATIONISM V. EXCEPTIONALISM: TRUMP V. OBAMA/CLINTON [The following article by Noam Chomsky appeared in ‘Truthout', October 6, 2013; it challenges the observation by the late Alex Cockburn that the website should be called ‘Truth-left-out’] The recent [2013] Obama-Putin tiff over American exceptionalism reignited an ongoing debate over the Obama Doctrine: Is the president veering toward isolationism? Or will he proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? The debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality “realist” school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a “transcendent purpose” that it “must defend and promote” throughout the world: “the establishment of equality in freedom.” The competing concepts “exceptionalism” and “isolationism” both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application. One extreme was vigorously defended by President Obama in his Sept. 10 address to the nation: “What makes America different,” he declared, “what makes us exceptional,” is that we are dedicated to act, “with humility, but with resolve,” when we detect violations somewhere. “For nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security,” a role that “has meant more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them.” The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. But that is mere abuse of reality. It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” >: On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: […] Saturday the 10th of March, on the “Labor Hour” WRFU 11:00am - 1:00pm “ University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle will be a guest, discussing the current and historic facts since 9-11 2001 about U.S. military intervention and destabilization. “ It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this analysis the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. Francis A. Boyle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 8 15:58:12 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:58:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Shithole! References: Message-ID: [cid:image002.jpg at 01D396B3.6FAE6990] _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdc04fd07aa8c42ba780508d564fd7f92%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525962280466909&sdata=etT3bkfVgOReVLFC41NMnRv7ZPck75oxJZqKD9EEEc0%3D&reserved=0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 24494 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 16:14:02 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:14:02 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: The Labor Hour References: Message-ID: <88161AD7-B1CA-4CF4-8E8D-2D3F18B336D7@gmail.com> Begin forwarded message: > > From: C G Estabrook > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour > Date: March 8, 2018 at 10:07:49 AM CST > To: Francis A Boyle > > > Francis-- > > Again, the question is not Morgenthau’s character but US military and foreign policy. > > In your recent talk on Israel/Palestine, you seemed to suggest that Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P propaganda line that’s a staple of US fp in all recent administrations . > > —CGE > > >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> >> As I recently told the retired President of the University of Chicago where Morgenthau spent his career teaching: Morgenthau was a German Jew who had to flee the Nazis and was taken in by this country. As is the case with other Jews I have studied with at the University of Chicago and Harvard who fled the Nazis and were taken in by this country, they are eternally grateful to the United States of America for taking them in and giving them shelter from the Nazis. So consequently they are more naïve and idealistic about the United States of America compared to native born Americans such as Chomsky and me. And I did reference both Chomsky and me to the retired UChicago President. Fab. >> Louis B. Zimmer’s The Vietnam War Debate: Hans J. Morgenthau and the Attempt to Halt the Drift into Disaster (Lexington Books: 2011). >> by >> Professor Francis A. Boyle >> University of Illinois College of Law >> >> >> Hans Morgenthau was my teacher, mentor and friend. He recommended me for my law professorship. It was my great honor and distinct pleasure to have studied with Morgenthau while he was heroically leading the forces of opposition to the genocidal Vietnam War at great personal cost to himself and his family. Morgenthau’s stellar example of brilliance in the service of courage, integrity and principles has inspired and motivated me now for over four decades. After reading Zimmer’s compelling book, Morgenthau will do the same for you. Zimmer vividly brings back to life Morgenthau, his epic battle against the Vietnam War, and those tumultuous and tragic events that shaped my generation and determined the destinies of two nations only now beginning to reconcile -- a volte-face preternaturally predicted by Morgenthau during the darkest days of the wars. This book is required reading for all those seeking to pursue peace with justice in today’s increasingly troubled and endangered world. Humanity desperately needs more like Morgenthau in order to survive. Zimmer explains why. A real tour de force of engaged historical research and scholarship. >> >> >> >> From: Carl G. Estabrook >> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:52 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour >> >> ISOLATIONISM V. EXCEPTIONALISM: TRUMP V. OBAMA/CLINTON >> >> [The following article by Noam Chomsky appeared in ‘Truthout', October 6, 2013; it challenges the observation by the late Alex Cockburn that the website should be called ‘Truth-left-out’] >> >> The recent [2013] Obama-Putin tiff over American exceptionalism reignited an ongoing debate over the Obama Doctrine: Is the president veering toward isolationism? Or will he proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >> >> The debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality “realist” school of international relations. >> >> Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a “transcendent purpose” that it “must defend and promote” throughout the world: “the establishment of equality in freedom.” >> >> The competing concepts “exceptionalism” and “isolationism” both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application. >> >> One extreme was vigorously defended by President Obama in his Sept. 10 address to the nation: “What makes America different,” he declared, “what makes us exceptional,” is that we are dedicated to act, “with humility, but with resolve,” when we detect violations somewhere. >> >> “For nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security,” a role that “has meant more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them.” >> >> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >> >> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >> >> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >> >> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >> >> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >> >> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >> >> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >> >> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >> >> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >> >> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >> >> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >> >> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >> >> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >> >> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >> >> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >> >> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >> >> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >> >> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >> >> But that is mere abuse of reality. >> >> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >> >> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” : >> >> >> >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> […] >> >> Saturday the 10th of March, on the “Labor Hour” >> WRFU 11:00am - 1:00pm >> >> >> “ University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle will be a guest, discussing the current and historic facts since 9-11 2001 about U.S. military intervention and destabilization. “ >> >> It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… >> >> Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. >> >> By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. >> >> Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this analysis the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. >> >> Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. >> >> This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): >> >> The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. >> >> Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. >> >> Francis A. Boyle > From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 8 16:24:45 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 16:24:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: The Labor Hour In-Reply-To: <88161AD7-B1CA-4CF4-8E8D-2D3F18B336D7@gmail.com> References: <88161AD7-B1CA-4CF4-8E8D-2D3F18B336D7@gmail.com> Message-ID: Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baloney! I never suggested that at all! As a matter of fact I have argued to the contrary in my book Destroying Libya and World Order (Clarity Press: 2013), Chapter 5, "Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Versus International Law," pages 154 to 172, with footnotes. Fab. 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-discuss On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:14 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: The Labor Hour Begin forwarded message: > > From: C G Estabrook > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour > Date: March 8, 2018 at 10:07:49 AM CST > To: Francis A Boyle > > > Francis-- > > Again, the question is not Morgenthau’s character but US military and foreign policy. > > In your recent talk on Israel/Palestine, you seemed to suggest that Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P propaganda line that’s a staple of US fp in all recent administrations . > > —CGE > > >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> >> As I recently told the retired President of the University of Chicago where Morgenthau spent his career teaching: Morgenthau was a German Jew who had to flee the Nazis and was taken in by this country. As is the case with other Jews I have studied with at the University of Chicago and Harvard who fled the Nazis and were taken in by this country, they are eternally grateful to the United States of America for taking them in and giving them shelter from the Nazis. So consequently they are more naïve and idealistic about the United States of America compared to native born Americans such as Chomsky and me. And I did reference both Chomsky and me to the retired UChicago President. Fab. >> Louis B. Zimmer’s The Vietnam War Debate: Hans J. Morgenthau and the Attempt to Halt the Drift into Disaster (Lexington Books: 2011). >> by >> Professor Francis A. Boyle >> University of Illinois College of Law >> >> >> Hans Morgenthau was my teacher, mentor and friend. He recommended me for my law professorship. It was my great honor and distinct pleasure to have studied with Morgenthau while he was heroically leading the forces of opposition to the genocidal Vietnam War at great personal cost to himself and his family. Morgenthau’s stellar example of brilliance in the service of courage, integrity and principles has inspired and motivated me now for over four decades. After reading Zimmer’s compelling book, Morgenthau will do the same for you. Zimmer vividly brings back to life Morgenthau, his epic battle against the Vietnam War, and those tumultuous and tragic events that shaped my generation and determined the destinies of two nations only now beginning to reconcile -- a volte-face preternaturally predicted by Morgenthau during the darkest days of the wars. This book is required reading for all those seeking to pursue peace with justice in today’s increasingly troubled and endangered world. Humanity desperately needs more like Morgenthau in order to survive. Zimmer explains why. A real tour de force of engaged historical research and scholarship. >> >> >> >> From: Carl G. Estabrook >> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:52 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour >> >> ISOLATIONISM V. EXCEPTIONALISM: TRUMP V. OBAMA/CLINTON >> >> [The following article by Noam Chomsky appeared in ‘Truthout', October 6, 2013; it challenges the observation by the late Alex Cockburn that the website should be called ‘Truth-left-out’] >> >> The recent [2013] Obama-Putin tiff over American exceptionalism reignited an ongoing debate over the Obama Doctrine: Is the president veering toward isolationism? Or will he proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >> >> The debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality “realist” school of international relations. >> >> Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a “transcendent purpose” that it “must defend and promote” throughout the world: “the establishment of equality in freedom.” >> >> The competing concepts “exceptionalism” and “isolationism” both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application. >> >> One extreme was vigorously defended by President Obama in his Sept. 10 address to the nation: “What makes America different,” he declared, “what makes us exceptional,” is that we are dedicated to act, “with humility, but with resolve,” when we detect violations somewhere. >> >> “For nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security,” a role that “has meant more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them.” >> >> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >> >> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >> >> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >> >> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >> >> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >> >> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >> >> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >> >> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >> >> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >> >> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >> >> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >> >> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >> >> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >> >> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >> >> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >> >> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >> >> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >> >> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >> >> But that is mere abuse of reality. >> >> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >> >> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” : >> >> >> >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> […] >> >> Saturday the 10th of March, on the “Labor Hour” >> WRFU 11:00am - 1:00pm >> >> >> “ University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle will be a guest, discussing the current and historic facts since 9-11 2001 about U.S. military intervention and destabilization. “ >> >> It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… >> >> Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. >> >> By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. >> >> Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this analysis the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. >> >> Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. >> >> This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): >> >> The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. >> >> Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. >> >> Francis A. Boyle > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 16:33:22 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:33:22 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour In-Reply-To: References: <5C1E0C0F-070F-4249-88A7-82A23E2C8C2E@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <5A5BC049-F601-496A-ADC9-FCFE6DE42C27@gmail.com> Glad to hear it. So you’d reject the equation ? —CGE > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Baloney! I never suggested that at all! As a matter of fact I have argued to the contrary in my book Destroying Libya and World Order (Clarity Press: 2013), Chapter 5, "Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Versus International Law," pages 154 to 172, with footnotes. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:08 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Arlene Hickory ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Joe Lauria ; Szoke, Ron ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; stuartnlevy ; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour > > Francis-- > > Again, the question is not Morgenthau’s character but US military and foreign policy. > > In your recent talk on Israel/Palestine, you seemed to suggest that Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P propaganda line that’s a staple of US fp in all recent administrations . > > —CGE > > >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> >> As I recently told the retired President of the University of Chicago where Morgenthau spent his career teaching: Morgenthau was a German Jew who had to flee the Nazis and was taken in by this country. As is the case with other Jews I have studied with at the University of Chicago and Harvard who fled the Nazis and were taken in by this country, they are eternally grateful to the United States of America for taking them in and giving them shelter from the Nazis. So consequently they are more naïve and idealistic about the United States of America compared to native born Americans such as Chomsky and me. And I did reference both Chomsky and me to the retired UChicago President. Fab. >> Louis B. Zimmer’s The Vietnam War Debate: Hans J. Morgenthau and the Attempt to Halt the Drift into Disaster (Lexington Books: 2011). >> by >> Professor Francis A. Boyle >> University of Illinois College of Law >> >> >> Hans Morgenthau was my teacher, mentor and friend. He recommended me for my law professorship. It was my great honor and distinct pleasure to have studied with Morgenthau while he was heroically leading the forces of opposition to the genocidal Vietnam War at great personal cost to himself and his family. Morgenthau’s stellar example of brilliance in the service of courage, integrity and principles has inspired and motivated me now for over four decades. After reading Zimmer’s compelling book, Morgenthau will do the same for you. Zimmer vividly brings back to life Morgenthau, his epic battle against the Vietnam War, and those tumultuous and tragic events that shaped my generation and determined the destinies of two nations only now beginning to reconcile -- a volte-face preternaturally predicted by Morgenthau during the darkest days of the wars. This book is required reading for all those seeking to pursue peace with justice in today’s increasingly troubled and endangered world. Humanity desperately needs more like Morgenthau in order to survive. Zimmer explains why. A real tour de force of engaged historical research and scholarship. >> >> >> >> From: Carl G. Estabrook >> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:52 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour >> >> ISOLATIONISM V. EXCEPTIONALISM: TRUMP V. OBAMA/CLINTON >> >> [The following article by Noam Chomsky appeared in ‘Truthout', October 6, 2013; it challenges the observation by the late Alex Cockburn that the website should be called ‘Truth-left-out’] >> >> The recent [2013] Obama-Putin tiff over American exceptionalism reignited an ongoing debate over the Obama Doctrine: Is the president veering toward isolationism? Or will he proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >> >> The debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality “realist” school of international relations. >> >> Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a “transcendent purpose” that it “must defend and promote” throughout the world: “the establishment of equality in freedom.” >> >> The competing concepts “exceptionalism” and “isolationism” both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application. >> >> One extreme was vigorously defended by President Obama in his Sept. 10 address to the nation: “What makes America different,” he declared, “what makes us exceptional,” is that we are dedicated to act, “with humility, but with resolve,” when we detect violations somewhere. >> >> “For nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security,” a role that “has meant more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them.” >> >> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >> >> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >> >> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >> >> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >> >> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >> >> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >> >> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >> >> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >> >> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >> >> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >> >> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >> >> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >> >> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >> >> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >> >> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >> >> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >> >> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >> >> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >> >> But that is mere abuse of reality. >> >> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >> >> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” : >> >> >> >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> […] >> >> Saturday the 10th of March, on the “Labor Hour” >> WRFU 11:00am - 1:00pm >> >> >> “ University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle will be a guest, discussing the current and historic facts since 9-11 2001 about U.S. military intervention and destabilization. “ >> >> It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… >> >> Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. >> >> By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. >> >> Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this analysis the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. >> >> Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. >> >> This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): >> >> The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. >> >> Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. >> >> Francis A. Boyle > From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 8 16:40:03 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 16:40:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour In-Reply-To: <5A5BC049-F601-496A-ADC9-FCFE6DE42C27@gmail.com> References: <5C1E0C0F-070F-4249-88A7-82A23E2C8C2E@illinois.edu> <5A5BC049-F601-496A-ADC9-FCFE6DE42C27@gmail.com> Message-ID: Excuse me Carl. Why are you trying to trash the 70 minute lecture I just gave on behalf of the Palestinians? Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:33 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Arlene Hickory ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Joe Lauria ; Szoke, Ron ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; stuartnlevy ; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour Glad to hear it. So you’d reject the equation ? —CGE > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- Baloney! I never suggested that at all! As a matter of fact I > have argued to the contrary in my book Destroying Libya and World Order (Clarity Press: 2013), Chapter 5, "Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Versus International Law," pages 154 to 172, with footnotes. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:08 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; Arlene Hickory ; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Joe Lauria > ; Szoke, Ron ; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne > ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien ; stuartnlevy > ; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour > > Francis-- > > Again, the question is not Morgenthau’s character but US military and foreign policy. > > In your recent talk on Israel/Palestine, you seemed to suggest that Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P propaganda line that’s a staple of US fp in all recent administrations . > > —CGE > > >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> >> As I recently told the retired President of the University of Chicago where Morgenthau spent his career teaching: Morgenthau was a German Jew who had to flee the Nazis and was taken in by this country. As is the case with other Jews I have studied with at the University of Chicago and Harvard who fled the Nazis and were taken in by this country, they are eternally grateful to the United States of America for taking them in and giving them shelter from the Nazis. So consequently they are more naïve and idealistic about the United States of America compared to native born Americans such as Chomsky and me. And I did reference both Chomsky and me to the retired UChicago President. Fab. >> Louis B. Zimmer’s The Vietnam War Debate: Hans J. Morgenthau and the Attempt to Halt the Drift into Disaster (Lexington Books: 2011). >> by >> Professor Francis A. Boyle >> University of Illinois College of Law >> >> >> Hans Morgenthau was my teacher, mentor and friend. He recommended me for my law professorship. It was my great honor and distinct pleasure to have studied with Morgenthau while he was heroically leading the forces of opposition to the genocidal Vietnam War at great personal cost to himself and his family. Morgenthau’s stellar example of brilliance in the service of courage, integrity and principles has inspired and motivated me now for over four decades. After reading Zimmer’s compelling book, Morgenthau will do the same for you. Zimmer vividly brings back to life Morgenthau, his epic battle against the Vietnam War, and those tumultuous and tragic events that shaped my generation and determined the destinies of two nations only now beginning to reconcile -- a volte-face preternaturally predicted by Morgenthau during the darkest days of the wars. This book is required reading for all those seeking to pursue peace with justice in today’s increasingly troubled and endangered world. Humanity desperately needs more like Morgenthau in order to survive. Zimmer explains why. A real tour de force of engaged historical research and scholarship. >> >> >> >> From: Carl G. Estabrook >> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:52 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour >> >> ISOLATIONISM V. EXCEPTIONALISM: TRUMP V. OBAMA/CLINTON >> >> [The following article by Noam Chomsky appeared in ‘Truthout', >> October 6, 2013; it challenges the observation by the late Alex >> Cockburn that the website should be called ‘Truth-left-out’] >> >> The recent [2013] Obama-Putin tiff over American exceptionalism reignited an ongoing debate over the Obama Doctrine: Is the president veering toward isolationism? Or will he proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >> >> The debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality “realist” school of international relations. >> >> Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a “transcendent purpose” that it “must defend and promote” throughout the world: “the establishment of equality in freedom.” >> >> The competing concepts “exceptionalism” and “isolationism” both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application. >> >> One extreme was vigorously defended by President Obama in his Sept. 10 address to the nation: “What makes America different,” he declared, “what makes us exceptional,” is that we are dedicated to act, “with humility, but with resolve,” when we detect violations somewhere. >> >> “For nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security,” a role that “has meant more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them.” >> >> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >> >> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >> >> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >> >> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >> >> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >> >> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >> >> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >> >> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >> >> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >> >> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >> >> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >> >> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >> >> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >> >> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >> >> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >> >> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >> >> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >> >> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >> >> But that is mere abuse of reality. >> >> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >> >> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” : >> >> >> >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> […] >> >> Saturday the 10th of March, on the “Labor Hour” >> WRFU 11:00am - 1:00pm >> >> >> “ University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle will be a guest, >> discussing the current and historic facts since 9-11 2001 about U.S. >> military intervention and destabilization. “ >> >> It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, >> Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American >> foreign policy… >> >> Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. >> >> By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. >> >> Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this analysis the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. >> >> Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. >> >> This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): >> >> The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. >> >> Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. >> >> Francis A. Boyle > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 17:06:20 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 11:06:20 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour In-Reply-To: References: <5C1E0C0F-070F-4249-88A7-82A23E2C8C2E@illinois.edu> <5A5BC049-F601-496A-ADC9-FCFE6DE42C27@gmail.com> Message-ID: <25B1D2F2-497F-42AE-9C0C-AF88090059D8@gmail.com> I don’t intend to trash your lecture, Francis. I did want to discuss it, especially what seemed to be an implied defense of Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia. I’m glad to hear that’s a misapprehension. As Mort Brussel appositely put it, "There was no genocide in Bosnia-H. (as I understand that word), although their were terrible events, killings, on all sides. Our man Izetbetkovic (sp?) was no angel, someone who wanted to carve out an Islamic state.” —CGE > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:40 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Excuse me Carl. Why are you trying to trash the 70 minute lecture I just gave on behalf of the Palestinians? Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:33 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Arlene Hickory ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Joe Lauria ; Szoke, Ron ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; stuartnlevy ; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour > > Glad to hear it. > > So you’d reject the equation ? > > —CGE > > >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- Baloney! I never suggested that at all! As a matter of fact I >> have argued to the contrary in my book Destroying Libya and World Order (Clarity Press: 2013), Chapter 5, "Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Versus International Law," pages 154 to 172, with footnotes. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook >> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:08 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK >> ; Miller, Joseph Thomas >> ; Arlene Hickory ; >> sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Joe Lauria >> ; Szoke, Ron ; >> abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >> ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >> ; David Johnson ; >> Mildred O'brien ; stuartnlevy >> ; Karen Aram >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour >> >> Francis-- >> >> Again, the question is not Morgenthau’s character but US military and foreign policy. >> >> In your recent talk on Israel/Palestine, you seemed to suggest that Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P propaganda line that’s a staple of US fp in all recent administrations . >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> >>> As I recently told the retired President of the University of Chicago where Morgenthau spent his career teaching: Morgenthau was a German Jew who had to flee the Nazis and was taken in by this country. As is the case with other Jews I have studied with at the University of Chicago and Harvard who fled the Nazis and were taken in by this country, they are eternally grateful to the United States of America for taking them in and giving them shelter from the Nazis. So consequently they are more naïve and idealistic about the United States of America compared to native born Americans such as Chomsky and me. And I did reference both Chomsky and me to the retired UChicago President. Fab. >>> Louis B. Zimmer’s The Vietnam War Debate: Hans J. Morgenthau and the Attempt to Halt the Drift into Disaster (Lexington Books: 2011). >>> by >>> Professor Francis A. Boyle >>> University of Illinois College of Law >>> >>> >>> Hans Morgenthau was my teacher, mentor and friend. He recommended me for my law professorship. It was my great honor and distinct pleasure to have studied with Morgenthau while he was heroically leading the forces of opposition to the genocidal Vietnam War at great personal cost to himself and his family. Morgenthau’s stellar example of brilliance in the service of courage, integrity and principles has inspired and motivated me now for over four decades. After reading Zimmer’s compelling book, Morgenthau will do the same for you. Zimmer vividly brings back to life Morgenthau, his epic battle against the Vietnam War, and those tumultuous and tragic events that shaped my generation and determined the destinies of two nations only now beginning to reconcile -- a volte-face preternaturally predicted by Morgenthau during the darkest days of the wars. This book is required reading for all those seeking to pursue peace with justice in today’s increasingly troubled and endangered world. Humanity desperately needs more like Morgenthau in order to survive. Zimmer explains why. A real tour de force of engaged historical research and scholarship. >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Carl G. Estabrook >>> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:52 AM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour >>> >>> ISOLATIONISM V. EXCEPTIONALISM: TRUMP V. OBAMA/CLINTON >>> >>> [The following article by Noam Chomsky appeared in ‘Truthout', >>> October 6, 2013; it challenges the observation by the late Alex >>> Cockburn that the website should be called ‘Truth-left-out’] >>> >>> The recent [2013] Obama-Putin tiff over American exceptionalism reignited an ongoing debate over the Obama Doctrine: Is the president veering toward isolationism? Or will he proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >>> >>> The debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality “realist” school of international relations. >>> >>> Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a “transcendent purpose” that it “must defend and promote” throughout the world: “the establishment of equality in freedom.” >>> >>> The competing concepts “exceptionalism” and “isolationism” both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application. >>> >>> One extreme was vigorously defended by President Obama in his Sept. 10 address to the nation: “What makes America different,” he declared, “what makes us exceptional,” is that we are dedicated to act, “with humility, but with resolve,” when we detect violations somewhere. >>> >>> “For nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security,” a role that “has meant more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them.” >>> >>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >>> >>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >>> >>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >>> >>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >>> >>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >>> >>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >>> >>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >>> >>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >>> >>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >>> >>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >>> >>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >>> >>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >>> >>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >>> >>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >>> >>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >>> >>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >>> >>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >>> >>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >>> >>> But that is mere abuse of reality. >>> >>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >>> >>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” : >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> […] >>> >>> Saturday the 10th of March, on the “Labor Hour” >>> WRFU 11:00am - 1:00pm >>> >>> >>> “ University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle will be a guest, >>> discussing the current and historic facts since 9-11 2001 about U.S. >>> military intervention and destabilization. “ >>> >>> It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, >>> Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American >>> foreign policy… >>> >>> Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. >>> >>> By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. >>> >>> Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this analysis the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. >>> >>> Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. >>> >>> This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): >>> >>> The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. >>> >>> Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 8 17:09:25 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:09:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour In-Reply-To: <25B1D2F2-497F-42AE-9C0C-AF88090059D8@gmail.com> References: <5C1E0C0F-070F-4249-88A7-82A23E2C8C2E@illinois.edu> <5A5BC049-F601-496A-ADC9-FCFE6DE42C27@gmail.com> <25B1D2F2-497F-42AE-9C0C-AF88090059D8@gmail.com> Message-ID: In your recent talk on Israel/Palestine, you seemed to suggest that Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P propaganda line that’s a staple of US fp in all recent administrations. I suggested no such thing! You have repeatedly trashed and tried to discredit the lecture I just gave for the Palestinians along these lines. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 11:06 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Karen Aram ; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour I don’t intend to trash your lecture, Francis. I did want to discuss it, especially what seemed to be an implied defense of Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia. I’m glad to hear that’s a misapprehension. As Mort Brussel appositely put it, "There was no genocide in Bosnia-H. (as I understand that word), although their were terrible events, killings, on all sides. Our man Izetbetkovic (sp?) was no angel, someone who wanted to carve out an Islamic state.” —CGE On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:40 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Excuse me Carl. Why are you trying to trash the 70 minute lecture I just gave on behalf of the Palestinians? Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:33 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Arlene Hickory >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Joe Lauria >; Szoke, Ron >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; stuartnlevy >; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour Glad to hear it. So you’d reject the equation ? —CGE On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Baloney! I never suggested that at all! As a matter of fact I have argued to the contrary in my book Destroying Libya and World Order (Clarity Press: 2013), Chapter 5, "Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Versus International Law," pages 154 to 172, with footnotes. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:08 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; C. G. ESTABROOK >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Arlene Hickory >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Joe Lauria >; Szoke, Ron >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; stuartnlevy >; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour Francis-- Again, the question is not Morgenthau’s character but US military and foreign policy. In your recent talk on Israel/Palestine, you seemed to suggest that Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P propaganda line that’s a staple of US fp in all recent administrations . —CGE On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: As I recently told the retired President of the University of Chicago where Morgenthau spent his career teaching: Morgenthau was a German Jew who had to flee the Nazis and was taken in by this country. As is the case with other Jews I have studied with at the University of Chicago and Harvard who fled the Nazis and were taken in by this country, they are eternally grateful to the United States of America for taking them in and giving them shelter from the Nazis. So consequently they are more naïve and idealistic about the United States of America compared to native born Americans such as Chomsky and me. And I did reference both Chomsky and me to the retired UChicago President. Fab. Louis B. Zimmer’s The Vietnam War Debate: Hans J. Morgenthau and the Attempt to Halt the Drift into Disaster (Lexington Books: 2011). by Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Hans Morgenthau was my teacher, mentor and friend. He recommended me for my law professorship. It was my great honor and distinct pleasure to have studied with Morgenthau while he was heroically leading the forces of opposition to the genocidal Vietnam War at great personal cost to himself and his family. Morgenthau’s stellar example of brilliance in the service of courage, integrity and principles has inspired and motivated me now for over four decades. After reading Zimmer’s compelling book, Morgenthau will do the same for you. Zimmer vividly brings back to life Morgenthau, his epic battle against the Vietnam War, and those tumultuous and tragic events that shaped my generation and determined the destinies of two nations only now beginning to reconcile -- a volte-face preternaturally predicted by Morgenthau during the darkest days of the wars. This book is required reading for all those seeking to pursue peace with justice in today’s increasingly troubled and endangered world. Humanity desperately needs more like Morgenthau in order to survive. Zimmer explains why. A real tour de force of engaged historical research and scholarship. From: Carl G. Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:52 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour ISOLATIONISM V. EXCEPTIONALISM: TRUMP V. OBAMA/CLINTON [The following article by Noam Chomsky appeared in ‘Truthout', October 6, 2013; it challenges the observation by the late Alex Cockburn that the website should be called ‘Truth-left-out’] The recent [2013] Obama-Putin tiff over American exceptionalism reignited an ongoing debate over the Obama Doctrine: Is the president veering toward isolationism? Or will he proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? The debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality “realist” school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a “transcendent purpose” that it “must defend and promote” throughout the world: “the establishment of equality in freedom.” The competing concepts “exceptionalism” and “isolationism” both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application. One extreme was vigorously defended by President Obama in his Sept. 10 address to the nation: “What makes America different,” he declared, “what makes us exceptional,” is that we are dedicated to act, “with humility, but with resolve,” when we detect violations somewhere. “For nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security,” a role that “has meant more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them.” The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. But that is mere abuse of reality. It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” : On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: […] Saturday the 10th of March, on the “Labor Hour” WRFU 11:00am - 1:00pm “ University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle will be a guest, discussing the current and historic facts since 9-11 2001 about U.S. military intervention and destabilization. “ It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this analysis the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. Francis A. Boyle _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 8 17:14:25 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:14:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Interesting discussion on The Real News, with Leo Panitch Part 1 Message-ID: Leo Panitch is the Senior Scholar and Emeritus Professor of Political Science at York University. He is the author of many books, the most recent of which include UK Deutscher Memorial Prize winner The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire, In and Out of Crisis: The Global Financial Meltdown and Left Alternatives, , Renewing Socialism: Democracy, Strategy and Imagination and The End of Parliamentary Socialism: From New Left to New Labour. He is also a co-editor of the Socialist Register, whose 2017 volume, which will be released in time for the Labour Party Conference and launched in London in November, is entitled Rethinking Revolution ________________________________ transcript [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/lpanitch0221raipt1-240.jpg]PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network, and welcome to Reality Asserts Itself. I'm Paul Jay. Leo Panitch is professor emeritus and senior scholar at York University in Toronto. He's the co-editor of the annual Socialist Register, the 2018 volume of which is on rethinking democracy. Leo's co-author of the book, In and Out of Crisis: The Financial Meltdown and Left Alternatives, and most recently, co-author of the UK Deutscher Book prize-winner, The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy Of American Empire. The work of Leo Panitch has been featured widely from the Guardian and the Globe and Mail, to Red Pepper and The Real News Network. His influence spans far across the academic disciplines of history, sociology, political science, and political economy from Canada to around the globe. As Bryan Palmer recently put it, "Over the course of the 1970's to present, Panitch has emerged arguably as Canada's most widely recognized and internationally acclaimed public intellectual of the Socialist Left. No other Canadian is as likely to be read, heralded, and even occasionally repudiated in Athens and Sao Paolo, in Alexandria and Sydney, in Johannesburg and Oslo, as Leo Panitch." And Leo Panitch now joins me in the studio. Thanks very much for joining. LEO PANITCH: Glad to be here, Paul. PAUL JAY: So, as most of our viewers know, we usually start Reality Asserts Itself with the personal backstory of our guests and then we get more into some of the issues and what they think. But we're starting with how their political views of the world were formed. So Leo, talk a bit about growing up in Winnipeg. You grew up in a very political section of Winnipeg, which, like my father in Montreal, very left wing. Communists, Social Democrats, socialists, all mixed up with various forms of Jewish politics and Yiddish. Most people spoke Yiddish, not Hebrew. Talk about growing up in such a family and the role your father played, who himself was an activist at the time. LEO PANITCH: Yeah, that part of Winnipeg is famous for having been a hotbed of radicalism, and I was part of that even though I was born in 1945, when it wasn't at its height already. It was at its height from the Winnipeg General Strike on, from 1919 right through the 20's and 30's, but the institutions that were set down in that period continued through my youth. And you know, Winnipeg elected Joe Zuken, who was a alderman in the city, became a very famous figure. He was a Communist who was elected right through the Cold War and into the 1970's. He was a hero in the city as a Communist politician. My own family were Social Democrats. My father joined the CCF in 1934, the year after it was founded. That's the forerunner of the New Democratic Party in Canada, Social Democratic Party, then a Labor Farm Party. He was an activist in his trade union. He was a furrier, and at one point was president of the union local. Our childhood was full of socialist references. I had an aunt who was a Communist, my mother's sister. They came to Canada as orphans right after World War I, and even in the 50's they were still arguing over the Hitler-Stalin Pact, with my dad saying "You see what the Communists do?" And my Aunt Rose saying "Well what else could they do, they weren't ready for the war yet." So that was part of the milieu. I went to a Yiddish school, a school in which we didn't learn Hebrew, and I don't speak Hebrew, but in which we learned Yiddish. You read Yiddish literature, poetry. It was very secular. Non-religious, as my family was. We didn't speak Yiddish at home, but at the school we did, and that school was seen as part of the socialist culture, and was part of the socialist culture. So it was a remarkable place. You could run Mickey Mouse in North Winnipeg for the CCF and then the NDP, and he'd get elected. PAUL JAY: Now, I know you gave a talk in Winnipeg some time ago. Your search to understand your father and that period, helping to understand your own roots led you to try to dig into the politics of your father and the more earlier period. And for your father and many of the Jews, I guess other than Jews that directly joined the either Communist party, the idea of their Jewish identity, which in those days really, to be more precise, would be more an Ashkenazi, East European Yiddish-speaking identity, not Jewishness in the abstract, as some people like to promote now. Some people being Israel, or Zionists, anyway. But they did consider themselves Zionists. They didn't separate the socialism from the Zionism. And how did that affect the politics of your father and the period? LEO PANITCH: Well, some did, and some didn't. What happened in Eastern Europe, just at about the same time that the great workers' movements merged, and often those great workers' movements, especially in Eastern Europe, were heavily Jewish. The proletariat in the cities of the Ukraine and sometimes in Poland were Jewish proletariats. The peasantry was Ukrainian or Polish, and Jews didn't think of themselves as Ukraines or Poles. I mean, those countries were made up of very different ethnic groups and [crosstalk 00:06:16]. PAUL JAY: You're talking early 20th century. LEO PANITCH: This would be the early 20th century. Really, in some senses, right up into the 30's. What happened in that part of the world at the time that the socialist movements were arising was that Jews broke away from a rabbi dominated culture and established a secular literature in Yiddish, which was heavily tinted toward the labor movement, towards political radicalism, et cetera. At the same time, they were engaged in political struggles, sometimes as intellectuals, more often as workers. A wing of what became the Communist party, the Bund in Russia, was crucial to the splits between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. This was a Jewish wing of the Russian Social Democratic Party. The split was really over whether the Bund would be federated to that party as a group, or whether individuals had to join that party as individual Jews. That's what the original split over the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks was about. There was a difference that gradually developed, as some Jews oriented themselves to "We need to get out of here," especially after the great pogrom in Kishenev near Odessa in 1905. A split began to develop between those who said "No, we have to make a revolution here." PAUL JAY: Just back up just a sec for people who don't get what a pogrom in 1904 and 1905 is, which is many of our younger audience, and others who have never heard of such a thing. Just a quick, one minute. LEO PANITCH: Well, I'm sure they've heard the word pogrom. PAUL JAY: I'm sure they have not. LEO PANITCH: Really? PAUL JAY: Yeah. LEO PANITCH: Well, it's the kind of thing that- PAUL JAY: We've talked about the teaching of history in schools, here, so. LEO PANITCH: Well, Jews were often the subject of hoods, anti-Semites going into an area of the city and- PAUL JAY: In Ukraine. LEO PANITCH: Well, all over eastern Europe. PAUL JAY: Not only in eastern Europe. LEO PANITCH: And you know, beating the hell out of people, raping women, killing people, on antisemitic grounds. The word has become more common for those kinds of activities stretching all the way to Rwanda, or indeed, south side Chicago, when it's a police riot. So that's what I was referring to. PAUL JAY: And in 1904, 1905, you have a big wave of emigration to the United States, to Canada. People escaping these times. LEO PANITCH: That's right, and there was one very famous one in the southern Ukraine near Odessa [crosstalk 00:09:08]. PAUL JAY: And a lot of it had to do with seizing Jewish property. They wanted to force people out to seize the property. LEO PANITCH: Part of it had to do with the property. Yeah, part of it had to do with that. Part of it had to dividing the working class by identifying Jews as the killers of Christ and that kind of appalling antisemitism, in which religious ignorance was often used against people's own interest. This goes back a very long way. PAUL JAY: And a bit of the wall on the border debate, in a more current terminology. LEO PANITCH: Yeah, that's right, So you know, a certain difference emerged among people who were building a secular culture, who were engaged in politically progressive activity, about whether Jews should escape from that part of the world, emigrate to North America, or, because by that time there had been a "Let's get back to Palestine" movement. "This is where we came from, we'll only be able to escape this." And it was a time, remember, of national liberation struggles. "Well, if we're going to be liberated as Jews, we've got to find someplace to live." And the difference emerged between some of those people who became known as Zionists, "We need to get back to Zion," and those who wanted to stay and make a revolution. And even those who stayed remained "We need to get there eventually." PAUL JAY: And there's another split in those who want to get back to Zion. Some who represented kind of more capitalist values and those who think they're going to create some socialist nirvana. LEO PANITCH: Most of those who were the original immigrants, most of them, not those who funded them, but those who got there, would have thought of themselves as socialists. PAUL JAY: We'll talk a little bit more about that when we get further into your father, because how they jive with the socialist values and the attitude towards Palestinians, but let's save that and get back to your father and his values. Your father becomes a Labor Zionist. LEO PANITCH: Well I think a lot of people use Zionism now in a very ahistorical way, and I think wrongly. It was very possible to be a very left wing, and indeed, internationalist Zionist. In the context of the persecution at the time, in the context of Jews being a persecuted minority, to assert we have a right to a nation-state without thinking about who was living there, all those consequences, was not uncommon. My father certainly thought of himself as an internationalist, and I remember him saying to me a number of times, "If the world wasn't so bloody nationalist, I'd be very happy not have nothing to do with nationalism." He didn't think of himself much that way, and of course, coming to North America, his main activity, as was true of most people who even called themselves Zionists at that time, their main activity was in the unions. Their main activity was in a Socialist Party. That was their main activity. That's not to say that they weren't in favor of establishing a homeland for the Jews. PAUL JAY: And even there, there's another division. I was reading quote from Einstein today, who favored a state, but a binational state, and was very wary of this idea of just a Jewish state, that there should be a binational state of some kind. Apparently, that had some support, because apparently he was nominated at one point to be president of Israel, and he turned it down. LEO PANITCH: Yes he was. But he was in favor of the establishment of Israel and the awareness of people that that wouldn't be a state in which Jews and Arabs would coexist wasn't very high at that time. It was only with what the Palestinians called a nakba that that became so clear. There had been of course, divisions going back through the 20's and 30's, but for someone living in North Winnipeg, that was hardly what one saw clearly in terms of what was going on. Of course there would later be a good deal of propaganda that would sweep the plight of the Palestinians under the carpet. But look, this is nothing new in the history of the establishment of nation-states, if you look at the African nation-states, the ethnic groups that were thrown together as the colonial powers drew the borders. In fact, this is still going on with the Kurds all over the Middle East and North Africa, right? You see it in the Syrian conflict today. So ethnic groups were thrown together, and of course, the Jews in that sense were migrants, for the most part, although there had been Jews who had never left that part of the world, and there's some who had come after the Spanish expulsion of the Jews in 1492, et cetera, et cetera. So there'd been Jews for a long time there as well. The consequences, of course, of establishing a nation-state in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious arena is often fraught with conflict, with identities, with irreconcilable ones. So things weren't at all, in that sense, nearly as clear through the first half of the 20th century as they appear to be now, of course. Moreover, the people who've been running Israel for the last 20, 30, 40, 50 years, especially since 1967, have been those who are on the far right of the Zionist movement. Who are the least internationalist, the least socialist, the most oriented to individualism, and to certain degree, of tribalism. PAUL JAY: So, your father, as a Labor Zionist, is a very different concept than one might understand that today. It's hard to believe someone would be a socialist and a Zionist in the sense of supporting today's Israel and the policies of today's Israel. But in the time your father, we're talking early 20th century. LEO PANITCH: Well, there wasn't an Israel. PAUL JAY: One, there wasn't an Israel. LEO PANITCH: So there weren't any policies to support in that sense. PAUL JAY: Well, but there was some practice, but as you said, I don't know how many people knew. I mean, the expulsions of Palestinians in the 1920's. I've read accounts of Jewish taking over factories and expelling all of the Palestinian workers in the 1920's. So the contradictions were already fairly sharp, there. I don't know how much people knew about that here. LEO PANITCH: I don't think they knew much, and I don't think those were as common practices as they appear to be, looking back. But certainly, there was those kinds of things were going on, I'm sure. Yeah. PAUL JAY: So your father's ... There's various contradictions in the Jewish community. You have Jews are a part of the Communist party, and not part of straightforward Jewish organizations, and then with those in the Jewish organizations, you have kind of more, Social Democrat, centrist kind of Social Democrats, more kind of left. Where's your family fit into this, and how does this- LEO PANITCH: Well as I say, I think this conversation distorts what was the reality of my childhood and the reality of North Winnipeg. I don't think that the kinds of divisions that you're identifying around Zionism were top of the mind. PAUL JAY: Oh no. What I just said wasn't about Zionism. I'm talking about the kinds of divisions that exist, frankly, in every community of different types of politics within the left. LEO PANITCH: Yeah, but that's related to this point. I don't think they were top of the mind, the ones that were over the question of the state of Israel or not. Not least because that was such a distant prospect. You know, there were divisions in the left, generally. PAUL JAY: Can I say, what I'm suggesting is not a difference over the state of Israel, but there is a difference on whether your politics is done through the lens or actually, organization of a Jewish organization, so it's Jewish and such-and-such, or directly through a more secular, like the Communist Party or something that doesn't have a Jewish hook to it, or some other left organization. LEO PANITCH: Yeah, you know. PAUL JAY: Your family grew up within the milieu that mostly, this is done through Jewish culture. LEO PANITCH: Yeah. Although if you were in the Communist Party in North Winnipeg or Montreal, or in New York, you were surrounded very often by your Jewish neighbors, friends, cousins, relatives, et cetera. So there were certain ethnic communities, that's one of the reasons the Communist Party was limited in North America, where the Communist Party sank roots. In Canada, very deeply amongst the Finns, but also amongst Ukrainians who came before 1917, or the Russian Revolution, usually. There were elements of German communities in North America who were Communist. So there was always an ethnic tinge, even to the formation and organization of the Communist Party. PAUL JAY: What's your father's attitude towards the Communism and the Communist Party? LEO PANITCH: Well, you know. It was part of the family, in a sense. He was a left Social Democrat. Would have known people in his union who, often, they were leaders, in fact, and his union was led by Communists. They were people who worked together, but also often disagreed. They less often disagreed about the question of Zionism, I think, than they disagreed about strategies and tactics in relation to union or working class organizing, or in relation to whether one supports the twists and turns of the Stalinist Soviet Union. So in the period when Stalin adopted the class against class line, 1928 to 1933, four, where the Social Democrats in Germany were called Social Fascists by the Communists, et cetera, a separate trade union was created. And there were divisions amongst working class people. I wasn't around, but I'm sure my father shared it, over whether those red unions were going to be supportive. There were differences, obviously, over the question of the dictatorship going on in the Soviet Union. I'm sure my father was more likely to believe stories about the show trials than was my Aunt Rose, who was a Communist. PAUL JAY: Who worked in Garment District in Toronto. LEO PANITCH: Who was, yeah. My father worked in the sweatshops in the fur industry, the aristocrat of the needle trade, they were known, because such an expensive product to work on. She worked in the textiles in the schmatte business, as it was known. She often sewed gloves, in fact. She did that in Winnipeg, but then during the 1930's, for a period, she moved to Toronto and worked there. My dad moved to Toronto for two years in the 1930's because he couldn't get a job in Winnipeg, having been blackballed after a strike at the Hurtig Fur Company where his head was broken open by a scab wielding a wrench. So those divisions were much more about either Soviet politics or differences over organizing tactics. Much more bitter, much more important, much more significant than the ones we were talking about before. PAUL JAY: A thread throughout all of this, Jewish identity, the Yiddish language. It's a big part of family life, of culture, and it's part of the politics, in a sense. LEO PANITCH: It's part of the politics. I was sent to a secular Jewish school known as the Peretz School. I. L. Peretz was one of the great novelists and poets of that period I was talking about. PAUL JAY: Who you found out later, was a Marxist himself. LEO PANITCH: Well, it was certainly oriented to Marxism, definitely, as most of these guys were. I remember I was given, in fact, a copy of Das Kapital in Yiddish by a non-Jewish fellow in Ottawa who used to come hear me lecture occasionally. His mother had been Communist alderman in Toronto, and he gave me this. Published by the Kropotkin Society, no less. Kropotkin was a famous anarchist in New York. So, sure. I remember someone telling me they came across an anarchist pamphlet produced in Edmonton, Alberta in 1918, in Yiddish. So the whole panoply, but you would've found this in the Finnish community. You would've found it in the radical Ukrainian community. You would've found it in the United States, certainly in the German community, from the 1850's right through to World War I. This was not unique to, I happened to grow up in that community. No, at the same time, these secular oriented Jews weren't entirely by any means, inward looking. Although I was sent to a Yiddish school and I used to say poems on the Yiddish radio station. You know, I was 10 years old, because I've always had a good radio voice. I was born with it, I guess. My dad must have had it as well. But our lives weren't entirely oriented inward to the community. As I said, it was not only Communists who were oriented that way. It was also my dad joining the CCF at such an early age. PAUL JAY: And for American viewers, just- LEO PANITCH: The CCF, again, is known as the Canadian Commonwealth, or the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. And it's, you know, they're trying to build a socialist commonwealth, where wealth is in common. It was founded in the early 1930's by radical farmers, radical workers and intellectuals, and it's the forerunner of Canada's Social Democratic Party, the New Democratic Party. The NDP, as it's now known. So where were we? I was trying to get at the sense in which, even though the Jews were radical, and North Winnipeg was known as where the radical Jews lived, you didn't have to be a Communist to be oriented primarily to struggles going on, secular struggles going on in Canada. Or for that matter, in North America, or more broadly, internationally. PAUL JAY: You were born in 1945, so this is just after a horrendous genocide against Jews in Europe. Jewish identity in some ways, I would think, would be even more important in the family, in the sense of what had just happened to so many Jews. You're four or five years old. McCarthyism hits. What is the milieu in your family and your father's attitude during this period? LEO PANITCH: A lot of Jews of my age say that that was all swept under the carpet, and that they never heard of the Holocaust until the 60's. That this was all buried. That certainly wasn't the case in North Winnipeg. It wasn't the case in my milieu. It wasn't the case in my family. It was certainly, I was conscious of it as I grew up. PAUL JAY: Were there family members who were killed? LEO PANITCH: One of the poems I used to say on the Jewish radio as a young boy was the poem on the Warsaw ghetto, which begins with the Angel of Death arriving into the ghetto on the first night of Passover. It's a very moving and stunning poem, and I was able to say it in Yiddish. We didn't speak Yiddish at home, but because of the school I went to, where half day we would study Yiddish, half day it would be English curriculum. So yes. I remember every year, there was a Holocaust memorial ceremony that very large numbers of people in the community would attend. I often hear people say they grew up not hearing about it, that it was suppressed. People were afraid to talk about it, et cetera. That wasn't at all the case in my community. PAUL JAY: And there must have also been a very strong antifascist culture and consciousness of that. LEO PANITCH: Of course, of course. Of course, and that was true before the war, obviously, and it remained true after the war. You need to remember that Roosevelt was a hero to Social Democrats and Communists alike. For the Communists, Roosevelt was their man. The Communists had come behind him during the 1930's, and then especially during the Soviet-American alliance during the 1940's. Often trade unionists, left wing trade unionists like my father, would be more critical than the Communists, because the Communists had signed the no-strike pledge during the war. So there was a bit of a twist there, of course. No, the Communists were necessarily seen as the more militant. And insofar as Stalin at the end of the war was pushing the national road to socialism, in each country that was going to be his proof to the west that the Soviets weren't trying to take over the world, right? It was often people who weren't Communists who were less nationalist. In Canada, to be a Communist meant to try to find a radical tradition in the Canadian heritage that would justify a Communist being a Canadian nationalist. That was very common. PAUL JAY: Well in the next segment, let's pick up on McCarthyism Canadian style, and how that affected your father and yourself, growing up in the 50's, and some departure in terms of your ... You go to England to go to school, and you started going off to a large extent, on your own path. So please join us for a continuation of Reality Asserts Itself with Leo Panitch on the Real News Network. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 8 17:50:54 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:50:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Part 2 of the discussion between Paul Jay and Leo Panitch on the Real News Message-ID: ________________________________ March 8, 2018 "I Think I'm a Marxist" - Leo Panitch on RAI (pt 2/5) On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Leo Panitch says as he became politically active, he concluded that neither the bureaucratic socialism in the Soviet Union or Canadian social-democracy would democratize the economy or the state - with host Paul Jay ________________________________ Full Episode Reality Asserts Itself - Leo Panitch [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/lpanitch0221raipt2-thumb.jpg] "I Think I'm a Marxist" - Leo Panitch on RAI (pt 2/5) [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-02-01/lpanitch0221raipt1-thumb.jpg] The Radical Ferment of Winnipeg's Jewish Socialist Politics - Leo Panitch on RAI (1/5) [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/video_page_banner.png] ________________________________ audio [Share to Facebook] [Share to Twitter] [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/webml_share.png] [http://therealnews.com/t2/images/donate_btn.png] Because news is only as honest as the intentions of those who report it. - Joel L. Log in and tell us why you support TRNN ________________________________ transcript [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/lpanitch0221raipt2-240.jpg]PAUL JAY: Welcome back to the Real News Network, and Reality Asserts Itself. I'm Paul Jay, and joining us again in the studio is Professor Leo Panitch. Thanks for joining us, Leo.LEO PANITCH: Hi, Paul. PAUL JAY: One more time, Leo is Professor Emeritus and senior scholar at York University in Toronto. He's the co-editor of the annual socialist register. He's also coauthor of the UK Deutsche book Prizewinner, the Making of Global Capitalism, the Political Economy of American Empire. Let's pick up our conversation. If you didn't watch part one, I suggest you do. This will make more sense. You're born in 1945. I know I grew up full of, I'm born in 1951, so you even more than me are in the immediate shadow of World War Two. I remember when I'm four or five years old singing songs out on the street, whistle while you work, Hitler was a jerk, Mussolini bit his peony now it doesn't squirt. Every show on television was mostly World War Two dramas. What happened in the war was just all around me, and I assume even more you. You grow up in an anti-fascist family, and then you're about four or five years old and McCarthyism hits the United States, and while some Canadians like to believe it didn't hit Canada, to a lesser extent but certainly to an extent it did. How did that effect your family, the political atmosphere you grew up in? LEO PANITCH: Less than you would think. I certainly remember being told by my mother and father that my Aunt Rose, who had been a member of the communist party had burnt a signed copy of the History of the Soviet Union, Bolshevik, signed by Tim Buck the leader of the Canadian communist party, had literally burnt it because she was afraid that her husband who was a butcher would not be allowed to have his pension if the book was found in their house, as likely as it would be found in this second floor tenement apartment that they lived in. PAUL JAY: Certainly there were Canadians fired from jobs as there were in the United States. LEO PANITCH: Yes, but you can see how it would effect the working class person. Most people who were fired were people who were working as journalists, as teachers, they were the people who were more effected, but less effected of course in Canada, but effected certainly. I wasn't aware of it all that much. I was in fact most gob struck by it when I was a student activist. I was treasurer at the University of Manitoba student union, led a strike, a march on the parliament buildings on the legislature in Winnipeg against the raising of tuition fees, and when I got back to a family event, it was my in-laws' house, my brother's family, his wife's family, I was greeted by someone at that event who had seen me on television leading that march, and he called me a communist. PAUL JAY: How old were you? LEO PANITCH: I was probably 19, and I was taken aback and shocked by this, and hurt by it I have to say, because I grew up in a milieu quite rightly in which I was not sympathetic to the Soviet Union. I became a socialist and a Marxist against the example of the Soviet Union. I think that happened to most people in my generation who got radicalized in that period. So to be called that would have been, not that I was a traitor in that sense, but that I was in some sense undemocratic, whereas I would have thought leading a march in favor of lower tuition fees that I was representing democracy and student influence above all. It had those kinds of reverberations in which people would use it in a way that probably didn't have the same effect as it would be used on someone who was a communist. PAUL JAY: Now there's a difference between people who grew up in the milieu of critiquing, being opposed to what was developing in the Soviet Union and the attitude towards Marx. Is there any sense of Marx in the family as you're growing? LEO PANITCH: Sure. I mean of course one would hear in my household something about Marx. You more likely would hear something about someone who would be accused of being the Marxist, like your namesake, Paul, Paul Robeson, who was of course a hero in my household, even more so in my Aunt Rose's, because he was identified as a communist, she was a communist, therefore she'd really identify him. But people like Paul Robeson, someone who is a black radical as well as a leftist standing up to McCarthyism, these people were heroes. He came to Winnipeg, indeed, appeared at the Labor Temple. I remember, this is gonna sound odd, when I was invited to speak at the Labor Temple at a benefit for a left wing magazine some 15 years ago, going into a toilet stall and thinking to myself I'm probably sharing this with the spirit of Paul Robeson. It wasn't so much Marx as people who were themselves be accused of being Marxist, perhaps. I never thought of myself as a Marxist. One didn't growing up in a working class home in that sense. People didn't define themselves that way. I remember it was only in second year university that I whispered to a friend or ended up writing that last book you just mentioned with Sam Gindon, I just had read the preface of the Critique of Political Economy, which I now think is pretty crude, but I remember reading that and whispering to Sam, I think I'm a Marxist. I think one knew that that was a bit of a [free-ZAHN 00:06:15], it was you were going past where the left is safely goes within good company, or establishment company. I wanna say though that the Winnipeg I grew up in differently from others I think of my generation who were middle class or upper middle class, the children of lawyers or doctors or businessmen, I grew up in working class Winnipeg, not upwardly mobile. So my memories of the 1950s were much more about my dad being laid off every winter, my mother going to work as a night cleaner in the bank when my father got laid off. A lot of the left, a lot of socialist feminists in the 1970s developed this notion as a bad notion of the family wage. My mother was the strongest proponent of the family wage because when my dad wasn't getting a pay increase, or was laid off and unemployed, she had to go out and be a night cleaner in a bank. I would hear the word scab in a strike more often from my mother than I would from my father. I remember my father pulling me onto his lap when I was already I think in grade nine, came home at 4:00 and there he was at the kitchen table, and he pulled me on his lap and started crying, and I realized what had happened, he had either lost his job or been laid off that day. If he was in a bad mood, I got the sense it was because he'd been told off by some foreman, and that he was someone who was much more educated, not in a formal sense, than this bastard who had told him off. There was a certain resentment in the household that I could tell when we would go to the odd time to a synagogue, and my father would point to some rich businessman who could barely spell his name, but who was sitting next to the rabbi because he had contributed so much to the community, quote-unquote. There was a sense of class. There was a sense of class that split the Jewish community, and I think that's important to bring out when you talk of my Jewish roots, my Jewish background. What was particularly important to me, I think, was this awareness. During the post war period, the great heyday of the welfare state, et cetera, of how precarious life was even for a trade unionized working class person. People think that precarity is something that is recent, that didn't exist back in the 1950s. What did change was that, and although it in some ways continued, was that the fraternal organizations that as they were known, that the various ethnic groups created for themselves before the welfare state. They would put pennies each week into a fund that would guarantee that if they had to go to a doctor, if one of them died, there would be a fund they could call on which would pay that fee if necessary, or pay for their funeral so they wouldn't be buried in a pauper's grave. My father was very active. His greatest activity was in something called the Winnipeg Aid Society. He learned the Robert's Rules of Order of running a meeting I think more there than in his union meetings. I often thought to myself not least because he was self educated, voraciously read the newspapers, was interested in politics, but also because he knew how to run a meeting, that he knew more about politics than my undergraduate political science students when I started teaching them. I was aware that that was something significant for a working class person. PAUL JAY: Talking about the development of the welfare state and Canada, in your youth you go to a Tommy Douglas rally. Your father was involved in the CCF, and Tommy Douglas had a lot to do with developing what Bernie Sanders goes on and on about, the Canadian healthcare. What was that moment like for you, the enthusiasm about Tommy Douglas, and also how do you assess that now? LEO PANITCH: The first socialist government in North America was the CCF, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation government elected in 1944 in Saskatchewan, one of the great political scientists of the United States, Seymour Martin Lipset, writes his first book on that phenomenon. When you become a political scientist, that's one of the key books you read in the postwar era, what produced this party, this third party, how did it happen, et cetera. Yeah, and Tommy Douglas was a hero in my household more than any Zionist you could name, more than Theodore Herzl or in terms of our earlier conversation about my dad being a social democrat and a labor Zionist. Tommy Douglas was a hero in our home. PAUL JAY: The Bernie Sanders of his day, right? LEO PANITCH: He was certainly more than the Bernie Sanders of his day, much more than the Bernie Sanders of his day because he was actually Premier of Saskatchewan, introduced the first hospital care program, and is seen by all Canadians now as the father of Canadian Medicare, of our socialized health system. So there was this rally in Winnipeg, I remember very clearly, in 1957, I was 12 years old, it was during the election of '57, my dad took me, it was probably my first big political meeting, and after it was over my dad got up and walked towards the stage. As he did, my father looked up and Tommy Douglas looked down, and Tommy Douglas said hello, Max, and my father, this working class person who went off to work in this dank factory everyday became a hero in my eyes, that Tommy Douglas, of course he was a great politician, and he knew activists in the party been around for by that point 20, 25 years in the party and knew many of them by name. It was not such a big deal, but to me my father became a superhero that day. PAUL JAY: I had a somewhat similar moment. My parents took me to a Tommy Douglas rally at Mapleleaf Gardens, I must have been about six, seven years old, or something, but one of the events burnt into my memory. It's a little bit of a segue, but I think it's worth it. A lot of Americans with this debate about healthcare cannot understand how the heck did Canada ever have such a system, why didn't the private insurance companies and such have the same kind of power. How does this come to be that you get such a development right across the border? LEO PANITCH: It had to do of course with the development of a mass social democratic party. It had to do with that party becoming government of one of the provinces, and starting the ball rolling in the late 1940s, but then seeing it through in the face of a doctor's strike in the early 1960s, right? It had to do with the fact that such a party looked upon the achievements of the British Labor government, above all the establishment of the National Health Service, as something that they were very able to use in Canadian political discourse to their favor. And since of course the Anglo tradition in Canadian political life, because we were after all the dominion of Canada, a colony of Britain before we became a colony of the United States, an informal colony of the United States, there would have been a certain influence even on conservatives by virtue of the British conservatives not undoing the National Health Service once it was established in Britain in the late 1940s. Moreover, there was a conjuncture between late 1950s and the mid-1960s when the dominant liberals were being challenged and displaced very briefly by the conservatives, and had minority governments. In order to secure themselves back as the dominant party in Canada, the liberals always moved slightly to the left. And in so far as they were the minority governments, they needed the support of the social democratic party, by that point it was called the New Democratic Party. So there was those kinds of reasons going on. Now the main thing is that it happened at that moment, it happened by the sixties. If it hadn't happened then, you're absolutely right that the insurance companies would have made given what happened with privatized medicine, with the extent to which they were accumulating profits out of people's most basic needs for health. It would have made it much more difficult to get it later. The fact that it didn't happen in the United States at the heyday of the New Deal, in so far as it didn't happen under Kennedy and Johnson, although some moves were made in that direction, then it was much more difficult to take on all of those capitalist interests in that industry later. PAUL JAY: We've just been doing a series on the Real News called Undoing the New Deal, and one of the points was that just on the eve of war, Henry Wallace, who became Roosevelt's vice president, and others in the administration and Roosevelt was gonna go along with it, were gonna introduce a government health insurance plan, and then in order to rally the party including all the forces against the healthcare reform for the war, Roosevelt gave up on it. LEO PANITCH: Yeah. You know, one wonders what would have happened if Roosevelt had not died when he did, if Truman who never would have been President of the United States except for the fact that he was a useful choice for vice president at the moment he was chosen. PAUL JAY: To get rid of Wallace. LEO PANITCH: To get rid of Wallace, exactly. Things might have been different. But again, capital in the United States was much more powerful than it was in Canada, as obviously as a political force. PAUL JAY: You are excited, inspired at Tommy Douglas, at the age of 19 you're leading a protest, though I have to add just to embarrass you you are at Eaton's Department Store, junior executive ... LEO PANITCH: I was in high school. PAUL JAY: Yeah. What the heck is that story? LEO PANITCH: Every high school ... PAUL JAY: This is a big department chain at the time. LEO PANITCH: It's like Macy's, yeah. It's like Macy's. Every high school in Manitoba, perhaps, but certainly in Winnipeg, were given the opportunity to appoint two high school students as the Eaton's Junior Executive. Now what that essentially meant was that you got a blazer, a blue blazer with a logo, and the right to work Friday nights and Saturdays, and during the summer. So it guaranteed you a job. I used to sell underwear to farmers, long underwear, combinations we used to call them, to Canadian farmers who'd otherwise freeze in the winter. Yes, I was an Eaton's Junior Executive, after I became known as a ... PAUL JAY: [crosstalk 00:18:06] little thing on the back that could undo the ... LEO PANITCH: Sure. No, exactly. Yeah. Vents, they were called. Much later when I became a well-known Marxist intellectual in Canada, someone anonymously sent me a photocopy of a page from the Saint John's high school yearbook, which had a photograph of me and a photograph of a woman called Janet [Sukowski 00:18:37] who later became a Canadian ambassador. We were the Junior Executives that year, and there were photos of us in that yearbook as the Eaton's Junior Executives. So the irony was obvious. PAUL JAY: Not long after this 19 year old leads this protest, you do university, your first round of university. First four rounds is where? LEO PANITCH: My first undergraduate degree was in economics and political science at the University of Winnipeg. I studied with a man who founded the Canadian Dimension Magazine, which next to Monthly Review is the oldest independent socialist magazine in North America now. PAUL JAY: Cy Gonic. LEO PANITCH: Yeah, Cy Gonic is his name. He'd just come back from Berkeley, where he had been involved in the free speech movement and the radical activities at Berkeley in the early 1960s. PAUL JAY: What year were you in? LEO PANITCH: That was I studied with him in '63, '64, '65. He had come back in probably '62. Some of my professors were Marxists, and that had some influence already. Certainly many of them were radicals. So and you know a lot of people were engaged in the anti-Vietnam struggles in Winnipeg, in the mid 1960s. I only went off to London in 1967 as a commonwealth scholar. I'm not sure I thought of myself as anything more than a left social democrat or a radical in that period, although I had whispered I think I'm a Marxist. Certainly I don't think Cy Gonic thought of me as the most radical of his students. PAUL JAY: Even at the time, and to some extent looking back, what's the difference in your mind? What does it mean to say I'm whispering I'm a Marxist, versus a left social democrat, what's the difference? LEO PANITCH: Very good point. I don't think I understood that then. I think it was only in light of the social democratic party's failure to go beyond the reforms they had secured in welfare benefits and healthcare by the sixties and seventies that one began to be aware that those reforms were increasingly running up against their limits within a continuing capitalist dynamic, that they were gonna be constrained and maybe even undone unless you went beyond them to actually take the decisions about what's invested, where it's invested, what it's invested for away from capital. PAUL JAY: Meaning who has power. LEO PANITCH: Meaning the democratization of the economy. I don't think there was enough of an awareness until the sixties and my generation became very aware of it, of course, of how bureaucratic social democratic governments were, how they had been brought into the structures of the state in a way that didn't democratize the state, that as the man I discovered at the London School of Economics by chance, who's intellectual influence did change my life, Ralph Miliband, put it in his famous book parliamentary socialism, the first line of it reads of parties which take socialism as their goal the Labor Party is the most dogmatic, not in the sense of socialism, but in the sene of its commitment to parliamentarianism. And it was generally true that the social democratic parties became enveloped in the institutional structures of parliamentarianism, electoralism, but above all the bureaucratic structures of the departments that they were ministers of. One got a sense of that in the sixties. That's really I think what the new left was about. It was both a reaction against the soviet bureaucratism and also a reaction against the reformist bureaucratism. Whether it was the New Deal bureaucratism in the United States or the social democratic in Europe to some extent in Canada, you know, women on welfare were most frightened of their welfare social workers, of the income maintenance workers. They were the people who would show up in their houses and see whether there was an extra toothbrush in the glass, in which case they'd be thrown off welfare on the grounds that they happened to have a boyfriend, despite the fact they were single mothers. That was part of what was going on, I think, at that time, which led us against and beyond both Leninism and social democracy. PAUL JAY: Okay. In the next segment of the interview, we're gonna pick up Leo heads off to England, to go to university, as he just mentioned. That had a lot to do with transforming how he looked at the world, so please join us for the continuation of Reality Asserts Itself, on the Real News Network. ________________________________ ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 19:59:05 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:59:05 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour In-Reply-To: References: <5C1E0C0F-070F-4249-88A7-82A23E2C8C2E@illinois.edu> <5A5BC049-F601-496A-ADC9-FCFE6DE42C27@gmail.com> <25B1D2F2-497F-42AE-9C0C-AF88090059D8@gmail.com> Message-ID: I’m glad you corrected my misapprehension of your point in the lecture. > On Mar 8, 2018, at 11:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > CGE: "In your recent talk on Israel/Palestine, you seemed to suggest that Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P propaganda line that’s a staple of US fp in all recent administrations." > I suggested no such thing! You have repeatedly trashed and tried to discredit the lecture I just gave for the Palestinians along these lines. > Fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 11:06 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Jay ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Karen Aram ; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour > > I don’t intend to trash your lecture, Francis. I did want to discuss it, especially what seemed to be an implied defense of Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia. I’m glad to hear that’s a misapprehension. > > As Mort Brussel appositely put it, "There was no genocide in Bosnia-H. (as I understand that word), although their were terrible events, killings, on all sides. Our man Izetbetkovic (sp?) was no angel, someone who wanted to carve out an Islamic state.” > > —CGE > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:40 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Excuse me Carl. Why are you trying to trash the 70 minute lecture I just gave on behalf of the Palestinians? Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:33 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Arlene Hickory ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Joe Lauria ; Szoke, Ron ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; stuartnlevy ; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour > > Glad to hear it. > > So you’d reject the equation ? > > —CGE > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- Baloney! I never suggested that at all! As a matter of fact I > have argued to the contrary in my book Destroying Libya and World Order (Clarity Press: 2013), Chapter 5, "Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Versus International Law," pages 154 to 172, with footnotes. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 10:08 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > ; Arlene Hickory ; > sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Joe Lauria > ; Szoke, Ron ; > abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne > ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay > ; David Johnson ; > Mildred O'brien ; stuartnlevy > ; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour > > Francis-- > > Again, the question is not Morgenthau’s character but US military and foreign policy. > > In your recent talk on Israel/Palestine, you seemed to suggest that Clinton’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 was justified, on the R2P propaganda line that’s a staple of US fp in all recent administrations . > > —CGE > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > As I recently told the retired President of the University of Chicago where Morgenthau spent his career teaching: Morgenthau was a German Jew who had to flee the Nazis and was taken in by this country. As is the case with other Jews I have studied with at the University of Chicago and Harvard who fled the Nazis and were taken in by this country, they are eternally grateful to the United States of America for taking them in and giving them shelter from the Nazis. So consequently they are more naïve and idealistic about the United States of America compared to native born Americans such as Chomsky and me. And I did reference both Chomsky and me to the retired UChicago President. Fab. > Louis B. Zimmer’s The Vietnam War Debate: Hans J. Morgenthau and the Attempt to Halt the Drift into Disaster (Lexington Books: 2011). > by > Professor Francis A. Boyle > University of Illinois College of Law > > > Hans Morgenthau was my teacher, mentor and friend. He recommended me for my law professorship. It was my great honor and distinct pleasure to have studied with Morgenthau while he was heroically leading the forces of opposition to the genocidal Vietnam War at great personal cost to himself and his family. Morgenthau’s stellar example of brilliance in the service of courage, integrity and principles has inspired and motivated me now for over four decades. After reading Zimmer’s compelling book, Morgenthau will do the same for you. Zimmer vividly brings back to life Morgenthau, his epic battle against the Vietnam War, and those tumultuous and tragic events that shaped my generation and determined the destinies of two nations only now beginning to reconcile -- a volte-face preternaturally predicted by Morgenthau during the darkest days of the wars. This book is required reading for all those seeking to pursue peace with justice in today’s increasingly troubled and endangered world. Humanity desperately needs more like Morgenthau in order to survive. Zimmer explains why. A real tour de force of engaged historical research and scholarship. > > > > From: Carl G. Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:52 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Labor Hour > > ISOLATIONISM V. EXCEPTIONALISM: TRUMP V. OBAMA/CLINTON > > [The following article by Noam Chomsky appeared in ‘Truthout', > October 6, 2013; it challenges the observation by the late Alex > Cockburn that the website should be called ‘Truth-left-out’] > > The recent [2013] Obama-Putin tiff over American exceptionalism reignited an ongoing debate over the Obama Doctrine: Is the president veering toward isolationism? Or will he proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? > > The debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality “realist” school of international relations. > > Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a “transcendent purpose” that it “must defend and promote” throughout the world: “the establishment of equality in freedom.” > > The competing concepts “exceptionalism” and “isolationism” both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application. > > One extreme was vigorously defended by President Obama in his Sept. 10 address to the nation: “What makes America different,” he declared, “what makes us exceptional,” is that we are dedicated to act, “with humility, but with resolve,” when we detect violations somewhere. > > “For nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security,” a role that “has meant more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them.” > > The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. > > Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. > > At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. > > To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” > > But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” > > In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. > > Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. > > Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. > > Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. > > The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” > > Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. > > One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. > > That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” > > Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” > > The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. > > She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. > > Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” > > And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. > > But that is mere abuse of reality. > > It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. > > Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” : > > > > On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > […] > > Saturday the 10th of March, on the “Labor Hour” > WRFU 11:00am - 1:00pm > > > “ University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle will be a guest, > discussing the current and historic facts since 9-11 2001 about U.S. > military intervention and destabilization. “ > > It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, > Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American > foreign policy… > > Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. > > By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. > > Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this analysis the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. > > Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. > > This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): > > The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. > > Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. > > Francis A. Boyle > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 20:29:19 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:29:19 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Milosevic and Clinton In-Reply-To: References: <5C1E0C0F-070F-4249-88A7-82A23E2C8C2E@illinois.edu> <5A5BC049-F601-496A-ADC9-FCFE6DE42C27@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7E2F8AAB-91D3-4CFF-89C9-7ADB190822F0@gmail.com> December 9, 2017 > Hague Tribunal Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic Again by Andy Wilcoxson, via Strategic Culture Eleven years after his death, a second trial chamber at the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague has concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. More than eleven years after his death, a second trial chamber at the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague has concluded that former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia where the worst atrocities associated with the break-up of Yugoslavia took place. Buried in a footnote deep in the fourth volume of the judgment against Bosnian-Serb General Ratko Mladic the judges unanimously conclude that “The evidence received by the trial chamber did not show that Slobodan Milosevic, Jovica Stanisic, Franko Simatovic, Zeljko Raznatovic, or Vojislav Seselj participated in the realization of the common criminal objective” to establish an ethnically-homogenous Bosnian-Serb entity through the commission of crimes alleged in the indictment.[1] This is an important admission because practically the entire Western press corps and virtually every political leader in every Western country has spent the last 25 years telling us that Slobodan Milosevic was a genocidal monster cut from the same cloth as Adolf Hitler. We were told that he was the “Butcher of the Balkans,” but there was never any evidence to support those accusations. We were lied to in order to justify economic sanctions and NATO military aggression against the people of Serbia – just like they lied to us to justify the Iraq war. This is the second successive trial chamber at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to conclude that Slobodan Milosevic was not guilty of the most serious crimes he was accused of. Last year, the Radovan Karadzic trial chamber also concluded that “the Chamber is not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan” to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb claimed territory.[2] The Tribunal has done nothing to publicize these findings despite the fact that Slobodan Milosevic was accused of 66 counts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity by the Tribunal. Milosevic died in the Tribunal’s custody before the conclusion of his own trial. He was found dead in his cell after suffering a heart attack in the UN Detention Unit two weeks after the Tribunal denied his request for provisional release so that he could have heart surgery that would have saved his life.[3] Dr. Leo Bokeria, the coronary specialist who would have overseen Milosevic’s treatment at the Bakulev Medical Center, said: “If Milosevic was taken to any specialized Russian hospital, the more so to such a stationary medical institution as ours, he would have been subjected to coronographic examination, two stents would be made, and he would have lived for many long years to come. A person has died in our contemporary epoch, when all the methods to treat him were available and the proposals of our country and the reputation of our medicine were ignored. As a result, they did what they wanted to do.”[4] Less than 72 hours before his death, Milosevic’s lawyer delivered a letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which Milosevic expressed fear that he was being poisoned.[5] The Tribunal’s inquiry into Milosevic’s death confirmed that Rifampicin (an unprescribed drug that would have compromised the efficacy of his high blood pressure medication) was found in one of his blood tests, but that that he was not informed of the results until months later “because of the difficult legal position in which Dr. Falke (the Tribunal’s chief medical officer) found himself by virtue of the Dutch legal provisions concerning medical confidentiality.”[6] There are no Dutch legal provisions that prohibit a doctor from telling a patient the result of their own blood test, and U.S. diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks show that the Tribunal had zero regard for medical confidentiality laws when they gave detailed information about Slobodan Milosevic’s health and medical records to personnel at the US embassy in The Hague without his consent.[7] Milosevic’s trial had been going badly for the prosecution. It was glaringly obvious to any fair-minded observer that he was innocent of the crimes he was accused of. James Bissett, Canada’s former ambassador to Yugoslavia, said Milosevic’s trial “had taken on all the characteristics of a Stalinist show trial.” George Kenny, who manned the U.S. State Department’s Yugoslavia desk, also denounced the Milosevic trial proceedings as “inherently unfair, amounting to little more than a political show trial”.[8] The trial was a public relations disaster for the Tribunal. Midway through the Prosecution’s case, the London Times published an article smearing Slobodan Milosevic’s wife and lamenting the fact that “One of the ironies of Slobodan’s trial is that it has bolstered his popularity. Hours of airtime, courtesy of the televised trial, have made many Serbs fall in love with him again.”[9] While the trial enhanced Milosevic’s favorability, it destroyed the Tribunal’s credibility with the Serbian public. The Serbian public had been watching the trial on television, and when the Serbian Human Rights Ministry conducted a public opinion poll three years into the trial it found that “three quarters of Serbian citizens believe that The Hague Tribunal is a political rather than a legal institution.”[10] Tim Judah, a well-known anti-Milosevic journalist and author, was dismayed as he watched the trial unfold. He wrote that “the trial of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague is going horribly wrong, turning him in the eyes of the public from a villain charged with war crimes into a Serbian hero.”[11] By late 2005, Milosevic’s detractors wanted the live broadcasts of the trial yanked off the air because it was not having the political effect that they had hoped it would. Political analyst Daniel Cveticanin wrote, “It seems that the coverage benefits more those it was supposed to expose than the Serbian public. [The] freedom-loving and democratic intentions of the live coverage have not produced [the] planned effects.”[12] Milosevic’s supporters, on the other hand, were emphatic. They wanted the live broadcasts to continue because they knew he was innocent and they wanted the public to see that for themselves.[13] Slobodan Milosevic’s exoneration, by the same Tribunal that killed him eleven years ago, is cold comfort for the people of Serbia. The Serbian people endured years of economic sanctions and a NATO bombing campaign against their country because of the unfounded allegations against their president. Although the Tribunal eventually admitted that it didn’t have evidence against Slobodan Milosevic, its disreputable behavior should make you think twice before accepting any of its other findings. NOTES: [1] ICTY, Mladic Judgment, Vol. IV, 22 November 2017, Pg. 2090, Footnote 15357 http://www.icty.org/x/cases/mladic/tjug/en/171122-4of5_1.pdf%5B2%5D ICTY, Karadzic Judgment, 24 March 2016, Para. 3460 http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tjug/en/160324_judgement.pdf [3] ICTY Case No. IT-02-54 Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, Decision on Assigned Counsel Request for Provisional Release, February 23, 2006 [4] “Milosevic Could Be Saved if He Was Treated in Russia – Bokeria,” Itar-Tass (Russia), March 15, 2006 [5] Text of Slobodan Milosevic’s Letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/sm030806.htm [6] Judge Kevin Parker (Vice-President of the ICTY), Report to the President of the ICTY: Death of Slobodan Milosevic, May 2006; ¶ 31, 76 http://www.icty.org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/custom2/en/parkerreport.pdf [7] U.S. State Dept. Cable #03THEHAGUE2835_a, “ICTY: An Inside Look Into Milosevic’s Health and Support Network” https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/03THEHAGUE2835_a.html [8] “Milosevic trial delayed as witnesses refuse to testify,” The Irish Times, September 18, 2004 [9] “Listening to Lady Macbeth,” Sunday Times (London), January 5, 2003 [10] “Public Opinion Firmly Against Hague,” B92 News (Belgrade), August 2, 2004 [11] Tim Judah, “Serbia Backs Milosevic in Trial by TV – Alarm as Former President Gains the Upper Hand in War Crimes Tribunal,” The Observer (London), March 3, 2002 [12] “Debate Opens in Serbia Over Live Coverage of Milosevic War Crimes Trial,” Associated Press Worldstream, September 22, 2005 [13] “Serbian NGO Opposes Decision to Drop Live Broadcast of Milosevic Trial,” BBC Monitoring International Reports, October 8, 2003; Source: FoNet news agency, Belgrade, in Serbian 1300 gmt 8 Oct 03; See Also: “Serbia: Milosevic Sympathisers Protest Inadequate Coverage of Trial,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, June 10, 2002; Source: RTS TV, Belgrade, in Serbo-Croat 1730 gmt 10 Jun 02 ======================================================================== [RTS Online, April 25, 2006] Noam Chomsky: ...Milosevic was, he committed many crimes, not a nice person, terrible person, but the charges against him would have never have held up. He was originally indicted on the Kosovo charges. The indictment was issued right in the middle of bombing which already nullifies it. It used British, it admittedly used British and the U.S. intelligence right in the middle of bombing, can’t possibly take it seriously. However if you look at the indictment, it was for crimes committed after the bombing. There was one exception: Racak. Let’s even grant that the claims are true, let’s put that aside. So, there was one exception, no evidence that he was involved or you know, it took place, But almost the entire indictment was for after the bombing. How are those charges going to stand up unless you put Bill Clinton and Tony Blair on the dock alongside? Then they realized that it was a weak case. So they added the early Balkan wars, OK? Lot of horrible things happened there. But the worst crime, the one that they were really going to charge him for that genocide was Srebrenica. Now, there is a little problem with that: namely there was an extensive, detailed inquiry into it by the Dutch Government, which was the responsible government, there were Dutch forces there, that’s a big, you know, hundreds of pages inquiry, and their conclusion is that Milosevic did not know anything about that, and that when it was discovered in Belgrade, they were horrified. Well, suppose that had entered into the testimony? DM: Does this mean that you are a “Milosevic sympathizer”? NC: No, he was terrible. In fact he should have been thrown out, in fact he probably would have been thrown out and in the early nineties if the Albanians had voted, it was pretty close. He did all sorts of terrible things but it wasn’t a totalitarian state, I mean, there were elections, there was the opposition, a lot of rotten things, but there are rotten things everywhere and I certainly wouldn’t want to have dinner with him or talk to him, and yes, he deserves to be tried for crimes, but this trial was never going to hold up, if it was even semi-honest. It was a farce; in fact they were lucky that he died. DM: In what sense? NC: Because they did not have to go through out the whole trial. Now they can, you can build up an image about how he would have been convicted as another Hitler. DM: Had he lived. NC: But now they don’t have to do it. DM: I just want to bring you back to the bombing of the RTS. Some have argued that this particular act of NATO’s in 1999 set precedants for targeting of media by the United States afterward – in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – that it set a precedant for legitimizing media houses and labeling them as propaganda in order to bomb them in U.S. invasions. Do you make any connection there? NC: Well, I mean, the chronology is correct. But I don’t think they need excuses. The point is: you bomb anybody you want to. Let’s take 1998, so it was before. Now in 1998, here’s another thing you’re not allowed to say in the States and the West that leads to hysteria, but I’ll say it – in 1998 Clinton bombed the major pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, OK? That was, this is the plant that’s using the most of the pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines for poor African country that’s under embargo, can’t replace it. What’s that going to do? Obviously they killed unknown numbers of people, in fact the U.S. barred an investigation by the UN so we don’t know and of course you don’t want to investigate your own crimes, but there were some evidence. So the German Ambassador, who is a fellow at the Harvard University to Sudan wrote an article in Harvard International Review in which he estimated the casualties in the tens of thousands of deaths. The research of the Head of the Near East Foundation, a very respectable foundation, their regional director had field work in Somalia and in Sudan, he did the study, he came out with the same conclusions, probably tens of thousands of dead. Right after the bombing, within weeks, Human Rights Watch issued a warning that it was going to be a humanitarian catastrophe and gave examples of aid workers being pulled out from areas where people were dying and so on. You can not mention this. Any mention of this brings the same hysteria, as criticizing the bombing of the TV station. So it’s unmentionable, it is a Western crime and therefore it was legitimate. Let’s just suppose that Al Quaida blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S., or England or Israel or any country in which people lived. Human beings, not ants, people. Fine. Can you imagine the reaction, we’d probably have a nuclear war, but when we do it to a poor African country – didn’t happen! Not discussed, in fact the only issue that is discussed if there is discussion is whether the intelligence was correct when it claimed that it was also producing chemical weapons. That is the only question. Mention anything else, the usual hysteria, and tirades…This is a very disciplined, Western intellectual culture is extremely disciplined. And rigid. You can not go beyond fixed bounds. It’s not, you know, it’s not censored, it’s all voluntary but it’s true and it’s not, incidentally, not free societies like this. In fact the third world countries are different. So take, say, Turkey, half third world; I mean in Turkey, the intellectuals, the leading intellectuals, now best known writers, academics, journalists, artists I mean they not only protest atrocities about the Kurdish massacre, they protest it constantly, but they were also constant in carrying out civil disobedience against them. I also participated with them sometimes. And they go publish banned writings which reported presented them to the Prosecutor’s Office, demand they were prosecuted. It’s not a joke, you know, facing… sometimes they are sent to prison, that’s no joke. There’s nothing like that in the West. Inconceivable. When I am in Western Europe I hear them telling me Turkey is not civilized enough to enter the European Union. I burst out laughing! It’s the other way round. DM: Speaking of democratic movements, there was a… [crew]: This is the last question. DM: OK, two more quick questions; one: you mentioned the democratic movements in various countries. There was of course a promising democratic movement in Serbia before and, of course, during the bombing. And people like Wesley Clark had claimed that this bombing would be of benefit to the anti-Milosevic forces, when it of course turned out to be a disaster. Was this a sincere evaluation on behalf of NATO? NC: Well, I can’t look into their minds. When you commit a crime it is extremely easy to find a justification for it. That’s true of personal life; it’s true of international affairs. So yes, maybe they believed it. I mean, I think there’s convincing evidence that the Japanese fascists believed that they were doing good when they carried out things in the Second World War. John Stewart Mill surely believed he was being honorable and noble when he was calling for the conquest of India right after some of the worst atrocities which I mentioned, you can easily believe you are noble. I mean, to me it’s obvious that it was going to harm the democratic movement, I heard about it and I couldn’t get much information but it was obvious that it was going to happen. I mean it is happening right now in Iran. There is a democratic movement in Iran, they are pleading with the United States not to maintain a harsh embargo, certainly not to attack, it is harming them, and it strengthens the most reactionary violent elements in the society, of course. DM: Let me ask you one final question about the future. Negotiations over Kosovo’s final status are under way right now, the United States is backing Agim Ceku, who was someone involved in ethnic cleansing not only in… NC: Not someone. He was a war criminal himself. What about the Krajina expulsion, which he was…. DM: First of all, what do you see as an appropriate, realistic solution for the final status of Kosovo and how does that differ from what the United States is now promoting? NC: My feeling has been for a long time that the only realistic solution is one that in fact was offered by the President of Serbia I think back round 1993 [Chomsky is referring to the proposal of former Serbian President of Yugoslavia, Dobrica Cosic], namely some kind of partition, with the Serbian, by now very few Serbs left but the, what were the Serbian areas being part of Serbia and the rest be what they called “independent” which means it’ll join Albania. I just don’t see…I didn’t see any other feasible solution ten years ago… ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 8 20:35:17 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 20:35:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Milosevic and Clinton In-Reply-To: <7E2F8AAB-91D3-4CFF-89C9-7ADB190822F0@gmail.com> References: <5C1E0C0F-070F-4249-88A7-82A23E2C8C2E@illinois.edu> <5A5BC049-F601-496A-ADC9-FCFE6DE42C27@gmail.com> <7E2F8AAB-91D3-4CFF-89C9-7ADB190822F0@gmail.com> Message-ID: You are continuing to try to trash and discredit my speech for the Palestinians. It speaks for itself. I am no longer going to play your game. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 2:29 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Arlene Hickory ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Joe Lauria ; Szoke, Ron ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; stuartnlevy ; Karen Aram Subject: Milosevic and Clinton December 9, 2017 > Hague Tribunal Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic Again by Andy Wilcoxson, via Strategic Culture Eleven years after his death, a second trial chamber at the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague has concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. More than eleven years after his death, a second trial chamber at the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague has concluded that former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia where the worst atrocities associated with the break-up of Yugoslavia took place. Buried in a footnote deep in the fourth volume of the judgment against Bosnian-Serb General Ratko Mladic the judges unanimously conclude that “The evidence received by the trial chamber did not show that Slobodan Milosevic, Jovica Stanisic, Franko Simatovic, Zeljko Raznatovic, or Vojislav Seselj participated in the realization of the common criminal objective” to establish an ethnically-homogenous Bosnian-Serb entity through the commission of crimes alleged in the indictment.[1] This is an important admission because practically the entire Western press corps and virtually every political leader in every Western country has spent the last 25 years telling us that Slobodan Milosevic was a genocidal monster cut from the same cloth as Adolf Hitler. We were told that he was the “Butcher of the Balkans,” but there was never any evidence to support those accusations. We were lied to in order to justify economic sanctions and NATO military aggression against the people of Serbia – just like they lied to us to justify the Iraq war. This is the second successive trial chamber at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to conclude that Slobodan Milosevic was not guilty of the most serious crimes he was accused of. Last year, the Radovan Karadzic trial chamber also concluded that “the Chamber is not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan” to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb claimed territory.[2] The Tribunal has done nothing to publicize these findings despite the fact that Slobodan Milosevic was accused of 66 counts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity by the Tribunal. Milosevic died in the Tribunal’s custody before the conclusion of his own trial. He was found dead in his cell after suffering a heart attack in the UN Detention Unit two weeks after the Tribunal denied his request for provisional release so that he could have heart surgery that would have saved his life.[3] Dr. Leo Bokeria, the coronary specialist who would have overseen Milosevic’s treatment at the Bakulev Medical Center, said: “If Milosevic was taken to any specialized Russian hospital, the more so to such a stationary medical institution as ours, he would have been subjected to coronographic examination, two stents would be made, and he would have lived for many long years to come. A person has died in our contemporary epoch, when all the methods to treat him were available and the proposals of our country and the reputation of our medicine were ignored. As a result, they did what they wanted to do.”[4] Less than 72 hours before his death, Milosevic’s lawyer delivered a letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which Milosevic expressed fear that he was being poisoned.[5] The Tribunal’s inquiry into Milosevic’s death confirmed that Rifampicin (an unprescribed drug that would have compromised the efficacy of his high blood pressure medication) was found in one of his blood tests, but that that he was not informed of the results until months later “because of the difficult legal position in which Dr. Falke (the Tribunal’s chief medical officer) found himself by virtue of the Dutch legal provisions concerning medical confidentiality.”[6] There are no Dutch legal provisions that prohibit a doctor from telling a patient the result of their own blood test, and U.S. diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks show that the Tribunal had zero regard for medical confidentiality laws when they gave detailed information about Slobodan Milosevic’s health and medical records to personnel at the US embassy in The Hague without his consent.[7] Milosevic’s trial had been going badly for the prosecution. It was glaringly obvious to any fair-minded observer that he was innocent of the crimes he was accused of. James Bissett, Canada’s former ambassador to Yugoslavia, said Milosevic’s trial “had taken on all the characteristics of a Stalinist show trial.” George Kenny, who manned the U.S. State Department’s Yugoslavia desk, also denounced the Milosevic trial proceedings as “inherently unfair, amounting to little more than a political show trial”.[8] The trial was a public relations disaster for the Tribunal. Midway through the Prosecution’s case, the London Times published an article smearing Slobodan Milosevic’s wife and lamenting the fact that “One of the ironies of Slobodan’s trial is that it has bolstered his popularity. Hours of airtime, courtesy of the televised trial, have made many Serbs fall in love with him again.”[9] While the trial enhanced Milosevic’s favorability, it destroyed the Tribunal’s credibility with the Serbian public. The Serbian public had been watching the trial on television, and when the Serbian Human Rights Ministry conducted a public opinion poll three years into the trial it found that “three quarters of Serbian citizens believe that The Hague Tribunal is a political rather than a legal institution.”[10] Tim Judah, a well-known anti-Milosevic journalist and author, was dismayed as he watched the trial unfold. He wrote that “the trial of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague is going horribly wrong, turning him in the eyes of the public from a villain charged with war crimes into a Serbian hero.”[11] By late 2005, Milosevic’s detractors wanted the live broadcasts of the trial yanked off the air because it was not having the political effect that they had hoped it would. Political analyst Daniel Cveticanin wrote, “It seems that the coverage benefits more those it was supposed to expose than the Serbian public. [The] freedom-loving and democratic intentions of the live coverage have not produced [the] planned effects.”[12] Milosevic’s supporters, on the other hand, were emphatic. They wanted the live broadcasts to continue because they knew he was innocent and they wanted the public to see that for themselves.[13] Slobodan Milosevic’s exoneration, by the same Tribunal that killed him eleven years ago, is cold comfort for the people of Serbia. The Serbian people endured years of economic sanctions and a NATO bombing campaign against their country because of the unfounded allegations against their president. Although the Tribunal eventually admitted that it didn’t have evidence against Slobodan Milosevic, its disreputable behavior should make you think twice before accepting any of its other findings. NOTES: [1] ICTY, Mladic Judgment, Vol. IV, 22 November 2017, Pg. 2090, Footnote 15357 http://www.icty.org/x/cases/mladic/tjug/en/171122-4of5_1.pdf%5B2%5D ICTY, Karadzic Judgment, 24 March 2016, Para. 3460 http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tjug/en/160324_judgement.pdf [3] ICTY Case No. IT-02-54 Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, Decision on Assigned Counsel Request for Provisional Release, February 23, 2006 [4] “Milosevic Could Be Saved if He Was Treated in Russia – Bokeria,” Itar-Tass (Russia), March 15, 2006 [5] Text of Slobodan Milosevic’s Letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/sm030806.htm [6] Judge Kevin Parker (Vice-President of the ICTY), Report to the President of the ICTY: Death of Slobodan Milosevic, May 2006; ¶ 31, 76 http://www.icty.org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/custom2/en/parkerreport.pdf [7] U.S. State Dept. Cable #03THEHAGUE2835_a, “ICTY: An Inside Look Into Milosevic’s Health and Support Network” https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/03THEHAGUE2835_a.html [8] “Milosevic trial delayed as witnesses refuse to testify,” The Irish Times, September 18, 2004 [9] “Listening to Lady Macbeth,” Sunday Times (London), January 5, 2003 [10] “Public Opinion Firmly Against Hague,” B92 News (Belgrade), August 2, 2004 [11] Tim Judah, “Serbia Backs Milosevic in Trial by TV – Alarm as Former President Gains the Upper Hand in War Crimes Tribunal,” The Observer (London), March 3, 2002 [12] “Debate Opens in Serbia Over Live Coverage of Milosevic War Crimes Trial,” Associated Press Worldstream, September 22, 2005 [13] “Serbian NGO Opposes Decision to Drop Live Broadcast of Milosevic Trial,” BBC Monitoring International Reports, October 8, 2003; Source: FoNet news agency, Belgrade, in Serbian 1300 gmt 8 Oct 03; See Also: “Serbia: Milosevic Sympathisers Protest Inadequate Coverage of Trial,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, June 10, 2002; Source: RTS TV, Belgrade, in Serbo-Croat 1730 gmt 10 Jun 02 ======================================================================== [RTS Online, April 25, 2006] Noam Chomsky: ...Milosevic was, he committed many crimes, not a nice person, terrible person, but the charges against him would have never have held up. He was originally indicted on the Kosovo charges. The indictment was issued right in the middle of bombing which already nullifies it. It used British, it admittedly used British and the U.S. intelligence right in the middle of bombing, can’t possibly take it seriously. However if you look at the indictment, it was for crimes committed after the bombing. There was one exception: Racak. Let’s even grant that the claims are true, let’s put that aside. So, there was one exception, no evidence that he was involved or you know, it took place, But almost the entire indictment was for after the bombing. How are those charges going to stand up unless you put Bill Clinton and Tony Blair on the dock alongside? Then they realized that it was a weak case. So they added the early Balkan wars, OK? Lot of horrible things happened there. But the worst crime, the one that they were really going to charge him for that genocide was Srebrenica. Now, there is a little problem with that: namely there was an extensive, detailed inquiry into it by the Dutch Government, which was the responsible government, there were Dutch forces there, that’s a big, you know, hundreds of pages inquiry, and their conclusion is that Milosevic did not know anything about that, and that when it was discovered in Belgrade, they were horrified. Well, suppose that had entered into the testimony? DM: Does this mean that you are a “Milosevic sympathizer”? NC: No, he was terrible. In fact he should have been thrown out, in fact he probably would have been thrown out and in the early nineties if the Albanians had voted, it was pretty close. He did all sorts of terrible things but it wasn’t a totalitarian state, I mean, there were elections, there was the opposition, a lot of rotten things, but there are rotten things everywhere and I certainly wouldn’t want to have dinner with him or talk to him, and yes, he deserves to be tried for crimes, but this trial was never going to hold up, if it was even semi-honest. It was a farce; in fact they were lucky that he died. DM: In what sense? NC: Because they did not have to go through out the whole trial. Now they can, you can build up an image about how he would have been convicted as another Hitler. DM: Had he lived. NC: But now they don’t have to do it. DM: I just want to bring you back to the bombing of the RTS. Some have argued that this particular act of NATO’s in 1999 set precedants for targeting of media by the United States afterward – in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – that it set a precedant for legitimizing media houses and labeling them as propaganda in order to bomb them in U.S. invasions. Do you make any connection there? NC: Well, I mean, the chronology is correct. But I don’t think they need excuses. The point is: you bomb anybody you want to. Let’s take 1998, so it was before. Now in 1998, here’s another thing you’re not allowed to say in the States and the West that leads to hysteria, but I’ll say it – in 1998 Clinton bombed the major pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, OK? That was, this is the plant that’s using the most of the pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines for poor African country that’s under embargo, can’t replace it. What’s that going to do? Obviously they killed unknown numbers of people, in fact the U.S. barred an investigation by the UN so we don’t know and of course you don’t want to investigate your own crimes, but there were some evidence. So the German Ambassador, who is a fellow at the Harvard University to Sudan wrote an article in Harvard International Review in which he estimated the casualties in the tens of thousands of deaths. The research of the Head of the Near East Foundation, a very respectable foundation, their regional director had field work in Somalia and in Sudan, he did the study, he came out with the same conclusions, probably tens of thousands of dead. Right after the bombing, within weeks, Human Rights Watch issued a warning that it was going to be a humanitarian catastrophe and gave examples of aid workers being pulled out from areas where people were dying and so on. You can not mention this. Any mention of this brings the same hysteria, as criticizing the bombing of the TV station. So it’s unmentionable, it is a Western crime and therefore it was legitimate. Let’s just suppose that Al Quaida blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S., or England or Israel or any country in which people lived. Human beings, not ants, people. Fine. Can you imagine the reaction, we’d probably have a nuclear war, but when we do it to a poor African country – didn’t happen! Not discussed, in fact the only issue that is discussed if there is discussion is whether the intelligence was correct when it claimed that it was also producing chemical weapons. That is the only question. Mention anything else, the usual hysteria, and tirades…This is a very disciplined, Western intellectual culture is extremely disciplined. And rigid. You can not go beyond fixed bounds. It’s not, you know, it’s not censored, it’s all voluntary but it’s true and it’s not, incidentally, not free societies like this. In fact the third world countries are different. So take, say, Turkey, half third world; I mean in Turkey, the intellectuals, the leading intellectuals, now best known writers, academics, journalists, artists I mean they not only protest atrocities about the Kurdish massacre, they protest it constantly, but they were also constant in carrying out civil disobedience against them. I also participated with them sometimes. And they go publish banned writings which reported presented them to the Prosecutor’s Office, demand they were prosecuted. It’s not a joke, you know, facing… sometimes they are sent to prison, that’s no joke. There’s nothing like that in the West. Inconceivable. When I am in Western Europe I hear them telling me Turkey is not civilized enough to enter the European Union. I burst out laughing! It’s the other way round. DM: Speaking of democratic movements, there was a… [crew]: This is the last question. DM: OK, two more quick questions; one: you mentioned the democratic movements in various countries. There was of course a promising democratic movement in Serbia before and, of course, during the bombing. And people like Wesley Clark had claimed that this bombing would be of benefit to the anti-Milosevic forces, when it of course turned out to be a disaster. Was this a sincere evaluation on behalf of NATO? NC: Well, I can’t look into their minds. When you commit a crime it is extremely easy to find a justification for it. That’s true of personal life; it’s true of international affairs. So yes, maybe they believed it. I mean, I think there’s convincing evidence that the Japanese fascists believed that they were doing good when they carried out things in the Second World War. John Stewart Mill surely believed he was being honorable and noble when he was calling for the conquest of India right after some of the worst atrocities which I mentioned, you can easily believe you are noble. I mean, to me it’s obvious that it was going to harm the democratic movement, I heard about it and I couldn’t get much information but it was obvious that it was going to happen. I mean it is happening right now in Iran. There is a democratic movement in Iran, they are pleading with the United States not to maintain a harsh embargo, certainly not to attack, it is harming them, and it strengthens the most reactionary violent elements in the society, of course. DM: Let me ask you one final question about the future. Negotiations over Kosovo’s final status are under way right now, the United States is backing Agim Ceku, who was someone involved in ethnic cleansing not only in… NC: Not someone. He was a war criminal himself. What about the Krajina expulsion, which he was…. DM: First of all, what do you see as an appropriate, realistic solution for the final status of Kosovo and how does that differ from what the United States is now promoting? NC: My feeling has been for a long time that the only realistic solution is one that in fact was offered by the President of Serbia I think back round 1993 [Chomsky is referring to the proposal of former Serbian President of Yugoslavia, Dobrica Cosic], namely some kind of partition, with the Serbian, by now very few Serbs left but the, what were the Serbian areas being part of Serbia and the rest be what they called “independent” which means it’ll join Albania. I just don’t see…I didn’t see any other feasible solution ten years ago… ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 8 20:37:36 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 20:37:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" In-Reply-To: References: <94eb2c0b06609f64760566b35937@google.com> Message-ID: You are continuing to try to trash and discredit my speech for the Palestinians. It speaks for itself. I am no longer going to play your game. Fab. Francis 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, March 7, 2018 7:38 AM To: Killeacle Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 6:16 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" [https://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4G6uo7hLAq4/mqdefault.jpg] Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians by UPTV6 University of Illinois College of Law professor Francis Boyle speaks to the grave injustice that is the treatment of the Palestinian people both within the West Bank and Gaza, as well as within Israel proper. His areas of expertise include Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Jurisprudence, and ... Help center • Report spam ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 20:57:21 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:57:21 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Milosevic and Clinton In-Reply-To: References: <5C1E0C0F-070F-4249-88A7-82A23E2C8C2E@illinois.edu> <5A5BC049-F601-496A-ADC9-FCFE6DE42C27@gmail.com> <7E2F8AAB-91D3-4CFF-89C9-7ADB190822F0@gmail.com> Message-ID: Oh, come on, Francis. You’re being paranoid. I’m continuing trying to talk about US military and foreign policy, in Europe and Asia. The political establishment has arranged Russiagate as an effective distraction; we shouldn’t invent others. (My game? The Red Sox: they’re tied in the bottom of the eighth…) > On Mar 8, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > You are continuing to try to trash and discredit my speech for the Palestinians. It speaks for itself. I am no longer going to play your game. Fab. > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: C G Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 2:29 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Arlene Hickory ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Joe Lauria ; Szoke, Ron ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; stuartnlevy ; Karen Aram > Subject: Milosevic and Clinton > > December 9, 2017 > Hague Tribunal Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic Again > by Andy Wilcoxson, via Strategic Culture > > Eleven years after his death, a second trial chamber at the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague has concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. > > More than eleven years after his death, a second trial chamber at the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague has concluded that former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia where the worst atrocities associated with the break-up of Yugoslavia took place. > > Buried in a footnote deep in the fourth volume of the judgment against Bosnian-Serb General Ratko Mladic the judges unanimously conclude that “The evidence received by the trial chamber did not show that Slobodan Milosevic, Jovica Stanisic, Franko Simatovic, Zeljko Raznatovic, or Vojislav Seselj participated in the realization of the common criminal objective” to establish an ethnically-homogenous Bosnian-Serb entity through the commission of crimes alleged in the indictment.[1] > > This is an important admission because practically the entire Western press corps and virtually every political leader in every Western country has spent the last 25 years telling us that Slobodan Milosevic was a genocidal monster cut from the same cloth as Adolf Hitler. We were told that he was the “Butcher of the Balkans,” but there was never any evidence to support those accusations. We were lied to in order to justify economic sanctions and NATO military aggression against the people of Serbia – just like they lied to us to justify the Iraq war. > > This is the second successive trial chamber at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to conclude that Slobodan Milosevic was not guilty of the most serious crimes he was accused of. > > Last year, the Radovan Karadzic trial chamber also concluded that “the Chamber is not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan” to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb claimed territory.[2] > > The Tribunal has done nothing to publicize these findings despite the fact that Slobodan Milosevic was accused of 66 counts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity by the Tribunal. > > Milosevic died in the Tribunal’s custody before the conclusion of his own trial. He was found dead in his cell after suffering a heart attack in the UN Detention Unit two weeks after the Tribunal denied his request for provisional release so that he could have heart surgery that would have saved his life.[3] > > Dr. Leo Bokeria, the coronary specialist who would have overseen Milosevic’s treatment at the Bakulev Medical Center, said: “If Milosevic was taken to any specialized Russian hospital, the more so to such a stationary medical institution as ours, he would have been subjected to coronographic examination, two stents would be made, and he would have lived for many long years to come. A person has died in our contemporary epoch, when all the methods to treat him were available and the proposals of our country and the reputation of our medicine were ignored. As a result, they did what they wanted to do.”[4] > > Less than 72 hours before his death, Milosevic’s lawyer delivered a letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which Milosevic expressed fear that he was being poisoned.[5] > > The Tribunal’s inquiry into Milosevic’s death confirmed that Rifampicin (an unprescribed drug that would have compromised the efficacy of his high blood pressure medication) was found in one of his blood tests, but that that he was not informed of the results until months later “because of the difficult legal position in which Dr. Falke (the Tribunal’s chief medical officer) found himself by virtue of the Dutch legal provisions concerning medical confidentiality.”[6] > > There are no Dutch legal provisions that prohibit a doctor from telling a patient the result of their own blood test, and U.S. diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks show that the Tribunal had zero regard for medical confidentiality laws when they gave detailed information about Slobodan Milosevic’s health and medical records to personnel at the US embassy in The Hague without his consent.[7] > > Milosevic’s trial had been going badly for the prosecution. It was glaringly obvious to any fair-minded observer that he was innocent of the crimes he was accused of. James Bissett, Canada’s former ambassador to Yugoslavia, said Milosevic’s trial “had taken on all the characteristics of a Stalinist show trial.” George Kenny, who manned the U.S. State Department’s Yugoslavia desk, also denounced the Milosevic trial proceedings as “inherently unfair, amounting to little more than a political show trial”.[8] > > The trial was a public relations disaster for the Tribunal. Midway through the Prosecution’s case, the London Times published an article smearing Slobodan Milosevic’s wife and lamenting the fact that “One of the ironies of Slobodan’s trial is that it has bolstered his popularity. Hours of airtime, courtesy of the televised trial, have made many Serbs fall in love with him again.”[9] > > While the trial enhanced Milosevic’s favorability, it destroyed the Tribunal’s credibility with the Serbian public. The Serbian public had been watching the trial on television, and when the Serbian Human Rights Ministry conducted a public opinion poll three years into the trial it found that “three quarters of Serbian citizens believe that The Hague Tribunal is a political rather than a legal institution.”[10] > > Tim Judah, a well-known anti-Milosevic journalist and author, was dismayed as he watched the trial unfold. He wrote that “the trial of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague is going horribly wrong, turning him in the eyes of the public from a villain charged with war crimes into a Serbian hero.”[11] > > By late 2005, Milosevic’s detractors wanted the live broadcasts of the trial yanked off the air because it was not having the political effect that they had hoped it would. Political analyst Daniel Cveticanin wrote, “It seems that the coverage benefits more those it was supposed to expose than the Serbian public. [The] freedom-loving and democratic intentions of the live coverage have not produced [the] planned effects.”[12] > > Milosevic’s supporters, on the other hand, were emphatic. They wanted the live broadcasts to continue because they knew he was innocent and they wanted the public to see that for themselves.[13] > > Slobodan Milosevic’s exoneration, by the same Tribunal that killed him eleven years ago, is cold comfort for the people of Serbia. The Serbian people endured years of economic sanctions and a NATO bombing campaign against their country because of the unfounded allegations against their president. > > Although the Tribunal eventually admitted that it didn’t have evidence against Slobodan Milosevic, its disreputable behavior should make you think twice before accepting any of its other findings. > > NOTES: > [1] ICTY, Mladic Judgment, Vol. IV, 22 November 2017, Pg. 2090, Footnote 15357 > http://www.icty.org/x/cases/mladic/tjug/en/171122-4of5_1.pdf%5B2%5D ICTY, Karadzic Judgment, 24 March 2016, Para. 3460 > http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tjug/en/160324_judgement.pdf > [3] ICTY Case No. IT-02-54 Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, Decision on Assigned Counsel Request for Provisional Release, February 23, 2006 > [4] “Milosevic Could Be Saved if He Was Treated in Russia – Bokeria,” Itar-Tass (Russia), March 15, 2006 > [5] Text of Slobodan Milosevic’s Letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs > http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/sm030806.htm > [6] Judge Kevin Parker (Vice-President of the ICTY), Report to the President of the ICTY: Death of Slobodan Milosevic, May 2006; ¶ 31, 76 > http://www.icty.org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/custom2/en/parkerreport.pdf > [7] U.S. State Dept. Cable #03THEHAGUE2835_a, “ICTY: An Inside Look Into Milosevic’s Health and Support Network” > https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/03THEHAGUE2835_a.html > [8] “Milosevic trial delayed as witnesses refuse to testify,” The Irish Times, September 18, 2004 > [9] “Listening to Lady Macbeth,” Sunday Times (London), January 5, 2003 > [10] “Public Opinion Firmly Against Hague,” B92 News (Belgrade), August 2, 2004 > [11] Tim Judah, “Serbia Backs Milosevic in Trial by TV – Alarm as Former President Gains the Upper Hand in War Crimes Tribunal,” The Observer (London), March 3, 2002 > [12] “Debate Opens in Serbia Over Live Coverage of Milosevic War Crimes Trial,” Associated Press Worldstream, September 22, 2005 > [13] “Serbian NGO Opposes Decision to Drop Live Broadcast of Milosevic Trial,” BBC Monitoring International Reports, October 8, 2003; Source: FoNet news agency, Belgrade, in Serbian 1300 gmt 8 Oct 03; See Also: “Serbia: Milosevic Sympathisers Protest Inadequate Coverage of Trial,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, June 10, 2002; Source: RTS TV, Belgrade, in Serbo-Croat 1730 gmt 10 Jun 02 > ======================================================================== > > [RTS Online, April 25, 2006] > > Noam Chomsky: ...Milosevic was, he committed many crimes, not a nice person, terrible person, but the charges against him would have never have held up. He was originally indicted on the Kosovo charges. The indictment was issued right in the middle of bombing which already nullifies it. It used British, it admittedly used British and the U.S. intelligence right in the middle of bombing, can’t possibly take it seriously. However if you look at the indictment, it was for crimes committed after the bombing. There was one exception: Racak. Let’s even grant that the claims are true, let’s put that aside. So, there was one exception, no evidence that he was involved or you know, it took place, > > But almost the entire indictment was for after the bombing. How are those charges going to stand up unless you put Bill Clinton and Tony Blair on the dock alongside? Then they realized that it was a weak case. So they added the early Balkan wars, OK? Lot of horrible things happened there. But the worst crime, the one that they were really going to charge him for that genocide was Srebrenica. > > Now, there is a little problem with that: namely there was an extensive, detailed inquiry into it by the Dutch Government, which was the responsible government, there were Dutch forces there, that’s a big, you know, hundreds of pages inquiry, and their conclusion is that Milosevic did not know anything about that, and that when it was discovered in Belgrade, they were horrified. Well, suppose that had entered into the testimony? > > DM: Does this mean that you are a “Milosevic sympathizer”? > > NC: No, he was terrible. In fact he should have been thrown out, in fact he probably would have been thrown out and in the early nineties if the Albanians had voted, it was pretty close. He did all sorts of terrible things but it wasn’t a totalitarian state, I mean, there were elections, there was the opposition, a lot of rotten things, but there are rotten things everywhere and I certainly wouldn’t want to have dinner with him or talk to him, and yes, he deserves to be tried for crimes, but this trial was never going to hold up, if it was even semi-honest. It was a farce; in fact they were lucky that he died. > > DM: In what sense? > > NC: Because they did not have to go through out the whole trial. Now they can, you can build up an image about how he would have been convicted as another Hitler. > > DM: Had he lived. > > NC: But now they don’t have to do it. > > DM: I just want to bring you back to the bombing of the RTS. Some have argued that this particular act of NATO’s in 1999 set precedants for targeting of media by the United States afterward – in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – that it set a precedant for legitimizing media houses and labeling them as propaganda in order to bomb them in U.S. invasions. Do you make any connection there? > > NC: Well, I mean, the chronology is correct. But I don’t think they need excuses. The point is: you bomb anybody you want to. Let’s take 1998, so it was before. Now in 1998, here’s another thing you’re not allowed to say in the States and the West that leads to hysteria, but I’ll say it – in 1998 Clinton bombed the major pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, OK? That was, this is the plant that’s using the most of the pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines for poor African country that’s under embargo, can’t replace it. What’s that going to do? Obviously they killed unknown numbers of people, in fact the U.S. barred an investigation by the UN so we don’t know and of course you don’t want to investigate your own crimes, but there were some evidence. So the German Ambassador, who is a fellow at the Harvard University to Sudan wrote an article in Harvard International Review in which he estimated the casualties in the tens of thousands of deaths. The research of the Head of the Near East Foundation, a very respectable foundation, their regional director had field work in Somalia and in Sudan, he did the study, he came out with the same conclusions, probably tens of thousands of dead. > > Right after the bombing, within weeks, Human Rights Watch issued a warning that it was going to be a humanitarian catastrophe and gave examples of aid workers being pulled out from areas where people were dying and so on. You can not mention this. Any mention of this brings the same hysteria, as criticizing the bombing of the TV station. So it’s unmentionable, it is a Western crime and therefore it was legitimate. > > Let’s just suppose that Al Quaida blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S., or England or Israel or any country in which people lived. Human beings, not ants, people. Fine. Can you imagine the reaction, we’d probably have a nuclear war, but when we do it to a poor African country – didn’t happen! Not discussed, in fact the only issue that is discussed if there is discussion is whether the intelligence was correct when it claimed that it was also producing chemical weapons. That is the only question. Mention anything else, the usual hysteria, and tirades…This is a very disciplined, Western intellectual culture is extremely disciplined. And rigid. You can not go beyond fixed bounds. It’s not, you know, it’s not censored, it’s all voluntary but it’s true and it’s not, incidentally, not free societies like this. In fact the third world countries are different. > > So take, say, Turkey, half third world; I mean in Turkey, the intellectuals, the leading intellectuals, now best known writers, academics, journalists, artists I mean they not only protest atrocities about the Kurdish massacre, they protest it constantly, but they were also constant in carrying out civil disobedience against them. I also participated with them sometimes. And they go publish banned writings which reported presented them to the Prosecutor’s Office, demand they were prosecuted. It’s not a joke, you know, facing… sometimes they are sent to prison, that’s no joke. There’s nothing like that in the West. Inconceivable. > > When I am in Western Europe I hear them telling me Turkey is not civilized enough to enter the European Union. I burst out laughing! It’s the other way round. > > DM: Speaking of democratic movements, there was a… > > [crew]: This is the last question. > > DM: OK, two more quick questions; one: you mentioned the democratic movements in various countries. There was of course a promising democratic movement in Serbia before and, of course, during the bombing. And people like Wesley Clark had claimed that this bombing would be of benefit to the anti-Milosevic forces, when it of course turned out to be a disaster. Was this a sincere evaluation on behalf of NATO? > > NC: Well, I can’t look into their minds. When you commit a crime it is extremely easy to find a justification for it. That’s true of personal life; it’s true of international affairs. So yes, maybe they believed it. I mean, I think there’s convincing evidence that the Japanese fascists believed that they were doing good when they carried out things in the Second World War. John Stewart Mill surely believed he was being honorable and noble when he was calling for the conquest of India right after some of the worst atrocities which I mentioned, you can easily believe you are noble. I mean, to me it’s obvious that it was going to harm the democratic movement, I heard about it and I couldn’t get much information but it was obvious that it was going to happen. I mean it is happening right now in Iran. There is a democratic movement in Iran, they are pleading with the United States not to maintain a harsh embargo, certainly not to attack, it is harming them, and it strengthens the most reactionary violent elements in the society, of course. > > DM: Let me ask you one final question about the future. Negotiations over Kosovo’s final status are under way right now, the United States is backing Agim Ceku, who was someone involved in ethnic cleansing not only in… > > NC: Not someone. He was a war criminal himself. What about the Krajina expulsion, which he was…. > > DM: First of all, what do you see as an appropriate, realistic solution for the final status of Kosovo and how does that differ from what the United States is now promoting? > > NC: My feeling has been for a long time that the only realistic solution is one that in fact was offered by the President of Serbia I think back round 1993 [Chomsky is referring to the proposal of former Serbian President of Yugoslavia, Dobrica Cosic], namely some kind of partition, with the Serbian, by now very few Serbs left but the, what were the Serbian areas being part of Serbia and the rest be what they called “independent” which means it’ll join Albania. I just don’t see…I didn’t see any other feasible solution ten years ago… > > ### > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 9 14:55:33 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:55:33 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Milosevic and Clinton References: <12EC7159-E2A8-49FC-91E8-D4769221593E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7B531EFB-36F4-4DA2-8AF1-DCD5805EF3BD@gmail.com> >> On Mar 8, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> You are continuing to try to trash and discredit my speech for the Palestinians. It speaks for itself. I am no longer going to play your game. Fab. >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: C G Estabrook >> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 2:29 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; David Green ; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Arlene Hickory ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Joe Lauria ; Szoke, Ron ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; stuartnlevy ; Karen Aram >> Subject: Milosevic and Clinton >> >> December 9, 2017 >> Hague Tribunal Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic Again >> by Andy Wilcoxson, via Strategic Culture >> >> Eleven years after his death, a second trial chamber at the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague has concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. >> >> More than eleven years after his death, a second trial chamber at the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague has concluded that former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia where the worst atrocities associated with the break-up of Yugoslavia took place. >> >> Buried in a footnote deep in the fourth volume of the judgment against Bosnian-Serb General Ratko Mladic the judges unanimously conclude that “The evidence received by the trial chamber did not show that Slobodan Milosevic, Jovica Stanisic, Franko Simatovic, Zeljko Raznatovic, or Vojislav Seselj participated in the realization of the common criminal objective” to establish an ethnically-homogenous Bosnian-Serb entity through the commission of crimes alleged in the indictment.[1] >> >> This is an important admission because practically the entire Western press corps and virtually every political leader in every Western country has spent the last 25 years telling us that Slobodan Milosevic was a genocidal monster cut from the same cloth as Adolf Hitler. We were told that he was the “Butcher of the Balkans,” but there was never any evidence to support those accusations. We were lied to in order to justify economic sanctions and NATO military aggression against the people of Serbia – just like they lied to us to justify the Iraq war. >> >> This is the second successive trial chamber at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to conclude that Slobodan Milosevic was not guilty of the most serious crimes he was accused of. >> >> Last year, the Radovan Karadzic trial chamber also concluded that “the Chamber is not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan” to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb claimed territory.[2] >> >> The Tribunal has done nothing to publicize these findings despite the fact that Slobodan Milosevic was accused of 66 counts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity by the Tribunal. >> >> Milosevic died in the Tribunal’s custody before the conclusion of his own trial. He was found dead in his cell after suffering a heart attack in the UN Detention Unit two weeks after the Tribunal denied his request for provisional release so that he could have heart surgery that would have saved his life.[3] >> >> Dr. Leo Bokeria, the coronary specialist who would have overseen Milosevic’s treatment at the Bakulev Medical Center, said: “If Milosevic was taken to any specialized Russian hospital, the more so to such a stationary medical institution as ours, he would have been subjected to coronographic examination, two stents would be made, and he would have lived for many long years to come. A person has died in our contemporary epoch, when all the methods to treat him were available and the proposals of our country and the reputation of our medicine were ignored. As a result, they did what they wanted to do.”[4] >> >> Less than 72 hours before his death, Milosevic’s lawyer delivered a letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which Milosevic expressed fear that he was being poisoned.[5] >> >> The Tribunal’s inquiry into Milosevic’s death confirmed that Rifampicin (an unprescribed drug that would have compromised the efficacy of his high blood pressure medication) was found in one of his blood tests, but that that he was not informed of the results until months later “because of the difficult legal position in which Dr. Falke (the Tribunal’s chief medical officer) found himself by virtue of the Dutch legal provisions concerning medical confidentiality.”[6] >> >> There are no Dutch legal provisions that prohibit a doctor from telling a patient the result of their own blood test, and U.S. diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks show that the Tribunal had zero regard for medical confidentiality laws when they gave detailed information about Slobodan Milosevic’s health and medical records to personnel at the US embassy in The Hague without his consent.[7] >> >> Milosevic’s trial had been going badly for the prosecution. It was glaringly obvious to any fair-minded observer that he was innocent of the crimes he was accused of. James Bissett, Canada’s former ambassador to Yugoslavia, said Milosevic’s trial “had taken on all the characteristics of a Stalinist show trial.” George Kenny, who manned the U.S. State Department’s Yugoslavia desk, also denounced the Milosevic trial proceedings as “inherently unfair, amounting to little more than a political show trial”.[8] >> >> The trial was a public relations disaster for the Tribunal. Midway through the Prosecution’s case, the London Times published an article smearing Slobodan Milosevic’s wife and lamenting the fact that “One of the ironies of Slobodan’s trial is that it has bolstered his popularity. Hours of airtime, courtesy of the televised trial, have made many Serbs fall in love with him again.”[9] >> >> While the trial enhanced Milosevic’s favorability, it destroyed the Tribunal’s credibility with the Serbian public. The Serbian public had been watching the trial on television, and when the Serbian Human Rights Ministry conducted a public opinion poll three years into the trial it found that “three quarters of Serbian citizens believe that The Hague Tribunal is a political rather than a legal institution.”[10] >> >> Tim Judah, a well-known anti-Milosevic journalist and author, was dismayed as he watched the trial unfold. He wrote that “the trial of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague is going horribly wrong, turning him in the eyes of the public from a villain charged with war crimes into a Serbian hero.”[11] >> >> By late 2005, Milosevic’s detractors wanted the live broadcasts of the trial yanked off the air because it was not having the political effect that they had hoped it would. Political analyst Daniel Cveticanin wrote, “It seems that the coverage benefits more those it was supposed to expose than the Serbian public. [The] freedom-loving and democratic intentions of the live coverage have not produced [the] planned effects.”[12] >> >> Milosevic’s supporters, on the other hand, were emphatic. They wanted the live broadcasts to continue because they knew he was innocent and they wanted the public to see that for themselves.[13] >> >> Slobodan Milosevic’s exoneration, by the same Tribunal that killed him eleven years ago, is cold comfort for the people of Serbia. The Serbian people endured years of economic sanctions and a NATO bombing campaign against their country because of the unfounded allegations against their president. >> >> Although the Tribunal eventually admitted that it didn’t have evidence against Slobodan Milosevic, its disreputable behavior should make you think twice before accepting any of its other findings. >> >> NOTES: >> [1] ICTY, Mladic Judgment, Vol. IV, 22 November 2017, Pg. 2090, Footnote 15357 >> http://www.icty.org/x/cases/mladic/tjug/en/171122-4of5_1.pdf%5B2%5D ICTY, Karadzic Judgment, 24 March 2016, Para. 3460 >> http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tjug/en/160324_judgement.pdf >> [3] ICTY Case No. IT-02-54 Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, Decision on Assigned Counsel Request for Provisional Release, February 23, 2006 >> [4] “Milosevic Could Be Saved if He Was Treated in Russia – Bokeria,” Itar-Tass (Russia), March 15, 2006 >> [5] Text of Slobodan Milosevic’s Letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs >> http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/sm030806.htm >> [6] Judge Kevin Parker (Vice-President of the ICTY), Report to the President of the ICTY: Death of Slobodan Milosevic, May 2006; ¶ 31, 76 >> http://www.icty.org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/custom2/en/parkerreport.pdf >> [7] U.S. State Dept. Cable #03THEHAGUE2835_a, “ICTY: An Inside Look Into Milosevic’s Health and Support Network” >> https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/03THEHAGUE2835_a.html >> [8] “Milosevic trial delayed as witnesses refuse to testify,” The Irish Times, September 18, 2004 >> [9] “Listening to Lady Macbeth,” Sunday Times (London), January 5, 2003 >> [10] “Public Opinion Firmly Against Hague,” B92 News (Belgrade), August 2, 2004 >> [11] Tim Judah, “Serbia Backs Milosevic in Trial by TV – Alarm as Former President Gains the Upper Hand in War Crimes Tribunal,” The Observer (London), March 3, 2002 >> [12] “Debate Opens in Serbia Over Live Coverage of Milosevic War Crimes Trial,” Associated Press Worldstream, September 22, 2005 >> [13] “Serbian NGO Opposes Decision to Drop Live Broadcast of Milosevic Trial,” BBC Monitoring International Reports, October 8, 2003; Source: FoNet news agency, Belgrade, in Serbian 1300 gmt 8 Oct 03; See Also: “Serbia: Milosevic Sympathisers Protest Inadequate Coverage of Trial,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, June 10, 2002; Source: RTS TV, Belgrade, in Serbo-Croat 1730 gmt 10 Jun 02 >> ======================================================================== >> >> [RTS Online, April 25, 2006] >> >> Noam Chomsky: ...Milosevic was, he committed many crimes, not a nice person, terrible person, but the charges against him would have never have held up. He was originally indicted on the Kosovo charges. The indictment was issued right in the middle of bombing which already nullifies it. It used British, it admittedly used British and the U.S. intelligence right in the middle of bombing, can’t possibly take it seriously. However if you look at the indictment, it was for crimes committed after the bombing. There was one exception: Racak. Let’s even grant that the claims are true, let’s put that aside. So, there was one exception, no evidence that he was involved or you know, it took place, >> >> But almost the entire indictment was for after the bombing. How are those charges going to stand up unless you put Bill Clinton and Tony Blair on the dock alongside? Then they realized that it was a weak case. So they added the early Balkan wars, OK? Lot of horrible things happened there. But the worst crime, the one that they were really going to charge him for that genocide was Srebrenica. >> >> Now, there is a little problem with that: namely there was an extensive, detailed inquiry into it by the Dutch Government, which was the responsible government, there were Dutch forces there, that’s a big, you know, hundreds of pages inquiry, and their conclusion is that Milosevic did not know anything about that, and that when it was discovered in Belgrade, they were horrified. Well, suppose that had entered into the testimony? >> >> DM: Does this mean that you are a “Milosevic sympathizer”? >> >> NC: No, he was terrible. In fact he should have been thrown out, in fact he probably would have been thrown out and in the early nineties if the Albanians had voted, it was pretty close. He did all sorts of terrible things but it wasn’t a totalitarian state, I mean, there were elections, there was the opposition, a lot of rotten things, but there are rotten things everywhere and I certainly wouldn’t want to have dinner with him or talk to him, and yes, he deserves to be tried for crimes, but this trial was never going to hold up, if it was even semi-honest. It was a farce; in fact they were lucky that he died. >> >> DM: In what sense? >> >> NC: Because they did not have to go through out the whole trial. Now they can, you can build up an image about how he would have been convicted as another Hitler. >> >> DM: Had he lived. >> >> NC: But now they don’t have to do it. >> >> DM: I just want to bring you back to the bombing of the RTS. Some have argued that this particular act of NATO’s in 1999 set precedants for targeting of media by the United States afterward – in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – that it set a precedant for legitimizing media houses and labeling them as propaganda in order to bomb them in U.S. invasions. Do you make any connection there? >> >> NC: Well, I mean, the chronology is correct. But I don’t think they need excuses. The point is: you bomb anybody you want to. Let’s take 1998, so it was before. Now in 1998, here’s another thing you’re not allowed to say in the States and the West that leads to hysteria, but I’ll say it – in 1998 Clinton bombed the major pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, OK? That was, this is the plant that’s using the most of the pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines for poor African country that’s under embargo, can’t replace it. What’s that going to do? Obviously they killed unknown numbers of people, in fact the U.S. barred an investigation by the UN so we don’t know and of course you don’t want to investigate your own crimes, but there were some evidence. So the German Ambassador, who is a fellow at the Harvard University to Sudan wrote an article in Harvard International Review in which he estimated the casualties in the tens of thousands of deaths. The research of the Head of the Near East Foundation, a very respectable foundation, their regional director had field work in Somalia and in Sudan, he did the study, he came out with the same conclusions, probably tens of thousands of dead. >> >> Right after the bombing, within weeks, Human Rights Watch issued a warning that it was going to be a humanitarian catastrophe and gave examples of aid workers being pulled out from areas where people were dying and so on. You can not mention this. Any mention of this brings the same hysteria, as criticizing the bombing of the TV station. So it’s unmentionable, it is a Western crime and therefore it was legitimate. >> >> Let’s just suppose that Al Quaida blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S., or England or Israel or any country in which people lived. Human beings, not ants, people. Fine. Can you imagine the reaction, we’d probably have a nuclear war, but when we do it to a poor African country – didn’t happen! Not discussed, in fact the only issue that is discussed if there is discussion is whether the intelligence was correct when it claimed that it was also producing chemical weapons. That is the only question. Mention anything else, the usual hysteria, and tirades…This is a very disciplined, Western intellectual culture is extremely disciplined. And rigid. You can not go beyond fixed bounds. It’s not, you know, it’s not censored, it’s all voluntary but it’s true and it’s not, incidentally, not free societies like this. In fact the third world countries are different. >> >> So take, say, Turkey, half third world; I mean in Turkey, the intellectuals, the leading intellectuals, now best known writers, academics, journalists, artists I mean they not only protest atrocities about the Kurdish massacre, they protest it constantly, but they were also constant in carrying out civil disobedience against them. I also participated with them sometimes. And they go publish banned writings which reported presented them to the Prosecutor’s Office, demand they were prosecuted. It’s not a joke, you know, facing… sometimes they are sent to prison, that’s no joke. There’s nothing like that in the West. Inconceivable. >> >> When I am in Western Europe I hear them telling me Turkey is not civilized enough to enter the European Union. I burst out laughing! It’s the other way round. >> >> DM: Speaking of democratic movements, there was a… >> >> [crew]: This is the last question. >> >> DM: OK, two more quick questions; one: you mentioned the democratic movements in various countries. There was of course a promising democratic movement in Serbia before and, of course, during the bombing. And people like Wesley Clark had claimed that this bombing would be of benefit to the anti-Milosevic forces, when it of course turned out to be a disaster. Was this a sincere evaluation on behalf of NATO? >> >> NC: Well, I can’t look into their minds. When you commit a crime it is extremely easy to find a justification for it. That’s true of personal life; it’s true of international affairs. So yes, maybe they believed it. I mean, I think there’s convincing evidence that the Japanese fascists believed that they were doing good when they carried out things in the Second World War. John Stewart Mill surely believed he was being honorable and noble when he was calling for the conquest of India right after some of the worst atrocities which I mentioned, you can easily believe you are noble. I mean, to me it’s obvious that it was going to harm the democratic movement, I heard about it and I couldn’t get much information but it was obvious that it was going to happen. I mean it is happening right now in Iran. There is a democratic movement in Iran, they are pleading with the United States not to maintain a harsh embargo, certainly not to attack, it is harming them, and it strengthens the most reactionary violent elements in the society, of course. >> >> DM: Let me ask you one final question about the future. Negotiations over Kosovo’s final status are under way right now, the United States is backing Agim Ceku, who was someone involved in ethnic cleansing not only in… >> >> NC: Not someone. He was a war criminal himself. What about the Krajina expulsion, which he was…. >> >> DM: First of all, what do you see as an appropriate, realistic solution for the final status of Kosovo and how does that differ from what the United States is now promoting? >> >> NC: My feeling has been for a long time that the only realistic solution is one that in fact was offered by the President of Serbia I think back round 1993 [Chomsky is referring to the proposal of former Serbian President of Yugoslavia, Dobrica Cosic], namely some kind of partition, with the Serbian, by now very few Serbs left but the, what were the Serbian areas being part of Serbia and the rest be what they called “independent” which means it’ll join Albania. I just don’t see…I didn’t see any other feasible solution ten years ago… >> >> ### >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 10 03:09:32 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 03:09:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The CIA Democrats Part 1/ from the WSWS.ORG Message-ID: The CIA Democrats Introduction By Patrick Martin 7 March 2018 PART ONE | PART TWO | PART THREE This is the first part of a three-part article. An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress. Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored “star” recruit. A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone warfare, “homeland defense” and cyber warfare. [http://www.wsws.org/asset/39fdc4e9-0637-4d80-8734-99f466ea106A/image.jpg?rendition=image480]Elissa Slotkin The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called “Red to Blue” program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats—in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop. The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call “spy vs. spy.” The 23rd Congressional District in Texas, which includes a vast swathe of the US-Mexico border along the Rio Grande, features a contest for the Democratic nomination between Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, who subsequently served as an adviser for US interventions in South Sudan and Libya, and Jay Hulings. The latter’s website describes him as a former national security aide on Capitol Hill and federal prosecutor, whose father and mother were both career undercover CIA agents. The incumbent Republican congressman, Will Hurd, is himself a former CIA agent, so any voter in that district will have his or her choice of intelligence agency loyalists in both the Democratic primary and the general election. CNN’s “State of the Union” program on March 4 included a profile of Jones as one of many female candidates seeking nomination as a Democrat in Tuesday’s primary in Texas. The network described her discreetly as a “career civil servant.” However, the Jones for Congress website positively shouts about her role as a spy, noting that after graduating from college, “Gina entered the US Air Force as an intelligence officer, where she deployed to Iraq and served under the US military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy” (the last phrase signaling to those interested in such matters that Jones is gay). According to her campaign biography, Ortiz Jones was subsequently detailed to a position as “senior advisor for trade enforcement,” a post President Obama created by executive order in 2012. She would later be invited to serve as a director for investment at the Office of the US Trade Representative, where she led the portfolio that reviewed foreign investments to ensure they did not pose national security risks. With that background, if she fails to win election, she can surely enlist in the trade war efforts of the Trump administration. How this article was prepared The House of Representatives is currently controlled by the Republicans, with a majority of 238 compared to 193 Democrats. There are four vacancies, one previously held by the Democrats. To reach a majority of 218 seats in the next Congress, the Democrats must have a net gain of 24 seats. The DCCC has designated 102 seats as priority or competitive, including 22 seats where the incumbents are not running again (five Democrats and 17 Republicans), and 80 seats where Republican incumbents could be defeated for reelection in the event that polls predicting a sizeable swing to the Democrats in November prove accurate. The World Socialist Web Site has reviewed Federal Election Commission reports filed by all the Democratic candidates in these 102 competitive districts, focusing on those candidates who reported by the latest filing date, December 31, 2017, that they had raised at least $100,000 for their campaigns, giving them a financial war chest sufficient to run in a competitive primary contest. In addition, there a few cases where a candidate had less than the $100,000 cutoff, but was unchallenged for the nomination, or where last-minute retirement or resignation has led to late entry of high-profile candidates without an FEC report on file. These have also been included. The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather than something to conceal. One quarter of all the Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have military-intelligence, State Department or NSC backgrounds. This is by far the largest subcategory of Democratic candidates. National security operatives (57) outnumber state and local government officials (45), lawyers (35), corporate executives, businessmen and wealthy individuals (30) and other professionals (19) among the candidates for Democratic congressional nominations. Of the 102 primary elections to choose the Democratic nominees in these competitive districts, 44 involve candidates with a military-intelligence or State Department background, with 11 districts having two such candidates, and one district having three. In the majority of contests, the military-intelligence candidates seem likely to win the Democratic nomination, and, if the Democrats win in the general election, would enter Congress as new members of the House of Representatives. There are some regional differences. In the Northeast, 21 of the 31 seats targeted by the Democrats have military-intelligence candidates. This area, not the South or Midwest, has the highest proportion of military-intelligence candidates seeking Democratic nominations. In the West, only 7 of the 23 targeted seats have military-intelligence candidates, while in a half dozen seats the leading candidates are self-funded millionaires, mainly from the IT industry. There has been a wave of Republican retirements in California and wealthy people are bidding for these seats. The military-intelligence candidates are disproportionately favored by the party apparatus, encouraged to run in districts that are the most likely takeover targets. Military-intelligence candidates account for 10 of the 22 districts selected for the most high-profile attention as part of the “red-to-blue” program, or nearly half. In some cases, military-intelligence candidates have amassed huge campaign war chests that effectively shut out any potential rivals, an indication that the financial backers of the Democratic Party have lined up behind them. To be continued -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Sat Mar 10 04:07:58 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 22:07:58 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The CIA Democrats Part 1/ from the WSWS.ORG Message-ID: I just choked on my purple Kool-Aid Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Karen Aram via Peace-discussDate: Fri, Mar 9, 2018 9:10 PMTo: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] The CIA Democrats Part 1/ from the WSWS.ORG The CIA Democrats Introduction By Patrick Martin  7 March 2018 PART ONE | PART TWO | PART THREE This is the first part of a three-part article. An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress. Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored “star” recruit. A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone warfare, “homeland defense” and cyber warfare. Elissa Slotkin The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called “Red to Blue” program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats—in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop. The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call “spy vs. spy.” The 23rd Congressional District in Texas, which includes a vast swathe of the US-Mexico border along the Rio Grande, features a contest for the Democratic nomination between Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, who subsequently served as an adviser for US interventions in South Sudan and Libya, and Jay Hulings. The latter’s website describes him as a former national security aide on Capitol Hill and federal prosecutor, whose father and mother were both career undercover CIA agents. The incumbent Republican congressman, Will Hurd, is himself a former CIA agent, so any voter in that district will have his or her choice of intelligence agency loyalists in both the Democratic primary and the general election. CNN’s “State of the Union” program on March 4 included a profile of Jones as one of many female candidates seeking nomination as a Democrat in Tuesday’s primary in Texas. The network described her discreetly as a “career civil servant.” However, the Jones for Congress website positively shouts about her role as a spy, noting that after graduating from college, “Gina entered the US Air Force as an intelligence officer, where she deployed to Iraq and served under the US military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy” (the last phrase signaling to those interested in such matters that Jones is gay). According to her campaign biography, Ortiz Jones was subsequently detailed to a position as “senior advisor for trade enforcement,” a post President Obama created by executive order in 2012. She would later be invited to serve as a director for investment at the Office of the US Trade Representative, where she led the portfolio that reviewed foreign investments to ensure they did not pose national security risks. With that background, if she fails to win election, she can surely enlist in the trade war efforts of the Trump administration. How this article was prepared The House of Representatives is currently controlled by the Republicans, with a majority of 238 compared to 193 Democrats. There are four vacancies, one previously held by the Democrats. To reach a majority of 218 seats in the next Congress, the Democrats must have a net gain of 24 seats. The DCCC has designated 102 seats as priority or competitive, including 22 seats where the incumbents are not running again (five Democrats and 17 Republicans), and 80 seats where Republican incumbents could be defeated for reelection in the event that polls predicting a sizeable swing to the Democrats in November prove accurate. The World Socialist Web Site has reviewed Federal Election Commission reports filed by all the Democratic candidates in these 102 competitive districts, focusing on those candidates who reported by the latest filing date, December 31, 2017, that they had raised at least $100,000 for their campaigns, giving them a financial war chest sufficient to run in a competitive primary contest. In addition, there a few cases where a candidate had less than the $100,000 cutoff, but was unchallenged for the nomination, or where last-minute retirement or resignation has led to late entry of high-profile candidates without an FEC report on file. These have also been included. The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather than something to conceal. One quarter of all the Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have military-intelligence, State Department or NSC backgrounds. This is by far the largest subcategory of Democratic candidates. National security operatives (57) outnumber state and local government officials (45), lawyers (35), corporate executives, businessmen and wealthy individuals (30) and other professionals (19) among the candidates for Democratic congressional nominations. Of the 102 primary elections to choose the Democratic nominees in these competitive districts, 44 involve candidates with a military-intelligence or State Department background, with 11 districts having two such candidates, and one district having three. In the majority of contests, the military-intelligence candidates seem likely to win the Democratic nomination, and, if the Democrats win in the general election, would enter Congress as new members of the House of Representatives. There are some regional differences. In the Northeast, 21 of the 31 seats targeted by the Democrats have military-intelligence candidates. This area, not the South or Midwest, has the highest proportion of military-intelligence candidates seeking Democratic nominations. In the West, only 7 of the 23 targeted seats have military-intelligence candidates, while in a half dozen seats the leading candidates are self-funded millionaires, mainly from the IT industry. There has been a wave of Republican retirements in California and wealthy people are bidding for these seats. The military-intelligence candidates are disproportionately favored by the party apparatus, encouraged to run in districts that are the most likely takeover targets. Military-intelligence candidates account for 10 of the 22 districts selected for the most high-profile attention as part of the “red-to-blue” program, or nearly half. In some cases, military-intelligence candidates have amassed huge campaign war chests that effectively shut out any potential rivals, an indication that the financial backers of the Democratic Party have lined up behind them. To be continued -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 14:45:44 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 08:45:44 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> > "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" > On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. > > >> On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman > wrote: >> >> Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni Children >> https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from-starving-yemeni-kids >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” >> >> Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” >> >> So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? >> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook > wrote: >> > >> > ================================ >> > Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 >> > >> > Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? >> > >> > NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. >> > >> > ================================= >> > Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 >> > >> > “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. >> > >> > As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). >> > >> > But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. >> > >> > For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” >> > >> > Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. >> > >> > It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. >> > >> > It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. >> > >> > [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University of London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, 2006); Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, co-authored with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most recently, Morbid Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] >> > >> > ### >> > >> > >> >> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> >> >> Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. >> >>> >> >>> “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. >> >>> >> >>> "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” >> >>> >> >>> —CGE >> >>> >> >>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: >> >>>> >> >>>> Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. >> >>>> >> >>>> Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. >> >>>> The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. >> >>>> >> >>>> His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook > wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ============[Chomsky]======================================== >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >> >>>>> >> >>>>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >> >>>>> >> >>>>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >> >>>>> >> >>>>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> But that is mere abuse of reality. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” >> >>>>> =================================================== >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 15:12:58 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:12:58 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> Read it, Francis, and tell me what’s wrong with it. Stop trying to fight old battles. —CGE > On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Carl is still trying to peddle this notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria Achcar to us. Caveat emptor! > Fab > > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:46 AM > To: Karen Aram ; peace > Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations > > > > "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. > The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. > Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" > > On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. > > > On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman wrote: > > Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni Children > https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from-starving-yemeni-kids > > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” > > Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” > > So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? > > > > > > On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook wrote: > > > > ================================ > > Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 > > > > Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? > > > > NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. > > > > ================================= > > Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 > > > > “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. > > > > As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). > > > > But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. > > > > For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” > > > > Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. > > > > It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. > > > > It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. > > > > [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University of London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, 2006); Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, co-authored with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most recently, Morbid Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] > > > > ### > > > > > >> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > >> > >> Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. > >> > >> > >>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook wrote: > >>> > >>> I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. > >>> > >>> “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. > >>> > >>> "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” > >>> > >>> —CGE > >>> > >>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: > >>>> > >>>> Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. > >>>> > >>>> Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. > >>>> The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. > >>>> > >>>> His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. > >>>>> > >>>>> An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? > >>>>> > >>>>> Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? > >>>>> > >>>>> Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? > >>>>> > >>>>> ============[Chomsky]======================================== > >>>>> > >>>>> The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... > >>>>> > >>>>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. > >>>>> > >>>>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. > >>>>> > >>>>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. > >>>>> > >>>>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” > >>>>> > >>>>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” > >>>>> > >>>>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. > >>>>> > >>>>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. > >>>>> > >>>>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. > >>>>> > >>>>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. > >>>>> > >>>>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” > >>>>> > >>>>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. > >>>>> > >>>>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. > >>>>> > >>>>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” > >>>>> > >>>>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” > >>>>> > >>>>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. > >>>>> > >>>>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. > >>>>> > >>>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” > >>>>> > >>>>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. > >>>>> > >>>>> But that is mere abuse of reality. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. > >>>>> > >>>>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” > >>>>> =================================================== > >>>>> > >>> > >> From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 15:15:46 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:15:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: What is Carl's Real Agenda here repeatedly trying to ram down our throats this notorious warmonger against both Libya and Syria Achcar who has been definitively debunked elsewhere? Caveat emptor! Fab. 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: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:13 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Cc: Karen Aram ; peace ; Robert Naiman Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations Read it, Francis, and tell me what’s wrong with it. Stop trying to fight old battles. —CGE > On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Carl is still trying to peddle this notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria Achcar to us. Caveat emptor! > Fab > > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] > On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:46 AM > To: Karen Aram ; peace > > Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss List > (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian > relations > > > > "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. > The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. > Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" > > On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. > > > On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman wrote: > > Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni > Children > https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from-s > tarving-yemeni-kids > > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” > > Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” > > So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? > > > > > > On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook wrote: > > > > ================================ > > Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 > > > > Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? > > > > NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. > > > > ================================= > > Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 > > > > “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. > > > > As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). > > > > But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. > > > > For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” > > > > Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. > > > > It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. > > > > It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. > > > > [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University of > > London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, 2006); > > Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, co-authored > > with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: The > > Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A Radical > > Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most recently, Morbid > > Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] > > > > ### > > > > > >> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > >> > >> Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. > >> > >> > >>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook wrote: > >>> > >>> I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. > >>> > >>> “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. > >>> > >>> "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” > >>> > >>> —CGE > >>> > >>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: > >>>> > >>>> Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. > >>>> > >>>> Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. > >>>> The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. > >>>> > >>>> His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. > >>>>> > >>>>> An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? > >>>>> > >>>>> Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? > >>>>> > >>>>> Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? > >>>>> > >>>>> ============[Chomsky]======================================== > >>>>> > >>>>> The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... > >>>>> > >>>>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. > >>>>> > >>>>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. > >>>>> > >>>>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. > >>>>> > >>>>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” > >>>>> > >>>>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” > >>>>> > >>>>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. > >>>>> > >>>>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. > >>>>> > >>>>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. > >>>>> > >>>>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. > >>>>> > >>>>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” > >>>>> > >>>>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. > >>>>> > >>>>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. > >>>>> > >>>>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” > >>>>> > >>>>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” > >>>>> > >>>>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. > >>>>> > >>>>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. > >>>>> > >>>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” > >>>>> > >>>>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. > >>>>> > >>>>> But that is mere abuse of reality. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. > >>>>> > >>>>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” > >>>>> =================================================== > >>>>> > >>> > >> From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 15:20:36 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:20:36 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <93F59922-E692-47C3-B43E-F7F2D3CB1E1E@illinois.edu> My real agenda, Francis, (whatever dark imaginings may occupy you) is to encourage US withdrawal of troops and weapons from MENA. > On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > What is Carl's Real Agenda here repeatedly trying to ram down our throats this notorious warmonger against both Libya and Syria Achcar who has been definitively debunked elsewhere? Caveat emptor! > Fab. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:13 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace ; Robert Naiman > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations > > Read it, Francis, and tell me what’s wrong with it. > > Stop trying to fight old battles. > > —CGE > > >> On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Carl is still trying to peddle this notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria Achcar to us. Caveat emptor! >> Fab >> >> >> >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:46 AM >> To: Karen Aram ; peace >> >> Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss List >> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >> relations >> >> >> >> "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. >> The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. >> Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" >> >> On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. >> >> >> On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman wrote: >> >> Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni >> Children >> https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from-s >> tarving-yemeni-kids >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” >> >> Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” >> >> So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> ================================ >>> Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 >>> >>> Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? >>> >>> NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. >>> >>> ================================= >>> Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 >>> >>> “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. >>> >>> As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). >>> >>> But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. >>> >>> For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” >>> >>> Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. >>> >>> It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. >>> >>> It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. >>> >>> [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University of >>> London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, 2006); >>> Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, co-authored >>> with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: The >>> Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A Radical >>> Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most recently, Morbid >>> Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] >>> >>> ### >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. >>>>> >>>>> “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. >>>>> >>>>> "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: >>>>>> >>>>>> Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. >>>>>> The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. >>>>>> >>>>>> His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ============[Chomsky]======================================== >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But that is mere abuse of reality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” >>>>>>> =================================================== >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 15:22:31 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:22:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: <93F59922-E692-47C3-B43E-F7F2D3CB1E1E@illinois.edu> References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> <93F59922-E692-47C3-B43E-F7F2D3CB1E1E@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Your Real Agenda is obviously to promote die-hard warmongers like Achcar. Fab. 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: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:21 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; Robert Naiman ; peace ; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations My real agenda, Francis, (whatever dark imaginings may occupy you) is to encourage US withdrawal of troops and weapons from MENA. > On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > What is Carl's Real Agenda here repeatedly trying to ram down our throats this notorious warmonger against both Libya and Syria Achcar who has been definitively debunked elsewhere? Caveat emptor! > Fab. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:13 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List > (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Cc: Karen Aram ; peace > ; Robert Naiman > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian > relations > > Read it, Francis, and tell me what’s wrong with it. > > Stop trying to fight old battles. > > —CGE > > >> On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Carl is still trying to peddle this notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria Achcar to us. Caveat emptor! >> Fab >> >> >> >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:46 AM >> To: Karen Aram ; peace >> >> Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss List >> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >> relations >> >> >> >> "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. >> The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. >> Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" >> >> On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. >> >> >> On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman wrote: >> >> Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni >> Children >> https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from- >> s >> tarving-yemeni-kids >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” >> >> Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” >> >> So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> ================================ >>> Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 >>> >>> Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? >>> >>> NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. >>> >>> ================================= >>> Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 >>> >>> “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. >>> >>> As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). >>> >>> But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. >>> >>> For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” >>> >>> Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. >>> >>> It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. >>> >>> It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. >>> >>> [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University of >>> London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, 2006); >>> Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, co-authored >>> with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: The >>> Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A Radical >>> Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most recently, Morbid >>> Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] >>> >>> ### >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. >>>>> >>>>> “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. >>>>> >>>>> "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: >>>>>> >>>>>> Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. >>>>>> The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. >>>>>> >>>>>> His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ============[Chomsky]======================================== >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But that is mere abuse of reality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” >>>>>>> =================================================== >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 15:31:52 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:31:52 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> <93F59922-E692-47C3-B43E-F7F2D3CB1E1E@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <41780255-DD6C-4705-8745-90214C71E2BC@illinois.edu> No, my “Real Agenda” is obviously to promote die-hard revolution-mongers: “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” (Rosa Luxemburg) > On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Your Real Agenda is obviously to promote die-hard warmongers like Achcar. Fab. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:21 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; Robert Naiman ; peace ; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations > > My real agenda, Francis, (whatever dark imaginings may occupy you) is to encourage US withdrawal of troops and weapons from MENA. > > >> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> What is Carl's Real Agenda here repeatedly trying to ram down our throats this notorious warmonger against both Libya and Syria Achcar who has been definitively debunked elsewhere? Caveat emptor! >> Fab. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:13 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List >> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace >> ; Robert Naiman >> >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >> relations >> >> Read it, Francis, and tell me what’s wrong with it. >> >> Stop trying to fight old battles. >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> Carl is still trying to peddle this notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria Achcar to us. Caveat emptor! >>> Fab >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >>> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:46 AM >>> To: Karen Aram ; peace >>> >>> Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss List >>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>> relations >>> >>> >>> >>> "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. >>> The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. >>> Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" >>> >>> On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. >>> >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman wrote: >>> >>> Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni >>> Children >>> https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from- >>> s >>> tarving-yemeni-kids >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” >>> >>> Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” >>> >>> So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>> >>>> ================================ >>>> Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 >>>> >>>> Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? >>>> >>>> NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. >>>> >>>> ================================= >>>> Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 >>>> >>>> “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. >>>> >>>> As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). >>>> >>>> But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. >>>> >>>> For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” >>>> >>>> Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. >>>> >>>> It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. >>>> >>>> It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. >>>> >>>> [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University of >>>> London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, 2006); >>>> Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, co-authored >>>> with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: The >>>> Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A Radical >>>> Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most recently, Morbid >>>> Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. >>>>>> >>>>>> “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. >>>>>> >>>>>> "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” >>>>>> >>>>>> —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. >>>>>>> The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ============[Chomsky]======================================== >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But that is mere abuse of reality. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” >>>>>>>> =================================================== >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 15:34:56 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:34:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: <41780255-DD6C-4705-8745-90214C71E2BC@illinois.edu> References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> <93F59922-E692-47C3-B43E-F7F2D3CB1E1E@illinois.edu> <41780255-DD6C-4705-8745-90214C71E2BC@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Achcar is a die hard war monger against both Libya and Syria. Everyone knows it. you have repeatedly abused this Peace List to promote a serial die-hard monger. Fab. 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: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:32 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; Robert Naiman ; peace ; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations No, my “Real Agenda” is obviously to promote die-hard revolution-mongers: “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” (Rosa Luxemburg) > On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Your Real Agenda is obviously to promote die-hard warmongers like Achcar. Fab. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:21 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > ; Robert Naiman > ; peace ; > Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian > relations > > My real agenda, Francis, (whatever dark imaginings may occupy you) is to encourage US withdrawal of troops and weapons from MENA. > > >> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> What is Carl's Real Agenda here repeatedly trying to ram down our throats this notorious warmonger against both Libya and Syria Achcar who has been definitively debunked elsewhere? Caveat emptor! >> Fab. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:13 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List >> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace >> ; Robert Naiman >> >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >> relations >> >> Read it, Francis, and tell me what’s wrong with it. >> >> Stop trying to fight old battles. >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> Carl is still trying to peddle this notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria Achcar to us. Caveat emptor! >>> Fab >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Peace-discuss >>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >>> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:46 AM >>> To: Karen Aram ; peace >>> >>> Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss List >>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> >>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>> relations >>> >>> >>> >>> "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. >>> The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. >>> Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" >>> >>> On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. >>> >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman wrote: >>> >>> Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni >>> Children >>> https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from >>> - >>> s >>> tarving-yemeni-kids >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” >>> >>> Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” >>> >>> So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>> >>>> ================================ >>>> Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 >>>> >>>> Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? >>>> >>>> NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. >>>> >>>> ================================= >>>> Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 >>>> >>>> “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. >>>> >>>> As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). >>>> >>>> But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. >>>> >>>> For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” >>>> >>>> Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. >>>> >>>> It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. >>>> >>>> It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. >>>> >>>> [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University of >>>> London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, >>>> 2006); Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, >>>> co-authored with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: >>>> The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A >>>> Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most >>>> recently, Morbid >>>> Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] >>>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. >>>>>> >>>>>> “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. >>>>>> >>>>>> "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” >>>>>> >>>>>> —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. >>>>>>> The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ============[Chomsky]======================================== >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But that is mere abuse of reality. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” >>>>>>>> =================================================== >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 15:46:27 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:46:27 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> <93F59922-E692-47C3-B43E-F7F2D3CB1E1E@illinois.edu> <41780255-DD6C-4705-8745-90214C71E2BC@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Should I be ‘de-platformed,’ Francis, or will you get around to addressing the substance of what I’ve posted? > On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Achcar is a die hard war monger against both Libya and Syria. Everyone knows it. you have repeatedly abused this Peace List to promote a serial die-hard monger. Fab. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:32 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; Robert Naiman ; peace ; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations > > No, my “Real Agenda” is obviously to promote die-hard revolution-mongers: > > “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” (Rosa Luxemburg) > > >> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Your Real Agenda is obviously to promote die-hard warmongers like Achcar. Fab. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:21 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> ; Robert Naiman >> ; peace ; >> Karen Aram >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >> relations >> >> My real agenda, Francis, (whatever dark imaginings may occupy you) is to encourage US withdrawal of troops and weapons from MENA. >> >> >>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> What is Carl's Real Agenda here repeatedly trying to ram down our throats this notorious warmonger against both Libya and Syria Achcar who has been definitively debunked elsewhere? Caveat emptor! >>> Fab. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:13 AM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List >>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace >>> ; Robert Naiman >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>> relations >>> >>> Read it, Francis, and tell me what’s wrong with it. >>> >>> Stop trying to fight old battles. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>> >>>> Carl is still trying to peddle this notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria Achcar to us. Caveat emptor! >>>> Fab >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Peace-discuss >>>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >>>> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:46 AM >>>> To: Karen Aram ; peace >>>> >>>> Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss List >>>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>> >>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>> relations >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. >>>> The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. >>>> Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" >>>> >>>> On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman wrote: >>>> >>>> Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? >>>> >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni >>>> Children >>>> https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from >>>> - >>>> s >>>> tarving-yemeni-kids >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” >>>> >>>> Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” >>>> >>>> So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ================================ >>>>> Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 >>>>> >>>>> Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? >>>>> >>>>> NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. >>>>> >>>>> ================================= >>>>> Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 >>>>> >>>>> “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. >>>>> >>>>> As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). >>>>> >>>>> But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. >>>>> >>>>> For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” >>>>> >>>>> Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. >>>>> >>>>> It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. >>>>> >>>>> It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. >>>>> >>>>> [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University of >>>>> London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, >>>>> 2006); Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, >>>>> co-authored with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: >>>>> The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A >>>>> Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most >>>>> recently, Morbid >>>>> Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. >>>>>>>> The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ============[Chomsky]======================================== >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But that is mere abuse of reality. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” >>>>>>>>> =================================================== >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 15:49:00 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:49:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> <93F59922-E692-47C3-B43E-F7F2D3CB1E1E@illinois.edu> <41780255-DD6C-4705-8745-90214C71E2BC@illinois.edu> Message-ID: No Carl, you can continue to abuse this Peace List by posting die-hard warmongers. Caveat emptor! Fab. 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: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:46 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Robert Naiman ; peace ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations Should I be ‘de-platformed,’ Francis, or will you get around to addressing the substance of what I’ve posted? > On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Achcar is a die hard war monger against both Libya and Syria. Everyone knows it. you have repeatedly abused this Peace List to promote a serial die-hard monger. Fab. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:32 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > ; Robert Naiman > ; peace ; > Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian > relations > > No, my “Real Agenda” is obviously to promote die-hard revolution-mongers: > > “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly > what is happening.” (Rosa Luxemburg) > > >> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Your Real Agenda is obviously to promote die-hard warmongers like Achcar. Fab. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:21 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> ; Robert Naiman >> ; peace ; >> Karen Aram >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >> relations >> >> My real agenda, Francis, (whatever dark imaginings may occupy you) is to encourage US withdrawal of troops and weapons from MENA. >> >> >>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> What is Carl's Real Agenda here repeatedly trying to ram down our throats this notorious warmonger against both Libya and Syria Achcar who has been definitively debunked elsewhere? Caveat emptor! >>> Fab. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:13 AM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List >>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> >>> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace >>> ; Robert Naiman >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>> relations >>> >>> Read it, Francis, and tell me what’s wrong with it. >>> >>> Stop trying to fight old battles. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>> >>>> Carl is still trying to peddle this notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria Achcar to us. Caveat emptor! >>>> Fab >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Peace-discuss >>>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >>>> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:46 AM >>>> To: Karen Aram ; peace >>>> >>>> Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss >>>> List >>>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>> >>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>> relations >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. >>>> The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. >>>> Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" >>>> >>>> On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman wrote: >>>> >>>> Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? >>>> >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni >>>> Children >>>> https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-fro >>>> m >>>> - >>>> s >>>> tarving-yemeni-kids >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” >>>> >>>> Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” >>>> >>>> So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ================================ >>>>> Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 >>>>> >>>>> Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? >>>>> >>>>> NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. >>>>> >>>>> ================================= >>>>> Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 >>>>> >>>>> “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. >>>>> >>>>> As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). >>>>> >>>>> But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. >>>>> >>>>> For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” >>>>> >>>>> Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. >>>>> >>>>> It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. >>>>> >>>>> It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. >>>>> >>>>> [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University >>>>> of London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, >>>>> 2006); Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, >>>>> co-authored with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: >>>>> The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A >>>>> Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most >>>>> recently, Morbid >>>>> Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] >>>>> >>>>> ### >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. >>>>>>>> The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ============[Chomsky]======================================== >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But that is mere abuse of reality. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” >>>>>>>>> =================================================== >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 galliher at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 16:06:21 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 10:06:21 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> <93F59922-E692-47C3-B43E-F7F2D3CB1E1E@illinois.edu> <41780255-DD6C-4705-8745-90214C71E2BC@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <08E2F98E-126D-41E5-B471-07619E863BC9@illinois.edu> As you well know, Francis, omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, est a spiritu sancto sicut ab infundente naturale lumen et movente ad intelligendum et loquendum veritatem (Summa theologiae IaIIae.q.109.a1ad1). "Everything true, by whomever spoken, comes from the holy spirit…” (Aquinas repeats his asseveration in his commentary on 1 Cor. 12:3 & In Ioannem I, 5, lect. 3, n.103). —CGE > On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > No Carl, you can continue to abuse this Peace List by posting die-hard warmongers. Caveat emptor! Fab. > > 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: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:46 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Robert Naiman ; peace ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations > > Should I be ‘de-platformed,’ Francis, or will you get around to addressing the substance of what I’ve posted? > > >> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Achcar is a die hard war monger against both Libya and Syria. Everyone knows it. you have repeatedly abused this Peace List to promote a serial die-hard monger. Fab. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:32 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> ; Robert Naiman >> ; peace ; >> Karen Aram >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >> relations >> >> No, my “Real Agenda” is obviously to promote die-hard revolution-mongers: >> >> “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly >> what is happening.” (Rosa Luxemburg) >> >> >>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> Your Real Agenda is obviously to promote die-hard warmongers like Achcar. Fab. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:21 AM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> ; Robert Naiman >>> ; peace ; >>> Karen Aram >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>> relations >>> >>> My real agenda, Francis, (whatever dark imaginings may occupy you) is to encourage US withdrawal of troops and weapons from MENA. >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> What is Carl's Real Agenda here repeatedly trying to ram down our throats this notorious warmonger against both Libya and Syria Achcar who has been definitively debunked elsewhere? Caveat emptor! >>>> Fab. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:13 AM >>>> To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List >>>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>> >>>> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace >>>> ; Robert Naiman >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>> relations >>>> >>>> Read it, Francis, and tell me what’s wrong with it. >>>> >>>> Stop trying to fight old battles. >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Carl is still trying to peddle this notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria Achcar to us. Caveat emptor! >>>>> Fab >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Peace-discuss >>>>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >>>>> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:46 AM >>>>> To: Karen Aram ; peace >>>>> >>>>> Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss >>>>> List >>>>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>> >>>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>>> relations >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. >>>>> The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. >>>>> Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? >>>>> >>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>> Policy Director >>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>> >>>>> Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni >>>>> Children >>>>> https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-fro >>>>> m >>>>> - >>>>> s >>>>> tarving-yemeni-kids >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” >>>>> >>>>> Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” >>>>> >>>>> So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ================================ >>>>>> Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 >>>>>> >>>>>> Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? >>>>>> >>>>>> NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> ================================= >>>>>> Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 >>>>>> >>>>>> “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. >>>>>> >>>>>> As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). >>>>>> >>>>>> But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. >>>>>> >>>>>> For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” >>>>>> >>>>>> Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. >>>>>> >>>>>> It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. >>>>>> >>>>>> [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University >>>>>> of London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, >>>>>> 2006); Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, >>>>>> co-authored with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: >>>>>> The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A >>>>>> Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most >>>>>> recently, Morbid >>>>>> Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] >>>>>> >>>>>> ### >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. >>>>>>>>> The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ============[Chomsky]======================================== >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But that is mere abuse of reality. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” >>>>>>>>>> =================================================== >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 10 16:44:33 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 16:44:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: <08E2F98E-126D-41E5-B471-07619E863BC9@illinois.edu> References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> <93F59922-E692-47C3-B43E-F7F2D3CB1E1E@illinois.edu> <41780255-DD6C-4705-8745-90214C71E2BC@illinois.edu> <08E2F98E-126D-41E5-B471-07619E863BC9@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Carl A brief skim of the article, irritates me because it looks like Saudi Arabia is responsible for the horrors in the middle east, most especially Syria. The machinations of the Saudi’s, their tribal rivalry’s obfuscate the role of US hegemony and imperialism. He gives the impression that Obama, was weak, and the US more of a follower than a leader in the debacle there. I see Achtar as an apologist for the US, even though he says: "Ultimately, Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump.” I know you like the point being made that "Trump is irritated by the US actions in the Ukraine, "because as we all know, Trump doesn’t really want war with Russia, he wants to do business there. “ For that he is being vilified over Russiagate. He is President however, and doesn’t need to do what he is told, anymore than Obama did, the portrayal of Obama as weak, in spite of expanding our wars from two to 7 or 8, is repugnant and hypocritical. Achcar’s former article pointing out “its up to the US and Russia to determine Syria’s fate, suggesting the US will pull out when Russia and Iran pull out, is sheer nonsense. They are both there at the request of the Syrian government, as a result of the US presence and support for Jihadists or whatever we choose to call our CIA supported “moderate rebels.” Achcar is another so called socialist, like Louis Proyet, and Ashley Smith, supporting the imperialism in Syria, “because Assad is so bad, and the rebels are freedom fighters? No, because they support US foreign policy of regime change, or partition for control of middle east resources. Perhaps they are also supporters of Israel, given no mention of the Israeli role in Syria. The Saudi’s and Israel are US proxy’s doing what we want them to do, granted we want to keep them happy too, but just as in Yemen, the Saudi’s would be impotent without US weapons, training, logistics, etc. On Mar 10, 2018, at 08:06, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: As you well know, Francis, omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, est a spiritu sancto sicut ab infundente naturale lumen et movente ad intelligendum et loquendum veritatem (Summa theologiae IaIIae.q.109.a1ad1). "Everything true, by whomever spoken, comes from the holy spirit…” (Aquinas repeats his asseveration in his commentary on 1 Cor. 12:3 & In Ioannem I, 5, lect. 3, n.103). —CGE On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: No Carl, you can continue to abuse this Peace List by posting die-hard warmongers. Caveat emptor! Fab. 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: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:46 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Robert Naiman >; peace >; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations Should I be ‘de-platformed,’ Francis, or will you get around to addressing the substance of what I’ve posted? On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Achcar is a die hard war monger against both Libya and Syria. Everyone knows it. you have repeatedly abused this Peace List to promote a serial die-hard monger. Fab. -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:32 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >; Robert Naiman >; peace >; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations No, my “Real Agenda” is obviously to promote die-hard revolution-mongers: “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” (Rosa Luxemburg) On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Your Real Agenda is obviously to promote die-hard warmongers like Achcar. Fab. -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:21 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >; Robert Naiman >; peace >; Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations My real agenda, Francis, (whatever dark imaginings may occupy you) is to encourage US withdrawal of troops and weapons from MENA. On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: What is Carl's Real Agenda here repeatedly trying to ram down our throats this notorious warmonger against both Libya and Syria Achcar who has been definitively debunked elsewhere? Caveat emptor! Fab. -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:13 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Cc: Karen Aram >; peace >; Robert Naiman > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations Read it, Francis, and tell me what’s wrong with it. Stop trying to fight old battles. —CGE On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Carl is still trying to peddle this notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria Achcar to us. Caveat emptor! Fab From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:46 AM To: Karen Aram >; peace > Cc: Robert Naiman >; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman > wrote: Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni Children https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-fro m - s tarving-yemeni-kids On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook wrote: ================================ Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. ================================= Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University of London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, 2006); Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, co-authored with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most recently, Morbid Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] ### On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook wrote: I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” —CGE On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook wrote: Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? ============[Chomsky]======================================== The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. But that is mere abuse of reality. It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” =================================================== _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 16:59:34 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 10:59:34 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> <93F59922-E692-47C3-B43E-F7F2D3CB1E1E@illinois.edu> <41780255-DD6C-4705-8745-90214C71E2BC@illinois.edu> <08E2F98E-126D-41E5-B471-07619E863BC9@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <59F49229-477A-40E7-9D9A-F7CA2C20A6D2@illinois.edu> But you don’t deny, do you, that Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations - and therefore on USG policy? We should be demanding that the US remove its thousands of troops, weapons, and air-power from Syria and stop funding Israeli and KSA machinations there - which most Americans are not aware of. —CGE > On Mar 10, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl > > > A brief skim of the article, irritates me because it looks like Saudi Arabia is responsible for the horrors in the middle east, most especially Syria. The machinations of the Saudi’s, their tribal rivalry’s obfuscate the role of US hegemony and imperialism. > > He gives the impression that Obama, was weak, and the US more of a follower than a leader in the debacle there. > > I see Achtar as an apologist for the US, even though he says: > > "Ultimately, Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump.” > > I know you like the point being made that "Trump is irritated by the US actions in the Ukraine, "because as we all know, Trump doesn’t really want war with Russia, he wants to do business there. “ For that he is being vilified over Russiagate. He is President however, and doesn’t need to do what he is told, anymore than Obama did, the portrayal of Obama as weak, in spite of expanding our wars from two to 7 or 8, is repugnant and hypocritical. > > Achcar’s former article pointing out “its up to the US and Russia to determine Syria’s fate, suggesting the US will pull out when Russia and Iran pull out, is sheer nonsense. They are both there at the request of the Syrian government, as a result of the US presence and support for Jihadists or whatever we choose to call our CIA supported “moderate rebels.” > > Achcar is another so called socialist, like Louis Proyet, and Ashley Smith, supporting the imperialism in Syria, “because Assad is so bad, and the rebels are freedom fighters? No, because they support US foreign policy of regime change, or partition for control of middle east resources. Perhaps they are also supporters of Israel, given no mention of the Israeli role in Syria. > > The Saudi’s and Israel are US proxy’s doing what we want them to do, granted we want to keep them happy too, but just as in Yemen, the Saudi’s would be impotent without US weapons, training, logistics, etc. > > > > > On Mar 10, 2018, at 08:06, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> As you well know, Francis, >> >> omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, est a spiritu sancto sicut ab infundente naturale lumen et movente ad intelligendum et loquendum veritatem (Summa theologiae IaIIae.q.109.a1ad1). >> >> "Everything true, by whomever spoken, comes from the holy spirit…” (Aquinas repeats his asseveration in his commentary on 1 Cor. 12:3 & In Ioannem I, 5, lect. 3, n.103). >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> No Carl, you can continue to abuse this Peace List by posting die-hard warmongers. Caveat emptor! Fab. >>> >>> 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: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:46 AM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Robert Naiman ; peace ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; Karen Aram >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations >>> >>> Should I be ‘de-platformed,’ Francis, or will you get around to addressing the substance of what I’ve posted? >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Achcar is a die hard war monger against both Libya and Syria. Everyone knows it. you have repeatedly abused this Peace List to promote a serial die-hard monger. Fab. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:32 AM >>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>> ; Robert Naiman >>>> ; peace ; >>>> Karen Aram >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>> relations >>>> >>>> No, my “Real Agenda” is obviously to promote die-hard revolution-mongers: >>>> >>>> “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly >>>> what is happening.” (Rosa Luxemburg) >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Your Real Agenda is obviously to promote die-hard warmongers like Achcar. Fab. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:21 AM >>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>>> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>> ; Robert Naiman >>>>> ; peace ; >>>>> Karen Aram >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>>> relations >>>>> >>>>> My real agenda, Francis, (whatever dark imaginings may occupy you) is to encourage US withdrawal of troops and weapons from MENA. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> What is Carl's Real Agenda here repeatedly trying to ram down our throats this notorious warmonger against both Libya and Syria Achcar who has been definitively debunked elsewhere? Caveat emptor! >>>>>> Fab. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:13 AM >>>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List >>>>>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace >>>>>> ; Robert Naiman >>>>>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>>>> relations >>>>>> >>>>>> Read it, Francis, and tell me what’s wrong with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stop trying to fight old battles. >>>>>> >>>>>> —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carl is still trying to peddle this notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria Achcar to us. Caveat emptor! >>>>>>> Fab >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Peace-discuss >>>>>>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >>>>>>> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:46 AM >>>>>>> To: Karen Aram ; peace >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss >>>>>>> List >>>>>>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>>>>> relations >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. >>>>>>> The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. >>>>>>> Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>>>> Policy Director >>>>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni >>>>>>> Children >>>>>>> https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-fro >>>>>>> m >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> s >>>>>>> tarving-yemeni-kids >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ================================ >>>>>>>> Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ================================= >>>>>>>> Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University >>>>>>>> of London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, >>>>>>>> 2006); Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, >>>>>>>> co-authored with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: >>>>>>>> The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A >>>>>>>> Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most >>>>>>>> recently, Morbid >>>>>>>> Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ### >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. >>>>>>>>>>> The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ============[Chomsky]======================================== >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But that is mere abuse of reality. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” >>>>>>>>>>>> =================================================== >>>>>>>>>>>> From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 10 17:04:26 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:04:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: <59F49229-477A-40E7-9D9A-F7CA2C20A6D2@illinois.edu> References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> <93F59922-E692-47C3-B43E-F7F2D3CB1E1E@illinois.edu> <41780255-DD6C-4705-8745-90214C71E2BC@illinois.edu> <08E2F98E-126D-41E5-B471-07619E863BC9@illinois.edu> <59F49229-477A-40E7-9D9A-F7CA2C20A6D2@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Absolutely, and that is exactly what we should be doing. That’s not however, what Gilbert Achcar is suggesting. > On Mar 10, 2018, at 08:59, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > But you don’t deny, do you, that Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations - and therefore on USG policy? > > We should be demanding that the US remove its thousands of troops, weapons, and air-power from Syria and stop funding Israeli and KSA machinations there - which most Americans are not aware of. > > —CGE > > >> On Mar 10, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> >> A brief skim of the article, irritates me because it looks like Saudi Arabia is responsible for the horrors in the middle east, most especially Syria. The machinations of the Saudi’s, their tribal rivalry’s obfuscate the role of US hegemony and imperialism. >> >> He gives the impression that Obama, was weak, and the US more of a follower than a leader in the debacle there. >> >> I see Achtar as an apologist for the US, even though he says: >> >> "Ultimately, Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump.” >> >> I know you like the point being made that "Trump is irritated by the US actions in the Ukraine, "because as we all know, Trump doesn’t really want war with Russia, he wants to do business there. “ For that he is being vilified over Russiagate. He is President however, and doesn’t need to do what he is told, anymore than Obama did, the portrayal of Obama as weak, in spite of expanding our wars from two to 7 or 8, is repugnant and hypocritical. >> >> Achcar’s former article pointing out “its up to the US and Russia to determine Syria’s fate, suggesting the US will pull out when Russia and Iran pull out, is sheer nonsense. They are both there at the request of the Syrian government, as a result of the US presence and support for Jihadists or whatever we choose to call our CIA supported “moderate rebels.” >> >> Achcar is another so called socialist, like Louis Proyet, and Ashley Smith, supporting the imperialism in Syria, “because Assad is so bad, and the rebels are freedom fighters? No, because they support US foreign policy of regime change, or partition for control of middle east resources. Perhaps they are also supporters of Israel, given no mention of the Israeli role in Syria. >> >> The Saudi’s and Israel are US proxy’s doing what we want them to do, granted we want to keep them happy too, but just as in Yemen, the Saudi’s would be impotent without US weapons, training, logistics, etc. >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 10, 2018, at 08:06, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> As you well know, Francis, >>> >>> omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, est a spiritu sancto sicut ab infundente naturale lumen et movente ad intelligendum et loquendum veritatem (Summa theologiae IaIIae.q.109.a1ad1). >>> >>> "Everything true, by whomever spoken, comes from the holy spirit…” (Aquinas repeats his asseveration in his commentary on 1 Cor. 12:3 & In Ioannem I, 5, lect. 3, n.103). >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> No Carl, you can continue to abuse this Peace List by posting die-hard warmongers. Caveat emptor! Fab. >>>> >>>> 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: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:46 AM >>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>> Cc: Robert Naiman ; peace ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; Karen Aram >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations >>>> >>>> Should I be ‘de-platformed,’ Francis, or will you get around to addressing the substance of what I’ve posted? >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Achcar is a die hard war monger against both Libya and Syria. Everyone knows it. you have repeatedly abused this Peace List to promote a serial die-hard monger. Fab. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:32 AM >>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>>> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>> ; Robert Naiman >>>>> ; peace ; >>>>> Karen Aram >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>>> relations >>>>> >>>>> No, my “Real Agenda” is obviously to promote die-hard revolution-mongers: >>>>> >>>>> “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly >>>>> what is happening.” (Rosa Luxemburg) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Your Real Agenda is obviously to promote die-hard warmongers like Achcar. Fab. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:21 AM >>>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>>>> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>>> ; Robert Naiman >>>>>> ; peace ; >>>>>> Karen Aram >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>>>> relations >>>>>> >>>>>> My real agenda, Francis, (whatever dark imaginings may occupy you) is to encourage US withdrawal of troops and weapons from MENA. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is Carl's Real Agenda here repeatedly trying to ram down our throats this notorious warmonger against both Libya and Syria Achcar who has been definitively debunked elsewhere? Caveat emptor! >>>>>>> Fab. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:13 AM >>>>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List >>>>>>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace >>>>>>> ; Robert Naiman >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>>>>> relations >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read it, Francis, and tell me what’s wrong with it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stop trying to fight old battles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carl is still trying to peddle this notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria Achcar to us. Caveat emptor! >>>>>>>> Fab >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Peace-discuss >>>>>>>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:46 AM >>>>>>>> To: Karen Aram ; peace >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss >>>>>>>> List >>>>>>>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>>>>>> relations >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. >>>>>>>> The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. >>>>>>>> Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>>>>> Policy Director >>>>>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni >>>>>>>> Children >>>>>>>> https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-fro >>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> s >>>>>>>> tarving-yemeni-kids >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>> His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ================================ >>>>>>>>> Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ================================= >>>>>>>>> Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University >>>>>>>>> of London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, >>>>>>>>> 2006); Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, >>>>>>>>> co-authored with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: >>>>>>>>> The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A >>>>>>>>> Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most >>>>>>>>> recently, Morbid >>>>>>>>> Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ### >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. >>>>>>>>>>>> The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ============[Chomsky]======================================== >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But that is mere abuse of reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” >>>>>>>>>>>>> =================================================== >>>>>>>>>>>>> > From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 21:49:10 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:49:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Kissy and Timmy and Me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Concerning my comments on David’s Labor Hour Program today. Thanks for having me on. Fab. 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: Dissident Voice Posted on: Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:01 AM Author: Francis A. Boyle Subject: Kissy and Timmy and Me “ You’re moving into Kissinger’s old office” Said Bud, the wizened old janitor And a decent guy at that “His file cabinets are in there.” Sure enough they were So it must be true “And down the hallway there Is Timothy Leary’s old office” So that must be true too Kissy and Timmy Kissing Cousins in the Vanserg Building Amazing! Did they pass in the hall? Glance at each other? Say a few words of greeting? The last probably not Did they piss in the men’s room Silently standing next to each other? Maybe so. There was only one The counterfactuals of history What if Timmy had given Kissy Acid? Timmy turn Kissy on? Maybe the world would have become A more peaceful place With Kissinger on Acid It certainly Could not have been Worse The Kissinger War Prize For Vietnam Obama got one too Those Norwegians Surely have A wicked sense of humor “Timothy Leary’s dead,’ “No! No!’ “He’s on the outside,’ “Looking in’” The Moodies Bards of My Generation View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 21:56:44 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 15:56:44 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_fate_will_depend_on_US-?= =?utf-8?q?Russian_relations?= In-Reply-To: References: <53AE7350-4885-408B-9EDB-76B486515B68@gmail.com> <7C98BAFE-E669-4501-9C2B-C5AEF30CBEF9@gmail.com> <52ABBEBA-2078-4D55-87CB-B823A19B3371@illinois.edu> <0A5CDF55-55F4-499C-9B23-C2C99AF0D51B@illinois.edu> <93F59922-E692-47C3-B43E-F7F2D3CB1E1E@illinois.edu> <41780255-DD6C-4705-8745-90214C71E2BC@illinois.edu> <08E2F98E-126D-41E5-B471-07619E863BC9@illinois.edu> <59F49229-477A-40E7-9D9A-F7CA2C20A6D2@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <321C77E9-62F8-474C-9F0F-228E99E61469@illinois.edu> Q: Under what circumstances would Iran leave Syria? Gilbert Achcar: Iran would need to be compelled to leave. This could happen if there is a Russian-American agreement, in the form of a United Nations Security Council resolution stipulating that, on the basis of a political agreement that would be reached in Geneva, all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011 (excluding the Russians who were already in Syria long before that year) should leave the country. It would be difficult for Iran to say “no,” especially if the Syrian regime is part of this deal. Assad would not side with Iran over Moscow if he had to choose. Moscow relies on his regime’s forces on the ground, while Iran is occupying the ground. Tehran would not allow the Syrian regime the same margin of autonomy as Moscow would. Add to that that the Iranian regime is ideologically quite different from the Syrian regime. The Syrian regime has been portrayed by many as a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism even though it is propped on the ground by Iran-led Islamic fundamentalist forces. That’s also part of the complexity of this situation... Russia is trying to set a post-war political framework for Syria. They’ve started doing it at the end of 2016, shortly before Trump inaugurated his presidency. They were expecting him to deliver on his promise of new relations with Russia, but for the time being this is not happening as the establishment in Washington reacted with a strongly anti-Russian position. In any event, Trump won’t reach any deal with the Russians unless they agree to stop cooperating with Iran in Syria and push its forces out of the country. For Trump the ideal scenario would be to reach a deal with Putin, entrust the Russians to take care of Syria on the condition that they push Iran out. In exchange for that, the United States could remove sanctions on Russia and give it some concessions in Europe. But this is clearly not on the horizon for now... Q: Trump’s view of the conflict is different from Obama’s. He is trying to isolate Iran and has recognised Jerusalem as capital of the Israeli state. Why are their policies different and what implication will Trump’s policy have for the region? There are different issues here. When it comes to Israel, Trump is catering to a specific audience: the Evangelicals and other Christian Zionists, who constituted a large part of the Republican’s constituency under Bush and are still a major part of Trump’s voter base. Mike Pence, the US Vice President, is representative of this segment. He is outbidding even his own boss in pro-Israeli discourse. Conversely, there is no consensus on this issue within the wider US establishment. Even some people in Trump’s entourage were not happy with his stance on Jerusalem, which is very ideological. The only issue on which there is a consensus in the administration is a tough attitude towards Iran, but this does not even include scrapping the nuclear agreement. Q: Does the Saudi regime still play any decisive role in the Syrian conflict, especially with regard to Iran? Trump very much encouraged the Saudi rulers to escalate hostilities against Iran. They have been very clumsy in the handling of episodes such as that of putting pressure on Qatar or that of the forced resignation of Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, which both ended up in fiasco. The Saudi rulers have no strategy of their own regarding Syria, they align behind the United States. The remnants of the Syrian opposition that are linked to them have been very much weakened. Thus Riyadh’s overall leverage in Syria is much weakened. Its main concern is to contain Iran and roll it back, and for that they can only rely on Washington... > > On Mar 10, 2018, at 11:04 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Absolutely, and that is exactly what we should be doing. That’s not however, what Gilbert Achcar is suggesting. > >> On Mar 10, 2018, at 08:59, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> But you don’t deny, do you, that Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations - and therefore on USG policy? >> >> We should be demanding that the US remove its thousands of troops, weapons, and air-power from Syria and stop funding Israeli and KSA machinations there - which most Americans are not aware of. >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 10:44 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> >>> A brief skim of the article, irritates me because it looks like Saudi Arabia is responsible for the horrors in the middle east, most especially Syria. The machinations of the Saudi’s, their tribal rivalry’s obfuscate the role of US hegemony and imperialism. >>> >>> He gives the impression that Obama, was weak, and the US more of a follower than a leader in the debacle there. >>> >>> I see Achtar as an apologist for the US, even though he says: >>> >>> "Ultimately, Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump.” >>> >>> I know you like the point being made that "Trump is irritated by the US actions in the Ukraine, "because as we all know, Trump doesn’t really want war with Russia, he wants to do business there. “ For that he is being vilified over Russiagate. He is President however, and doesn’t need to do what he is told, anymore than Obama did, the portrayal of Obama as weak, in spite of expanding our wars from two to 7 or 8, is repugnant and hypocritical. >>> >>> Achcar’s former article pointing out “its up to the US and Russia to determine Syria’s fate, suggesting the US will pull out when Russia and Iran pull out, is sheer nonsense. They are both there at the request of the Syrian government, as a result of the US presence and support for Jihadists or whatever we choose to call our CIA supported “moderate rebels.” >>> >>> Achcar is another so called socialist, like Louis Proyet, and Ashley Smith, supporting the imperialism in Syria, “because Assad is so bad, and the rebels are freedom fighters? No, because they support US foreign policy of regime change, or partition for control of middle east resources. Perhaps they are also supporters of Israel, given no mention of the Israeli role in Syria. >>> >>> The Saudi’s and Israel are US proxy’s doing what we want them to do, granted we want to keep them happy too, but just as in Yemen, the Saudi’s would be impotent without US weapons, training, logistics, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 08:06, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>>> >>>> As you well know, Francis, >>>> >>>> omne verum, a quocumque dicatur, est a spiritu sancto sicut ab infundente naturale lumen et movente ad intelligendum et loquendum veritatem (Summa theologiae IaIIae.q.109.a1ad1). >>>> >>>> "Everything true, by whomever spoken, comes from the holy spirit…” (Aquinas repeats his asseveration in his commentary on 1 Cor. 12:3 & In Ioannem I, 5, lect. 3, n.103). >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No Carl, you can continue to abuse this Peace List by posting die-hard warmongers. Caveat emptor! Fab. >>>>> >>>>> 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: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:46 AM >>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>>> Cc: Robert Naiman ; peace ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; Karen Aram >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations >>>>> >>>>> Should I be ‘de-platformed,’ Francis, or will you get around to addressing the substance of what I’ve posted? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Achcar is a die hard war monger against both Libya and Syria. Everyone knows it. you have repeatedly abused this Peace List to promote a serial die-hard monger. Fab. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:32 AM >>>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>>>> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>>> ; Robert Naiman >>>>>> ; peace ; >>>>>> Karen Aram >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>>>> relations >>>>>> >>>>>> No, my “Real Agenda” is obviously to promote die-hard revolution-mongers: >>>>>> >>>>>> “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly >>>>>> what is happening.” (Rosa Luxemburg) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:22 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your Real Agenda is obviously to promote die-hard warmongers like Achcar. Fab. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:21 AM >>>>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>>>>> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>>>> ; Robert Naiman >>>>>>> ; peace ; >>>>>>> Karen Aram >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>>>>> relations >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My real agenda, Francis, (whatever dark imaginings may occupy you) is to encourage US withdrawal of troops and weapons from MENA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is Carl's Real Agenda here repeatedly trying to ram down our throats this notorious warmonger against both Libya and Syria Achcar who has been definitively debunked elsewhere? Caveat emptor! >>>>>>>> Fab. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 9:13 AM >>>>>>>> To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss List >>>>>>>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cc: Karen Aram ; peace >>>>>>>> ; Robert Naiman >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>>>>>> relations >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Read it, Francis, and tell me what’s wrong with it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stop trying to fight old battles. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Carl is still trying to peddle this notorious warmonger against Libya and Syria Achcar to us. Caveat emptor! >>>>>>>>> Fab >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Peace-discuss >>>>>>>>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8:46 AM >>>>>>>>> To: Karen Aram ; peace >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cc: Robert Naiman ; Peace-discuss >>>>>>>>> List >>>>>>>>> (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian >>>>>>>>> relations >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "...Syria’s fate will depend on US-Russian relations. For now, the US attitude to Russia has hardened, as shown by ‘Russiagate’, new sanctions, and arms supplies to Ukraine, all against the wishes of an irritated Trump. >>>>>>>>> The Saudis, faced with unprecedented chaos in US policy, are in a difficult situation, especially as their offensive in Yemen is deadlocked and has caused a major humanitarian disaster. Their hope of turning the situation by turning Saleh ended when he was murdered by his allies in December. On top of that, an open conflict erupted between the Yemeni forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition, with some factions supported by Abu Dhabi, others by the Saudis. >>>>>>>>> Nothing that the Saudis have done at Trump’s instigation, towards Qatar, Lebanon, Syria or Russia, has paid off…" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:37 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, and it is the Syrian people who should decide whether Assad stays or goes. It’s not a decision to be made by the US, or our proxy’s. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 21:42, Robert Naiman wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some Syrians are indeed opposed to the Syrian government, and that is surely normal, why not? But why should it be considered Satanic for Syrians opposed to the Syrian government to be willing to engage with the Syrian government? Palestinians who are willing to engage with the Israeli government are considered exemplary. Why should Syrians who are opposed to the Syrian government who are willing to engage with the Syrian government be ipso facto "discredited"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>>>>>> Policy Director >>>>>>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>>>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni >>>>>>>>> Children >>>>>>>>> https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-fro >>>>>>>>> m >>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>> s >>>>>>>>> tarving-yemeni-kids >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>> His reference to “the opposition” is misleading, it implies they are “Syrians” fighting Assad. They are ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, or whatever they call themselves now. Achtar attempts to legitimize them by referring to them as the “opposition.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because Chomsky refers to him as “my friend” Achtar has credibility? Regime change is the goal of the US, so obvious when Achtar wrote the below, as quoted by Chomsky. And, as Chomsky says, “that can’t be done.” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So now Achtar wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, by suggesting the US will leave if the Iranians leave. The US has only since Trump came into power, admitted being in Syria, as if they went in due to what, the Iranians? And, what about Israel, will they leave? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 20:10, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ================================ >>>>>>>>>> Noam Chomsky on Syria: October 27, 2016 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Q: Is there any hope for working with Russia on this? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> NC: There may be some hopes. In the case of Syria, there's simply no alternative (no realistic alternative, short of destroying Syria) to having some kind of transitional government with Assad certainly involved, maybe in power. It's ugly, but there's no alternative. My good friend [Gilbert Achcar] has an article in The Nation [that] says -- although he wrote it right before the cease-fire -- that the cease-fire will never last, because as long as Assad remains in power, the opposition will continue to fight until the death of Syria. So he says we have to do something to get Assad out of power, but that can't be done. That's the problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ================================= >>>>>>>>>> Gilbert Achcar on Syria: September 19, 2016 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> “The Syrian Truce and Obama’s Exit Strategy.” Without an agreement for Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As almost everybody can now tell, the new cease-fire agreement on Syria is doomed to break down, as would any such agreement that does not settle the core political problem of the crisis. Of course, even a respite that doesn’t last is better than nothing at all (although the truce has so far been very disappointing with regard to humanitarian relief). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But short of an agenda that includes a comprehensive agreement for Bashar al-Assad to step down and allow a transition toward a pluralist government, no cease-fire stands a chance in that war-torn country. Were the mainstream opposition to accept a diktat for a sellout, it would be rapidly outflanked by the fighters, for whom anything less than the Assad clan’s departure from power would be tantamount to accepting that hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed, and still more maimed, and huge swaths of the country turned to rubble, for nothing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For a truce to lead to the kind of compromise that underpins a genuine peace, there must be strong incentives among all parties to the conflict. The lack of such incentives is precisely why the Oslo Accords, signed in Washington 23 years ago, failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Those accords were predicated on the postponement of decisions on all crucial issues, including the fate of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. The result was predictable: Israel actually consolidated its grip over the West Bank in the aftermath of the accords, provoking increased Palestinian resentment and an eventual collapse of the “peace process.” >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Without a balance of military forces on the ground in Syria, which would compel the Assad regime and its Iranian backers to seek real compromise, a genuine political settlement is not possible. We have nearly the opposite: A Syrian regime, emboldened by Iranian and Russian support, that boasts about reconquering the whole country. As testified by the key protagonists, the issue of creating such a balance of forces—especially by providing the Syrian opposition with anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the Syrian regime’s use of air power, its main weapon of large-scale destruction—has been the principal bone of contention on Syria within the Obama administration since 2012. The fact that this issue is still divisive is attested by the Pentagon’s reluctance to greenlight the agreement negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It was reported (leaked, that is) that US military planners had no confidence that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian backers would comply with a cease-fire geared toward compromise. In addition, the Pentagon is unwilling to share military data on the Syrian opposition with its Russian counterpart for fear it might be used to further bombard the former. And they are right to be suspicious. Kerry has already deserved a place in history as an outstanding embodiment of diplomatic naïveté, i.e. his belief in the ability to solve conflicts through negotiations that are not backed by action on the ground (what was aptly described in the Financial Times as his “boundless confidence in his ability to solve problems if he can only bring the concerned parties together in one room”), and his amazingly wishful thinking with regard to Moscow’s willingness to help the United States out of the Syrian predicament. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is most unlikely, however, that Barack Obama—who can hardly be suspected of ingenuousness—shares his secretary of state’s idiosyncrasies. The US president has stubbornly refused to change his attitude on Syria over the past four years despite overwhelming evidence that it was allowing the conflict to degenerate into a catastrophe for the Syrian people and one more major disaster for US foreign policy, after Afghanistan and Iraq. In so doing, Obama has only managed to convince a major part of Arab public opinion that the United States, which invaded Iraq and bombed Libya for incomparably less than what has been unfolding in Syria over the past five years, cares only about oil-rich countries. If anyone in the region had any illusion about the democratic and humanitarian pretexts invoked by Washington in previous wars, they have lost them completely by now. As Anthony Cordesman, one of the most astute observers of the military-political situation in the Middle East, recently observed, the US president is now entirely focused on an “exit strategy”—not an exit from the Syrian crisis, though, but his own exit from office. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [Gilbert AchcarGilbert Achcar is a professor at SOAS, University >>>>>>>>>> of London. His many books include The Clash of Barbarisms (2002, >>>>>>>>>> 2006); Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy, >>>>>>>>>> co-authored with Noam Chomsky (2007); The Arabs and the Holocaust: >>>>>>>>>> The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives (2010); The People Want: A >>>>>>>>>> Radical Exploration of the Arab Uprising (2013); and, most >>>>>>>>>> recently, Morbid >>>>>>>>>> Symptoms: Relapse in the Arab Uprising (2016).] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ### >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:02 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Exactly, we should demand our government withdraw. Is that what Achtar is suggesting? One might get that impression, but at what cost? Why should the Russians or Syrians believe the US given the number of times we have broken cease fires. The suggestion that the US will leave Syria if Iran leaves, is nonsense, and what about Israel will they leave Syria if Iran leaves? I see this as a ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 16:31, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should pay attention to what he says, rather than who (we think) he is. We should demand our government withdraw. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> “...Moscow and Assad proclaim that they are willing to have international observers monitoring new elections. They may be betting on Assad’s victory in free presidential elections today in Syria, because the Assad regime is one bloc whereas the opposition is very much divided. The fact that the opposition is in shambles may give the Assad regime enough confidence to undergo such a scenario. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "However, for such a settlement to happen, an international agreement is necessary first. In the Moscow-sponsored Sochi talks, only Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syrian regime, and a discredited part of the Syrian opposition did participate. In the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, the United States and Europe are involved. I can’t see the US accepting an agreement that does not stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign troops that entered Syria after 2011. In other words, the US would say, “We are willing to leave Syria provided that Iranian forces leave it as well.” That’s why the US is currently sticking to the region east of the Euphrates. Washington’s message to the Russians is: “We will leave Syria to you if you get it rid of the Iranians, otherwise we won’t.” >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is my thoughts on the Achcar article, thank you Carl for posting it on FB: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Achcar is and was a war supporter. In this article he refers to the US having boots on the ground fighting ISIS since 2014. The US was not fighting ISIS, we were supporting them. Also, the US was in Syria covertly likely going back to 2011, when Achcar refers to Russians and Iranian involvement predating US. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any assumption that Moscow will agree with the US to insist on Iran leaving Syria is nonsense. The Russians are smarter than that, they know they need to support Iran vs. the US. Syria isn't just about the oil, its about containment of Russia, and Iran is what comes after destruction of Syria. So no matter what this guy has to say, he is obfuscating US imperialism. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The US wants partition, and plans to occupy permanently. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> His suggestions and prognostications are an attempt to make the US look good, and Russia, Iran look bad when they don’t compromise and give in to our demands. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:58, C G Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Morgenthau’s character was undoubtedly noble, but nobility doesn’t bestow infallibility (nor inversely, as perhaps in the case of Achcar), as I’m sure you admit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> An example: the recent presidential election raised the question of American exceptionalism. Was one candidate (DJT) veering toward isolationism? Or would he (like the other - HRC) proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can the matter be decided by determining which candidate was more noble? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aristotle asked, Would you rather have your sandals made by a good person, or a good cobbler? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ============[Chomsky]======================================== >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The [isolationism/exceptionalism] debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality ‘realist' school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a 'transcendent purpose' that it 'must defend and promote' throughout the world: 'the establishment of equality in freedom.’ The competing concepts ‘exceptionalism' and ‘isolationism' both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that is mere abuse of reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>> =================================================== >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 10 22:01:43 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:01:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Interesting article by Andre Vitchek, and American national Message-ID: Why the West cannot stomach Russians by Andre Vltchek / March 8th, 2018 When it comes to Russia or the Soviet Union, reports and historical accounts do get blurry; in the West they do, and consequently in all of its ‘client states’. Fairy tales get intermingled with reality, while fabrications are masterfully injected into the subconsciousness of billions of people worldwide. Russia is an enormous country, in fact, the largest country on Earth in terms of territory. It is scarcely inhabited. It is deep, and as a classic once wrote: “It is impossible to understand Russia with one’s brain. One could only believe in it.” The Western mind generally doesn’t like things unknown, spiritual and complex. Since the ‘old days’, especially since the crusades and monstrous colonialist expeditions to all corners of the world, the Westerners were told fables about their own “noble deeds” performed in the plundered lands. Everything had to be clear and simple: “Virtuous Europeans were civilizing savages and spreading Christianity, therefore, in fact, saving those dark poor primitive souls.” Of course, tens of millions were dying in the process, while further tens of millions were shackled and brought to the “New Worlds” as slaves. Gold, silver, and other loot, as well as slave labor had been (and still are) paying for all those European palaces, railroads, universities and theatres, but that did not matter, as the bloodshed was most of the time something abstract and far away from those over-sensitive eyes of the Western public. Westerners like simplicity, particularly when it comes to moral definitions of “good and evil”. It matters nothing if the truth gets systematically ‘massaged’, or even if the reality is fully fabricated. What matters is that there is no deep guilt and no soul-searching. Western rulers and their opinion makers know their people – their ‘subjects’ – perfectly well, and most of the time, they give them what they are asking for. The rulers and the reigned are generally living in symbiosis. They keep bitching about each other, but mostly they have similar goals: to live well, to live extremely well, as long as the others are forced to pay for it; with their riches, with their labor and often with their blood. Culturally, most of the citizens of Europe and North America hate to pay the bill for their high life; they even detest to admit that their life is extremely ‘high’. They like to feel like victims. They like to feel that they are ‘used’. They like to imagine that they are sacrificing themselves for the rest of the world. And, above all, they hate real victims: those they have been murdering, raping, plundering and insulting, for decades and centuries. Recent ‘refugee crises’ showed the spite Europeans feel for their prey. People who made them rich and who lost everything in the process are humiliated, despised and insulted. Be they Afghans or Africans, the Middle Easterners or South Asians. Or Russians, although Russians are falling to its own, unique category. ***** Many Russians look white. Most of them eat with knife and fork, they drink alcohol, excel at Western classical music, poetry, literature, science and philosophy. To Western eyes they look ‘normal’, but actually, they are not. Russians always want ‘something else’; they refuse to play by Western rules. They are stubbornly demanding to remain different, and to be left alone. When confronted, when attacked, they fight. They rarely strike first, almost never invade. But when threatened, when assaulted, they fight with tremendous determination and force, and they never lose. Villages and cities get converted into invader’s graves. Millions die while defending their Motherland, but the country survives. And it happens again and again and again, as the Western hordes have been, for centuries, assaulting and burning Russian lands, never learning the lesson and never giving up on their sinister dream of conquering and controlling that proud and determined colossus. In the West, they don’t like those who defend themselves, who fight against them, and especially those who win. ***** It gets much worse than that. Russia has this terrible habit… not only does it defend itself and its people, but it also fights for the others, protecting colonized and pillaged nations, as well as those that are unjustly assaulted. It saved the world from Nazism. It did it at a horrific price of 25 million men, women and children, but it did it; courageously, proudly and altruistically. The West never forgave the Soviet Union for this epic victory either, because all that is unselfish and self-sacrificing, is always in direct conflict with its own principles, and therefore ‘extremely dangerous’. The Russian people had risen; had fought and won in the 1917 Revolution; an event which terrified the West more than anything else in history, as it had attempted to create a fully egalitarian, classless and racially color-blind society. It also gave birth to Internationalism, an occurrence that I recently described in my book The Great October Socialist Revolution: Impact on the World and the Birth of Internationalism. Soviet Internationalism, right after the victory in WWII, helped greatly, directly and indirectly, dozens of countries on all continents, to stand up and to confront the European colonialism and the North American imperialism. The West, and especially Europe, never forgave the Soviet people in general and Russians in particular, for helping to liberate its slaves. That is when the greatest wave of propaganda in human history really began to roll. From London to New York, from Paris to Toronto, an elaborate web of anti-Soviet and covertly anti-Russian hysteria was unleashed with monstrously destructive force. Tens of thousands of ‘journalists’, intelligence officers, psychologists, historians, as well as academics, were employed. Nothing Soviet, nothing Russian (except those glorified and often ‘manufactured’ Russian dissidents) was spared. The excesses of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the pre-WWII era were systematically fabricated, exaggerated, and then engraved into the Western history textbooks and mass media narrative. In those tales, there was nothing about the vicious invasions and attacks coming from the West, aimed at destroying the young Bolshevik state. Naturally, there was no space for mentioning the British, French, U.S., Czech, Polish, Japanese, German and others’ monstrous cruelties. Soviet and Russian views were hardly ever allowed to penetrate the monolithic and one-sided Western propaganda narrative. Like obedient sheep, the Western public accepted the disinformation it was fed with. Eventually, many people living in the Western colonies and ‘client states’, did the same. A great number of colonized people were taught how to blame themselves for their misery. The most absurd but somehow logical occurrence then took place: many men, women and even children living in the USSR, succumbed to Western propaganda. Instead of trying to reform their imperfect but still greatly progressive country, they gave up, became cynical, aggressively ‘disillusioned’, corrupt and naively but staunchly pro-Western. ***** It was the first and most likely the last time in the history, Russia got defeated by the West. It happened through deceit, through shameless lies, through Western propaganda. What followed could be easily described as genocide. The Soviet Union was first lulled into Afghanistan, then it was mortally injured by the war there, by an arms race with the United States, and by the final stage of propaganda that was literally flowing like lava from various hostile Western state-sponsored radio stations. Of course, local ‘dissidents’ also played an important role. Under Gorbachev, a ‘useful idiot’ of the West, things got extremely bizarre. I don’t believe that he was paid to ruin his own country, but he did almost everything to run it into the ground; precisely what Washington wanted him to do. Then, in front of the entire world, a mighty and proud Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics suddenly shook in agony, then uttered a loud cry, and collapsed; died painfully but swiftly. A new turbo-capitalist, bandit, pro-oligarch and confusedly pro-Western Russia was born. Russia which was governed by an alcoholic Boris Yeltsin; a man loved and supported by Washington, London and other Western centers of power. It was a totally unnatural, sick Russia – cynical and compassionless, built with someone else’s ideas – Russia of Radio Liberty and Voice of America, of the BBC, of black marketers, of oligarchs and multi-national corporations. Is the West now daring to say that Russians are ‘interfering’ in something in Washington? Are they out of their minds? Washington and other Western capitals did not only ‘interfere’, they openly broke the Soviet Union into pieces and then they began kicking Russia which was at that point half-alive. Is it all forgotten, or is Western public again fully ‘unaware’ of what took place during those dark days? The West kept spitting at the impoverished and injured country, refused to honor international agreements and treaties. It offered no help. Multi-nationals were unleashed, and began ‘privatizing’ Russian state companies, basically stealing what was built by the sweat and blood of Soviet workers, during long decades. Interference? Let me repeat: it was direct intervention, invasion, a grab of resources, shameless theft! I want to read and write about it, but we don’t hear much about it, anymore, do we? Now we are told that Russia is paranoid, that its President is paranoid! With straight face, the West is lying; pretending that it has not been trying to murder Russia. Those years… Those pro-Western years when Russia became a semi-client state of the West, or call it a semi-colony! There was no mercy, no compassion coming from abroad. Many of those idiots – kitchen intellectuals from Moscow and provinces – suddenly woke up but it was too late. Many of them had suddenly nothing to eat. They got what they were told to ask for: their Western ‘freedom and democracy’, and Western-style capitalism or in summary: total collapse. I remember well how it was ‘then’. I began returning to Russia, horrified, working in Moscow, Tomsk, Novosibirsk, Leningrad. Academics from Akadem Gorodok outside Novosibirsk were selling their libraries in the bitter cold, in dark metro underpasses of Novosibirsk… Runs on the banks… Old retired people dying from hunger and cold behind massive doors of concrete blocks… unpaid salaries and starving miners, teachers… Russia under the deadly embrace of the West, for the first and hopefully last time! Russia whose life expectancy suddenly dropped to African Sub-Saharan levels. Russia humiliated, wild, in terrible pain. ***** But that nightmare did not last long. And what happened – those short but horrible years under both Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but above all under the Western diktat – will never be forgotten, not forgiven. Russians know perfectly well what they do not want, anymore! Russia stood up again. Huge, indignant and determined to live its own life, its own way. From an impoverished, humiliated and robbed nation, subservient to the West, the country evolved and within a few years, the free and independent Russia once again joined ranks of the most developed and powerful countries on Earth. And as before Gorbachev, Russia is once again able to help those nations which are under unjust and vicious attacks of the Western empire. A man who is leading this renaissance, President Vladimir Putin, is tough, but Russia is under great threat and so is the world – this is no time for weaklings. President Putin is not perfect (who is, really?), but he is a true patriot, and I dare say, an internationalist. Now the West, once again, hates both Russia and its leader. No wonder; undefeated, strong and free Russia is the worst imaginable foe of Washington and its lieutenants. That’s how the West feels, not Russia. Despite all that was done to it, despite tens of millions of lost and ruined lives, Russia has always been ready to compromise, even to forgive, if not forget. ***** There is something deeply pathological in the psyche of the West. It cannot accept anything less than full and unconditional submission. It has to control, to be in charge, and on top of everything; it has to feel exceptional. Even when it murders and ruins the entire Planet, it insists on feeling superior to the rest of the world. This faith in exceptionalism is the true Western religion, much more than even Christianity, which for decades has not really played any important role there. Exceptionalism is fanatical, it is fundamentalist and unquestionable. It also insists that its narrative is the only one available anywhere in the World. That the West is seen as a moral leader, as a beacon of progress, as the only competent judge and guru. Lies are piling on top of lies. As in all religions, the more absurd the pseudo-reality is, the more brutal and extreme are the methods used to uphold it. The more laughable the fabrications are, the more powerful the techniques used to suppress the truth are. Today, hundreds of thousands of ‘academics’, teachers, journalists, artists, psychologists and other highly paid professionals, in all parts of the world, are employed by the Empire, for two goals only – to glorify the Western narrative and to discredit all that is standing in its way; daring to challenge it. Russia is the most hated adversary of the West, with China, Russia’s close ally being near second. The propaganda war unleashed by the West is so insane, so intense, that even some of the European and North American citizens are beginning to question tales coming from Washington, London and elsewhere. Wherever one turns, there is a tremendous medley of lies, of semi-lies, half-truths; a complex and unnavigable swamp of conspiracy theories. Russia is being attacked for interfering in U.S. domestic affairs, for defending Syria, for standing by defenseless and intimidated nations, for having its own powerful media, for doping its athletes, for still being Communist, for not being socialist anymore; in brief: for everything imaginable and unimaginable. Criticism of the country is so thorough and ludicrous, that one begins to ask very legitimate questions: “what about the past? What about the Western narrative regarding the Soviet past, particularly the post-Revolutionary period, and the period between two world wars?” The more I analyze this present-day Western anti-Russian and anti-Chinese propaganda, the more determined I am to study and write about the Western narrative regarding Soviet history. I’m definitely planning to investigate these matters in the future, together with my friends – Russian and Ukrainian historians. ***** In the eyes of the West, Russians are ‘traitors’. Instead of joining the looters, they have been standing by the ‘wretched of the world’, in the past, as well as now. They refused to sell their Motherland, and to enslave their own people. Their government is doing all it can to make Russia self-sufficient, fully independent, prosperous, proud and free. Remember that ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and many other terms, mean totally different things in distinctive parts of the world. What is happening in the West could never be described as ‘freedom’ in Russia or in China, and vice versa. Frustrated, collapsing, atomized and egotistic societies of Europe and North America do not inspire even their own people anymore. They are escaping by millions annually, to Asia, Latin America, and even to Africa. Escaping from emptiness, meaninglessness and emotional cold. But it is not Russia’s or China’s business to tell them how to live or not to live! In the meantime, great cultures like Russia and China do not need, and do not want, to be told by the Westerners, what freedom is, and what democracy is. They do not attack the West, and expect the same in return. It is truly embarrassing that the countries responsible for hundreds of genocides, for hundreds of millions of murdered people on all continents, still dare to lecture others. Many victims are too scared to speak. Russia is not. It is composed, gracious, but fully determined to defend itself if necessary; itself as well as many other human beings living on this beautiful but deeply scarred Planet. Russian culture is enormous: from poetry and literature, to music, ballet, philosophy… Russian hearts are soft, they easily melt when approached with love and kindness. But when millions of lives of innocent people are threatened, both the hearts and muscles of Russians quickly turn to stone and steel. During such moments, when only victory could save the world, Russian fists are hard, and the same is true about the Russian armor. There is no match to Russian courage in the sadistic but cowardly West. Irreversibly, both hope and future are moving towards the east. And that is why Russia is desperately hated by the West. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 10 22:19:12 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:19:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Interesting article by Andre Vitchek, and American national In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: After WW2, CIA/DOD set up all the Soviet/Russian Research Centers around the country in order to churn out and credential Soviet/Russian experts to be used as anti-Soviet/Russian warmongering propagandists. There is a chapter on this in the book edited by Chomsky entitled The Cold War and the University. I spent ten years studying the Soviet Union and Russia at the University of Chicago and Harvard—two of the leading such centers in the country—up to and including passing my PHD General/Oral Exams in both Russian History and Soviet Politics, which qualified me to teach both subjects to undergrads at Harvard. I did not learn the language because that is not what I intended to do. I only had two professors who were fair, reasonable and balanced when it came to the Soviet Union/Russia. Hence all the anti-Russian warmongering we see today. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 4:02 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Interesting article by Andre Vitchek, and American national Why the West cannot stomach Russians by Andre Vltchek / March 8th, 2018 When it comes to Russia or the Soviet Union, reports and historical accounts do get blurry; in the West they do, and consequently in all of its ‘client states’. Fairy tales get intermingled with reality, while fabrications are masterfully injected into the subconsciousness of billions of people worldwide. Russia is an enormous country, in fact, the largest country on Earth in terms of territory. It is scarcely inhabited. It is deep, and as a classic once wrote: “It is impossible to understand Russia with one’s brain. One could only believe in it.” The Western mind generally doesn’t like things unknown, spiritual and complex. Since the ‘old days’, especially since the crusades and monstrous colonialist expeditions to all corners of the world, the Westerners were told fables about their own “noble deeds” performed in the plundered lands. Everything had to be clear and simple: “Virtuous Europeans were civilizing savages and spreading Christianity, therefore, in fact, saving those dark poor primitive souls.” Of course, tens of millions were dying in the process, while further tens of millions were shackled and brought to the “New Worlds” as slaves. Gold, silver, and other loot, as well as slave labor had been (and still are) paying for all those European palaces, railroads, universities and theatres, but that did not matter, as the bloodshed was most of the time something abstract and far away from those over-sensitive eyes of the Western public. Westerners like simplicity, particularly when it comes to moral definitions of “good and evil”. It matters nothing if the truth gets systematically ‘massaged’, or even if the reality is fully fabricated. What matters is that there is no deep guilt and no soul-searching. Western rulers and their opinion makers know their people – their ‘subjects’ – perfectly well, and most of the time, they give them what they are asking for. The rulers and the reigned are generally living in symbiosis. They keep bitching about each other, but mostly they have similar goals: to live well, to live extremely well, as long as the others are forced to pay for it; with their riches, with their labor and often with their blood. Culturally, most of the citizens of Europe and North America hate to pay the bill for their high life; they even detest to admit that their life is extremely ‘high’. They like to feel like victims. They like to feel that they are ‘used’. They like to imagine that they are sacrificing themselves for the rest of the world. And, above all, they hate real victims: those they have been murdering, raping, plundering and insulting, for decades and centuries. Recent ‘refugee crises’ showed the spite Europeans feel for their prey. People who made them rich and who lost everything in the process are humiliated, despised and insulted. Be they Afghans or Africans, the Middle Easterners or South Asians. Or Russians, although Russians are falling to its own, unique category. ***** Many Russians look white. Most of them eat with knife and fork, they drink alcohol, excel at Western classical music, poetry, literature, science and philosophy. To Western eyes they look ‘normal’, but actually, they are not. Russians always want ‘something else’; they refuse to play by Western rules. They are stubbornly demanding to remain different, and to be left alone. When confronted, when attacked, they fight. They rarely strike first, almost never invade. But when threatened, when assaulted, they fight with tremendous determination and force, and they never lose. Villages and cities get converted into invader’s graves. Millions die while defending their Motherland, but the country survives. And it happens again and again and again, as the Western hordes have been, for centuries, assaulting and burning Russian lands, never learning the lesson and never giving up on their sinister dream of conquering and controlling that proud and determined colossus. In the West, they don’t like those who defend themselves, who fight against them, and especially those who win. ***** It gets much worse than that. Russia has this terrible habit… not only does it defend itself and its people, but it also fights for the others, protecting colonized and pillaged nations, as well as those that are unjustly assaulted. It saved the world from Nazism. It did it at a horrific price of 25 million men, women and children, but it did it; courageously, proudly and altruistically. The West never forgave the Soviet Union for this epic victory either, because all that is unselfish and self-sacrificing, is always in direct conflict with its own principles, and therefore ‘extremely dangerous’. The Russian people had risen; had fought and won in the 1917 Revolution; an event which terrified the West more than anything else in history, as it had attempted to create a fully egalitarian, classless and racially color-blind society. It also gave birth to Internationalism, an occurrence that I recently described in my book The Great October Socialist Revolution: Impact on the World and the Birth of Internationalism. Soviet Internationalism, right after the victory in WWII, helped greatly, directly and indirectly, dozens of countries on all continents, to stand up and to confront the European colonialism and the North American imperialism. The West, and especially Europe, never forgave the Soviet people in general and Russians in particular, for helping to liberate its slaves. That is when the greatest wave of propaganda in human history really began to roll. From London to New York, from Paris to Toronto, an elaborate web of anti-Soviet and covertly anti-Russian hysteria was unleashed with monstrously destructive force. Tens of thousands of ‘journalists’, intelligence officers, psychologists, historians, as well as academics, were employed. Nothing Soviet, nothing Russian (except those glorified and often ‘manufactured’ Russian dissidents) was spared. The excesses of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the pre-WWII era were systematically fabricated, exaggerated, and then engraved into the Western history textbooks and mass media narrative. In those tales, there was nothing about the vicious invasions and attacks coming from the West, aimed at destroying the young Bolshevik state. Naturally, there was no space for mentioning the British, French, U.S., Czech, Polish, Japanese, German and others’ monstrous cruelties. Soviet and Russian views were hardly ever allowed to penetrate the monolithic and one-sided Western propaganda narrative. Like obedient sheep, the Western public accepted the disinformation it was fed with. Eventually, many people living in the Western colonies and ‘client states’, did the same. A great number of colonized people were taught how to blame themselves for their misery. The most absurd but somehow logical occurrence then took place: many men, women and even children living in the USSR, succumbed to Western propaganda. Instead of trying to reform their imperfect but still greatly progressive country, they gave up, became cynical, aggressively ‘disillusioned’, corrupt and naively but staunchly pro-Western. ***** It was the first and most likely the last time in the history, Russia got defeated by the West. It happened through deceit, through shameless lies, through Western propaganda. What followed could be easily described as genocide. The Soviet Union was first lulled into Afghanistan, then it was mortally injured by the war there, by an arms race with the United States, and by the final stage of propaganda that was literally flowing like lava from various hostile Western state-sponsored radio stations. Of course, local ‘dissidents’ also played an important role. Under Gorbachev, a ‘useful idiot’ of the West, things got extremely bizarre. I don’t believe that he was paid to ruin his own country, but he did almost everything to run it into the ground; precisely what Washington wanted him to do. Then, in front of the entire world, a mighty and proud Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics suddenly shook in agony, then uttered a loud cry, and collapsed; died painfully but swiftly. A new turbo-capitalist, bandit, pro-oligarch and confusedly pro-Western Russia was born. Russia which was governed by an alcoholic Boris Yeltsin; a man loved and supported by Washington, London and other Western centers of power. It was a totally unnatural, sick Russia – cynical and compassionless, built with someone else’s ideas – Russia of Radio Liberty and Voice of America, of the BBC, of black marketers, of oligarchs and multi-national corporations. Is the West now daring to say that Russians are ‘interfering’ in something in Washington? Are they out of their minds? Washington and other Western capitals did not only ‘interfere’, they openly broke the Soviet Union into pieces and then they began kicking Russia which was at that point half-alive. Is it all forgotten, or is Western public again fully ‘unaware’ of what took place during those dark days? The West kept spitting at the impoverished and injured country, refused to honor international agreements and treaties. It offered no help. Multi-nationals were unleashed, and began ‘privatizing’ Russian state companies, basically stealing what was built by the sweat and blood of Soviet workers, during long decades. Interference? Let me repeat: it was direct intervention, invasion, a grab of resources, shameless theft! I want to read and write about it, but we don’t hear much about it, anymore, do we? Now we are told that Russia is paranoid, that its President is paranoid! With straight face, the West is lying; pretending that it has not been trying to murder Russia. Those years… Those pro-Western years when Russia became a semi-client state of the West, or call it a semi-colony! There was no mercy, no compassion coming from abroad. Many of those idiots – kitchen intellectuals from Moscow and provinces – suddenly woke up but it was too late. Many of them had suddenly nothing to eat. They got what they were told to ask for: their Western ‘freedom and democracy’, and Western-style capitalism or in summary: total collapse. I remember well how it was ‘then’. I began returning to Russia, horrified, working in Moscow, Tomsk, Novosibirsk, Leningrad. Academics from Akadem Gorodok outside Novosibirsk were selling their libraries in the bitter cold, in dark metro underpasses of Novosibirsk… Runs on the banks… Old retired people dying from hunger and cold behind massive doors of concrete blocks… unpaid salaries and starving miners, teachers… Russia under the deadly embrace of the West, for the first and hopefully last time! Russia whose life expectancy suddenly dropped to African Sub-Saharan levels. Russia humiliated, wild, in terrible pain. ***** But that nightmare did not last long. And what happened – those short but horrible years under both Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but above all under the Western diktat – will never be forgotten, not forgiven. Russians know perfectly well what they do not want, anymore! Russia stood up again. Huge, indignant and determined to live its own life, its own way. From an impoverished, humiliated and robbed nation, subservient to the West, the country evolved and within a few years, the free and independent Russia once again joined ranks of the most developed and powerful countries on Earth. And as before Gorbachev, Russia is once again able to help those nations which are under unjust and vicious attacks of the Western empire. A man who is leading this renaissance, President Vladimir Putin, is tough, but Russia is under great threat and so is the world – this is no time for weaklings. President Putin is not perfect (who is, really?), but he is a true patriot, and I dare say, an internationalist. Now the West, once again, hates both Russia and its leader. No wonder; undefeated, strong and free Russia is the worst imaginable foe of Washington and its lieutenants. That’s how the West feels, not Russia. Despite all that was done to it, despite tens of millions of lost and ruined lives, Russia has always been ready to compromise, even to forgive, if not forget. ***** There is something deeply pathological in the psyche of the West. It cannot accept anything less than full and unconditional submission. It has to control, to be in charge, and on top of everything; it has to feel exceptional. Even when it murders and ruins the entire Planet, it insists on feeling superior to the rest of the world. This faith in exceptionalism is the true Western religion, much more than even Christianity, which for decades has not really played any important role there. Exceptionalism is fanatical, it is fundamentalist and unquestionable. It also insists that its narrative is the only one available anywhere in the World. That the West is seen as a moral leader, as a beacon of progress, as the only competent judge and guru. Lies are piling on top of lies. As in all religions, the more absurd the pseudo-reality is, the more brutal and extreme are the methods used to uphold it. The more laughable the fabrications are, the more powerful the techniques used to suppress the truth are. Today, hundreds of thousands of ‘academics’, teachers, journalists, artists, psychologists and other highly paid professionals, in all parts of the world, are employed by the Empire, for two goals only – to glorify the Western narrative and to discredit all that is standing in its way; daring to challenge it. Russia is the most hated adversary of the West, with China, Russia’s close ally being near second. The propaganda war unleashed by the West is so insane, so intense, that even some of the European and North American citizens are beginning to question tales coming from Washington, London and elsewhere. Wherever one turns, there is a tremendous medley of lies, of semi-lies, half-truths; a complex and unnavigable swamp of conspiracy theories. Russia is being attacked for interfering in U.S. domestic affairs, for defending Syria, for standing by defenseless and intimidated nations, for having its own powerful media, for doping its athletes, for still being Communist, for not being socialist anymore; in brief: for everything imaginable and unimaginable. Criticism of the country is so thorough and ludicrous, that one begins to ask very legitimate questions: “what about the past? What about the Western narrative regarding the Soviet past, particularly the post-Revolutionary period, and the period between two world wars?” The more I analyze this present-day Western anti-Russian and anti-Chinese propaganda, the more determined I am to study and write about the Western narrative regarding Soviet history. I’m definitely planning to investigate these matters in the future, together with my friends – Russian and Ukrainian historians. ***** In the eyes of the West, Russians are ‘traitors’. Instead of joining the looters, they have been standing by the ‘wretched of the world’, in the past, as well as now. They refused to sell their Motherland, and to enslave their own people. Their government is doing all it can to make Russia self-sufficient, fully independent, prosperous, proud and free. Remember that ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and many other terms, mean totally different things in distinctive parts of the world. What is happening in the West could never be described as ‘freedom’ in Russia or in China, and vice versa. Frustrated, collapsing, atomized and egotistic societies of Europe and North America do not inspire even their own people anymore. They are escaping by millions annually, to Asia, Latin America, and even to Africa. Escaping from emptiness, meaninglessness and emotional cold. But it is not Russia’s or China’s business to tell them how to live or not to live! In the meantime, great cultures like Russia and China do not need, and do not want, to be told by the Westerners, what freedom is, and what democracy is. They do not attack the West, and expect the same in return. It is truly embarrassing that the countries responsible for hundreds of genocides, for hundreds of millions of murdered people on all continents, still dare to lecture others. Many victims are too scared to speak. Russia is not. It is composed, gracious, but fully determined to defend itself if necessary; itself as well as many other human beings living on this beautiful but deeply scarred Planet. Russian culture is enormous: from poetry and literature, to music, ballet, philosophy… Russian hearts are soft, they easily melt when approached with love and kindness. But when millions of lives of innocent people are threatened, both the hearts and muscles of Russians quickly turn to stone and steel. During such moments, when only victory could save the world, Russian fists are hard, and the same is true about the Russian armor. There is no match to Russian courage in the sadistic but cowardly West. Irreversibly, both hope and future are moving towards the east. And that is why Russia is desperately hated by the West. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Mar 10 22:55:21 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 16:55:21 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Interesting article by Andre Vitchek, and American national In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Americans don't realize that this was the conscious policy of the Clinton administration (1993-2001). > …in front of the entire world, a mighty and proud Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics suddenly shook in agony, then uttered a loud cry, and collapsed; died painfully but swiftly. > > A new turbo-capitalist, bandit, pro-oligarch and confusedly pro-Western Russia was born. Russia which was governed by an alcoholic Boris Yeltsin; a man loved and supported by Washington, London and other Western centers of power. > > It was a totally unnatural, sick Russia – cynical and compassionless, built with someone else’s ideas – Russia of Radio Liberty and Voice of America, of the BBC, of black marketers, of oligarchs and multi-national corporations. > > Is the West now daring to say that Russians are ‘interfering’ in something in Washington? Are they out of their minds? > > Washington and other Western capitals did not only ‘interfere’, they openly broke the Soviet Union into pieces and then they began kicking Russia which was at that point half-alive. Is it all forgotten, or is Western public again fully ‘unaware’ of what took place during those dark days? > > The West kept spitting at the impoverished and injured country, refused to honor international agreements and treaties. It offered no help. Multi-nationals were unleashed, and began ‘privatizing’ Russian state companies, basically stealing what was built by the sweat and blood of Soviet workers, during long decades. > > Interference? Let me repeat: it was direct intervention, invasion, a grab of resources, shameless theft! I want to read and write about it, but we don’t hear much about it, anymore, do we? > > Now we are told that Russia is paranoid, that its President is paranoid! With straight face, the West is lying; pretending that it has not been trying to murder Russia. > > Those years… Those pro-Western years when Russia became a semi-client state of the West, or call it a semi-colony! There was no mercy, no compassion coming from abroad. Many of those idiots – kitchen intellectuals from Moscow and provinces – suddenly woke up but it was too late. Many of them had suddenly nothing to eat. They got what they were told to ask for: their Western ‘freedom and democracy’, and Western-style capitalism or in summary: total collapse. > > I remember well how it was ‘then’. I began returning to Russia, horrified, working in Moscow, Tomsk, Novosibirsk, Leningrad. Academics from Akadem Gorodok outside Novosibirsk were selling their libraries in the bitter cold, in dark metro underpasses of Novosibirsk… Runs on the banks… Old retired people dying from hunger and cold behind massive doors of concrete blocks… unpaid salaries and starving miners, teachers… > > Russia under the deadly embrace of the West, for the first and hopefully last time! Russia whose life expectancy suddenly dropped to African Sub-Saharan levels. Russia humiliated, wild, in terrible pain. > > ***** From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Mar 11 00:23:46 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 18:23:46 -0600 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE meeting, Sunday 11 March, at Hammerhead Coffee Message-ID: <1054D699-9B61-4823-BDBC-47B948AB49BC@illinois.edu> The regular Sunday evening meeting of AWARE will be held tomorrow, March 11, 5-6pm, at Hammerhead Coffee. 608 E University Avenue Corner of University & Wright - parking on North side Champaign, IL ​(217) 531-4795 ​ From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Mar 11 00:30:54 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 00:30:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Economics Message-ID: “Henry Ford wanted to discontinue dividends for shareholders, in order to increase investments in other plants so that the Ford Motor Company could dramatically grow the output of production, and increase employees, thereby decreasing costs and the prices of cars.” Does the above statement make sense? Is it accurate. It doesn’t make sense to me. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 11 04:22:40 2018 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 04:22:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Economics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1356885443.10981306.1520742160493@mail.yahoo.com> It makes sense if investing in plants increases productivity of workers, thus driving down the cost of the final product; i.e., it takes fewer worker hours to produce the car. But it assumes that workers won't demand higher wages. On ‎Saturday‎, ‎March‎ ‎10‎, ‎2018‎ ‎06‎:‎31‎:‎21‎ ‎PM‎ ‎CST, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: “Henry Ford wanted to discontinue dividends for shareholders, in order to increase investments in other plants so that the Ford Motor Company could dramatically grow the output of production, and increase employees, thereby decreasing costs and the prices of cars.” Does the above statement make sense? Is it accurate. It doesn’t make sense to me._______________________________________________ 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 Mar 11 15:21:42 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 15:21:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Interesting discussion between Chris Hedges and Anthony Arnove, in relation to Clara Zetkin and fascism. Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/420964-fascism-discussion-activism-fight/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sun Mar 11 23:43:07 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 18:43:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Actions -- Fwd: Tell Jeanne Shaheen & Todd Young: Stop Starving Yemeni Children In-Reply-To: <4184618800.2003865020@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> References: <4184618800.2003865020@org.orgDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: We talked about this at tonight's AWARE meeting.   AWARE members and supporters, here are two specific things to do this week:    Follow Just Foreign Policy's advice -- see below.   Urge Jeanne Shaheen and Todd Young to withdraw their own bill and allow the *Sanders/Lee/Murphy* bill, ending US support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, to be voted on.   Shaheen and Young's bill would leave a giant loophole - it would allow US support for that war to continue.    Urge our*Senator Tammy Duckworth* to publicly support the Sanders/Lee/Murphy bill, too.   Sen. Durbin already has done so (explains Don McClure), but Duckworth hasn't taken a position, as far as we've heard. Contact information:    Just Foreign Policy's petition -- press Sens. Shaheen and Young to withdraw their ineffective, competing bill -->          https://www.change.org/p/senatorshaheen-and-sentoddyoung-stop-starving-yemeni-children       Sen. Tammy Duckworth -- ask her to support theSanders/Lee/Murphy Sen. Joint Res. 54,     "to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress"   (and you can ask her to oppose the competing S J Res 55, too)         (202) 224-2854 And, along with Just Foreign Policy's petition, you could also contact Sens. Shaheen and Young about their bill directly:    Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) -- ask her to *withdraw* Sen. Joint Res. 55 :         (202) 224-2841    Sen. Todd Young (R-Indiana) -- ask him to *withdraw* Sen. Joint Res. 55:         (202) 224-5623      -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Tell Jeanne Shaheen & Todd Young: Stop Starving Yemeni Children Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 17:48:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Just Foreign Policy Reply-To: info at justforeignpolicy.org To: stuartnlevy at gmail.com Just Foreign Policy Just Foreign Policy Dear Stuart, *Tell Jeanne Shaheen & Todd Young not to sabotage the vote on ending the war.   Sign the petition   * We expect a roll call floor vote soon in the Senate on the *Sanders-Lee-Murphy* bill [SJRes54] to end U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. *Ending U.S. participation will end the war*, and *save millions of Yemenis* now living on the brink of famine as a *direct and deliberate* result of the *U.S.-backed Saudi war* and the *U.S.-backed Saudi blockade* of food, medicine, and fuel from entering Yemen. *But now come the Washington dirty tricks* to try to protect the Saudi princes and allow their war crimes in Yemen to continue. *Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire* and *Republican Senator Todd Young of Indiana* are conspiring with Republican leader Mitch McConnell to sabotage the vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. They are threatening to try to substitute another bill that would *allow U.S. participation in the war to continue* /in place of/ the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill to end the war.  The Young-Shaheen bill would allow U.S. participation in Saudi Arabia's war to continue if Secretary of State Rex Tillerson certifies to Congress that the Government of Saudi Arabia is undertaking "(1) an urgent and good faith effort to conduct diplomatic negotiations to end the civil war in Yemen; and (2) appropriate measures to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Yemen by increasing access for all Yemenis to food, fuel, and medicine." *Rex Tillerson works for Donald Trump*. Donald Trump is "/tizein bilbass/" with Saudi dictator Mohammed bin Salman - "two butts in the same pair of underwear," as the Arabic saying goes. *Mohammed bin Salman is the chief architect of the Saudi war in Yemen*. Donald Trump's employee Rex Tillerson will make the Young-Shaheen certification faster than you can say, "Saudi oil money" - */even if the Saudi government doesn't do a single thing differently in the future than they have in the past/*.   A vote for the Young-Shaheen bill would be a vote to /*continue U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen for another year exactly as it is today*/. A vote for the Young-Shaheen bill would be a vote to /*continue starving Yemeni children to death for another year exactly as they are being starved to death today*/.  *Press Jeanne Shaheen and Todd Young to withdraw their bill and withdraw their threat to sabotage our vote - so that Yemeni children may live - by signing our petition . * Thanks for taking action, and thanks for all you do to help make U.S. foreign policy more just, Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy  *If you think our work is important, please support us with an $18 donation.* http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate Please support our work. Donate for a Just Foreign Policy © 2018 Just Foreign Policy Click here to unsubscribe empowered by Salsa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 16:18:41 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 11:18:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] This is what Clinton said in 1999, before attacking Yugoslavia Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/usa/421068-us-haley-syria-un/ From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 12 16:23:27 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:23:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left Part 1 Message-ID: I highly recommend listening to the debate on the Real News, with Aaron Mate, Rania Khalek and Yasser Munif, however posted below is the dialog for those who prefer to read it. [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/fblikefp.png] [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/twfollowfp.png] [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/subfp.png] NO ADVERTISING, GOVERNMENT OR CORPORATE FUNDING DONATE TODAY * Home * Special Programs * Member Benefits * About Us * Contact Us * Jobs * Log In * Subscribe to our Newsletter HOT TOPICS ▶ Climate Change Undoing The New Deal The Real Baltimore Reality Asserts Itself United Kingdom ________________________________ March 12, 2018 Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left In a complex proxy war that has killed so many, where should leftists and people of conscience stand? Independent journalist Rania Khalek and scholar Yasser Munif debate the ongoing siege of Eastern Ghouta and the wider Syrian war ________________________________ Full Episode Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/panel0309syria-thumb.jpg] Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/panel0309syriapt2-thumb.jpg] Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left (2/2) [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/video_page_banner.png] ________________________________ audio [Share to Facebook] [Share to Twitter] [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/webml_share.png] [http://therealnews.com/t2/images/donate_btn.png] TRNN is a rare source of objective facts, analysis and commentary, not available in mainstream news. - Robert Log in and tell us why you support TRNN ________________________________ biography Rania Khalek is an independent journalist and co-host of the weekly podcast Unauthorized Disclosure. Her work has appeared at The Nation, FAIR, Vice, The Intercept, Alternet, Salon, The Electronic Intifada, Al Jazeera and more. Yasser Munif Assistant Professor of Sociology in the Institute for Liberal Arts and Interdisciplinary Studies at Emerson College. He is the co-founder of the Global Campaign of Solidarity for the Syrian Revolution. ________________________________ transcript [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/panel0309syria-240.jpg]AARON MATÉ It's the Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. An international aid convoy has reached the besieged Syrian suburb of Eastern Ghouta for the first time in days. Aid was suspended earlier this week amid an ongoing bombardment by Syria and Russia, which seeks to reclaim Eastern Ghouta from militant groups. Doctors Without Borders says the Syrian-Russian assault has killed more than 1,000 people. At the UN, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, denounced the Syrian and Russian bombardment. ZEID RA’AD AL HUSSEIN: To justify indiscriminate brutal attacks on hundreds of thousands of civilians by the need to combat a few hundred fighters, as in Eastern Ghouta, are legally and morally unsustainable. Also, when you are prepared to kill your own people, lying is easy, too. Claims by the government of Syria that it is taking every measure to protect its civilian population are frankly ridiculous. AARON MATÉ: Well, for our discussion on Eastern Ghouta and the wider Syrian War, I am joined by two guests. Yasser Munif is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Emerson College and co-founder of the Global Campaign of Solidarity for the Syrian Revolution. Rania Khalek is an independent journalist and co-host of the podcast Unauthorized Disclosure. Welcome to you both. Let me just say by way of introduction that you are both people on the left with very different views of the Syrian conflict, and given that this issue of Syria has really been polarizing on the left, I really appreciate this opportunity for a dialogue. Rania, you just wrote a piece for RT this week called Syria War: What the Mainstream Media Isn't Telling You About Eastern Ghouta. Explain. RANIA KHALEK: Well, the western press is generally presenting Eastern Ghouta as a place that is being bombarded just by the Syrian government. It's a one sided war, and you just don't hear the whole story. Yes, Eastern Ghouta is being bombarded by the Syrian government, but it's not a one sided war. Eastern Ghouta is under the control of a collection of Salafi jihadist groups, among them Jaysh al-Islam, Faylaq al-Rahman, Ahrar Al-Sham, and there's some elements of Harakat Ahrar al-Sham, which is the newest name for the Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. These groups are based in different neighborhoods in Eastern Ghouta and they have been firing and shelling civilians in Damascus for years. And civilians in Damascus have been dying as a result of this. You don't hear about these victims ever really in the western press because it just doesn't go with the western mainstream narrative about what's taking place in Syria, but the fact of the matter is, that what's taking place right now, which is in escalation, a very brutal military escalation of eastern Ghouta, there's a context behind it. And that context is that the United States and its allies in the region spent billions of dollars arming and funding a collection of jihadist groups inside Syria, a right wing armed insurgency that collapsed the state and large parts of Syria and led to a very brutal war that we've been watching play out for the past several years, but people never hear about the role that the west has played. AARON MATÉ: What about the argument that we just heard there from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, that fighting a few hundred fighters in this besieged suburb doesn't justify this intense bombardment that has killed so many people? RANIA KHALEK: Well, there's a couple things there. First of all, it's not just a few hundred fighters. Second of all, this isn't about trying to justify the military means that are being used to take back these areas. But there does need to be, we need to put some context to this and that is that back in August, Faylaq al-Rahman actually signed in Geneva a ceasefire agreement that went into effect for a few months with the Russians, and then they violated that agreement in December by participating in suicide attacks against Syrian government installations. That actually broke the agreement with Eastern Ghouta and actually led to the escalation and violence that we see now. On top of that, there's also a lot of pressure on the government from people in Damascus to do something about these groups because for the past several years, they've been firing at people in Damascus on a daily basis and the people there have had enough. They're very angry about it. That's what's led to the escalation of violence here. And frankly, the international community hasn't really done much to try to deescalate the violence because they haven't been really participating in any sort of attempts to put in place reconciliation agreements. On top of that, the international community, particularly the west, has played a huge role in creating the conditions that started this in the first place by arming and funding these groups inside Syria to begin with. Let's remember the ideologies of these groups. What are they fighting for? They are fighting to impose an Islamic State. They are Salafi jihadist groups that are no different in their rhetoric and in their intentions than the Islamic State, the ISIS, and they also participate openly with Al-Qaeda. And so, that needs to be taken into consideration, as well. They are also firing on civilians who are trying to leave. This in no way justifies again the military assault of the government, but we do need to put some context into place here because this is not a one sided fight. And I would also argue that it's not that different than what we saw take place in Iraq, to try and route ISIS from various Iraqi cities. The Iraqi government, a sovereign government, fought with the same military tactics, in fact, to get rid of ISIS in the areas that they took over. Again, I don't agree with all those tactics, but the Syrian government really is doing no different, yet it's placed under this level of scrutiny that you just didn't see happen in the Iraqi case. AARON MATÉ: I should clarify that according to the Associated Press, the number of fighters in Eastern Ghouta is about 20,000, and the figure of a few hundred refers specifically to the number of Al-Qaeda linked fighters. Yasser Munif, if you could respond to what we just heard from Rania Khalek. She says that it was the militants actually in Eastern Ghouta whose rejection of ceasefire efforts have led to this conflict now, and also that what we're seeing is not that much different from than, for example, the US bombarding Mosul to dislodge the Islamic State. YASSER MUNIF: I think this narrative is very disturbing. I mean, Rania starts by saying, "I'm not justifying the Syrian regime or the Russian bombardment of the region of Eastern Ghouta," but then justifies throughout. I mean, what's happening in Eastern Ghouta right now is mass bombing and mass killing of a population that is unable to defend itself, that has been besieged since 2012, that is being starved. I mean, people have been living on 400 calories a day for several years now. And it seems that the blame is put on the people who are inside of Ghouta. I mean, she adds also context. I think that the context that should be added is that the violence of the Syrian regime didn't really start in 2011. The violence of the Syrian regime started in 1970 with the coup in 1970 of the father, and so on, and the installation of a security apparatus and the building of a military institution that harshly basically crushed any political opposition and closed any political spaces in Syria, tortured any opponent, exiled most of the political parties and people, and tortured thousands of people, and killed many, as well. I mean, that's the general context, which shouldn't confuse and put some kind of moral equivalency between the people who are besieged in Eastern Ghouta and the violence of the Syrian regime and the Russian and the Iranian and Hezbollah, whom are also very sectarian. I agree with her that there are sectarians among the opposition, but the Shia sectarianism is as powerful as the Sunni. The militia that are coming from Iraq are very violent and sectarian, the Iranian are very violent and sectarian. They have been funding the Syrian regime since 2011 and the Russians have been also supporting and funded the Syrian regime. So, this idea of foreign intervention that is backing the opposition is very surreal and one sided, according to Rania. AARON MATÉ: Yasser, let me put to you a clip from Joe Biden that I think that captures what I find puzzling about the Syrian war, which is what the Syrian government was supposed to do in response to the role that outside players that are trying to overthrow it have played. I mean, no one can justify cracking down on peaceful protesters, but what happens when it becomes a proxy war. On this front, I want to play what Joe Biden said in 2014 about what the US allies in the Gulf did in Syria. JOE BIDEN: Our biggest problem is our allies. Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria. The Turks were great friends and I have a great relationship with Erdoğan, which I just spent a lot of time with. The Saudis, the Emirates, etc. What were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except that the people who were being supplied were Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda, and the extremist elements of jihadists coming from other parts of the world. AARON MATÉ: That's Joe Biden speaking in 2014, so yeah. What about that? Does the Syrian government have the right to fight those forces, especially the jihadist forces, who are not just a threat to the Syrian government, but also especially to minorities like Christians and Jews and Shiites inside Syria? YASSER MUNIF: I mean, the Syrian conflict is very complex and I think one of the dangers of the narrative described by Rania and others is this very reductive kind of...kind of binary, where there is only the west and Europe and the intervention on the one hand, and then the Syrian regime. When in fact, it's a very complex conflict. And I think the most important element is the Syrian Revolution, the grassroots movement, the popular revolt against the Syrian regime that a part of what happened in 2011 that is an aspiration for democracy and freedom and dignity. And there are many dimensions to that conflict. I think the way I view it is there is a popular uprising, a revolution in Syria that started in 2011 and that revolution has been countered by several reactionary forces, including the Syrian regime and its allies, the ISIS and Al-Qaeda and its allies, and the western leadership... and it's very unfortunate to see some of the left, I don't know if it's considered still the left, siding with the Assad regime or trying to be silent or denying that the violence of the Syrian regime, when, in fact, we should do whatever is possible to support the Syrian Revolution against this multiple reactionary forces. AARON MATÉ: Rania Khalek, a lot there to respond to, including that if one's criticizing the opposition today, then you're denying the agency of the protesters who rose up in 2011. RANIA KHALEK: Well, Yasser made a lot of claims that I actually want to respond to and I'll start with this. I think he's presenting a very dishonest narrative about the uprising in 2011 and I think that we should be honest about this. It's now 2018 and presenting this sort of romanticized version of this utopian beautiful secular leftist uprising that was crushed is just not accurate. Yes, there were people who participating in protests in Syria who had secular ideals and leftist ideals and wanted more freedoms and more democracy. That's absolutely true. There were also, though, and we should be honest about this, there was also some elements of the uprising that was sectarian and Islamist in nature and have very bad intentions and were calling for very bad things. And there was also some component of the uprising that were and there were clashes from the beginning. So, it's not simplistic perfect leftist uprising versus mean evil government. That's first. Second, Yasser mentioned the intervention of Russia and Iran and Hezbollah. He's right. Russian, Iran and Hezbollah did intervene in Syria. However, the reason that emphasize so much more on US intervention is two reasons. First, we're speaking to an American audience and they haven't been told the honest truth about what the US has done in Syria. That's first and foremost. Secondly, the intention of these interventions matter. The Iranian, Russian, and Hezbollah intervention in Syria was at the behest of the Syrian government. The sovereign government of Syria called on its allies to come help it prevent state collapse because that is what Syria was facing. It was facing state collapse and when the state collapsed, armed insurgent groups made up of Salafi jihadi fighters, many of whom were foreign fighters, by the way, took over those areas. So, they were there to help restore order and help keep Syria from collapsing and turning into Libya. From the US side, though, US intervention was not there to prevent state collapse. US intervention was armed and funding an insurgency that was actually leading to state collapse, and it was leading to the rise of a failed state across much of Syria, which by the way, was then filled by thousands of foreign fighters coming in to the Turkish border, which the US practically encouraged because they thought it would force the regime to make concessions, which of course, it didn't. Then after that, ISIS came in a lot of those areas and took over some of those areas and started kidnapping westerners and the Qataris ended up paying millions of dollars for the release of these westerners, basically giving ISIS the startup funding it needed to consolidate its fighters in Raqqa and in the east of Syria and ultimately invading Iraq and taking over a third of Iraq. That is what US intervention led to. As a result, you had the brutality of ISIS and a massive influx and flow of refugees into Europe leading to the rise of right wing politicians across Europe and, ultimately, you could even say the election of Donald Trump because he used the refugee crisis and the brutality of ISIS to fear monger and he campaigned on that and won over that. So, we have to think about the causes and consequences of this war and those are the consequences of US intervention that are never discussed and talked about and that is why it's so important to focus on US intervention. As for the last point I want to make, just one more point about the issue of Shia sectarianism versus Sunni sectarianism. You're comparing Hezbollah, groups like Hezbollah and Iran to Salafi jihadist groups. In my opinion, there's absolutely no comparison whatsoever because Salafi jihadist groups impose Saudi Arabia style laws on people, they kill minorities, they subject women to second class gender status. I don't see the same thing happening when Hezbollah comes into an area. I don't see them killing minorities. That's just not happening. Nobody wants to live under Salafi jihadi groups and, in fact, Iran and Hezbollah have played a major role protecting and saving people in the region from ISIS, including Sunnis, by the way, including Sunnis, saving Sunnis from ISIS, as well, who were working alongside Hezbollah and Iranian linked groups. I think he's presenting a completely false narrative that does not in any way comport with what's happening on the ground here. AARON MATÉ: Before I get a response from Yasser Munif, Rania, let me ask you, because you were talking about causes. Before the US intervention, before the proxy war flares up, is it fair to say that if Assad had just responded in a legitimate way to the protesters' demands, so those protesters who were demanding reforms, not even regime change back then, and not chosen to crush them so brutally, that he could have avoided all this? RANIA KHALEK: I actually don't think he could have. I'm not saying the Syrian government had a good response. They responded very stupidly and very brutally, and I'm not in any way justifying that, and Yasser can say as much as he wants that justifying all these things I'm not, but I apparently have to take add these qualifications to my statement. No. I don't think they could have prevented this because from the very outset, you did have certain elements, particularly elements connected to the Muslim Brotherhood that were demanding that Assad step down from the beginning. And they continued to demand that and then he released prisoners, political prisoners at the behest of protesters, he released many, many political prisoners, and they were continuing to say that's not enough, he needs to step down. So, there was elements and components. Yes, there were people calling for reform and not calling for regime change, but there were elements calling for regime change and those are the elements that were being backed and funded by the US and its allies in the region. I mean, you have a government that I don't think there's really anything the Syrian government could have done to avoid this when you have the most powerful governments in the world funding an armed insurgency, a right wing armed insurgency inside your country. It's kind of inevitable that it's going to descend into lawless chaos the way that it did. And I actually want to add one more thing about US intervention in Syria. It's actually illegal under international law to fund an insurgency inside another country. That was a ruling that was decided by the International Court of Justice over, it was in a ruling of Nicaragua vs. the United States basically stating it was illegal and violated Nicaraguan sovereignty for the US to fund the Contras in that country. That's very, very similar to what the US did in Syria. Again, it's very important that leftists understand what the US did in Syria, and that is to fund a right wing fascistic insurgency that is completely illegal and very, very similar to the sort of death squads the US funded in Central America in the 1980s. AARON MATÉ: That's going to wrap part one of this discussion between Rania Khalek and Yasser Munif on Eastern Ghouta and the Syrian War. Join us in part two. AARON MATÉ: This is part two on Eastern Ghouta and the Syrian War. My guests are Yasser Munif of Emerson College and the co-founder of the global campaign of solidarity for the Syrian revolution. Also joined by Rania Khalek, independent journalist, co-host of the podcast Unauthorized Disclosure. Now, she's speaking to us from Beirut, so her connection at times might be a little bit choppy. Yasser Munif, a lot that I respond to, let me ask you first, I mean. in a war where there's sort of no good side, what Rania says there raises a question for me, which is that, on the one side you have this authoritarian ruler, really repressive, versus a foreign funded right wing Islamist militants who pose a threat especially to minorities who are threatening to overtake Damascus. Is the authoritarian repressive ruler, which at least is the sovereign government, and there's some form of state structure, is that not preferable to the foreign backed militants? YASSER MUNIF: No, I don't think so. I mean, I don't agree with that international relation kind of language and state sovereignty. I think that's really not very relevant, to me, at least as electives. I think that the Syrian regime lost its sovereignty and that we should, instead, look at the sovereignty of the people and the popular uprising. So, in that sense, I don't think that the Syrian regime is... It doesn't have any right to invite any foreign force to fight on either side, whether that's the Iranian or the Russian because it's a brutal and genocidal regime. But I wanted to respond to this idea of the people’s protest. I mean, I was in Syria. First of all, I lived in Syria for many years. I don’t Rania did. I witnessed the brutality of the Syrian regime before 2011, and it's the way that it crushed the leftist forces and the secular forces. So, this idea of the beginning of the protest, was not secular or leftist, I mean, show me a country in the Arab world where the left and secular forces are powerful and represent the masses. They don't exist, for a simple reason, because the Arab dictatorship crushed them very early on and funded the Islamist forces. When the Syrian regime crushed the Muslim Brotherhood in 1980, they founded the... that later on became the...force. I mean, it's very convenient to start history from 9/11, but that's not how history or society works. I think it's a very truncated and simplistic version of history that Rania's presenting. I mean, where is the less powerful in the entire world? In the US, or in Europe? Why is she expecting a powerful left in the Arab world or in Syria? I think that's a very orientalist and islamaphobic version of history. I went to demonstrations in Syria. There were thousands of people protesting and some of them were Islamist. Muslims have the right to dignity and freedom and democracy like anyone else. I think Rania's narrative is very similar to some of the right wing and fascistic narratives about Muslims and Islamists, confusing and complicating all these different categories, in a convenient way to make it easy to equate Muslim people, who are pious to the Jihadist, to ISIS, to Al-Qaeda. So, if we want to really understand why the left doesn't exist in the Arab world, we should understand the brutality of the Syrian regime and Arab dictatorship. The Arab dictatorships really prevented any emergence for political spaces or the functioning of any political party in an independent way. We have to remember that Syria was almost a democratic country, with multiple parties in the 1950's and I urge her to go and read about that. There were tens of political parties in the 1950's, there were hundreds of publications, independent publications, and when the Ba'ath came to power in 1963, they crushed all that. It built a security apparatus, and different branches of the security and the military to crush all that political culture, and Leftist them and secularism. And then, blaming the people of Syria for that, is really bewildering and absurd. AARON MATÉ: ...sorry, go ahead. Finish your thought. YASSER MUNIF: I think that the entity to be blamed is the Syrian regime and it's brutality and dictatorship. AARON MATÉ: Alright, let me go to Rania Khalek for a response. RANIA KHALEK: I mean, it's just really stunning, you're completely erasing the consequences of US intervention in Syria. You are having an argument with the Syrian regime. I'm not the Syrian regime. I am talking about US intervention and you completely erase it. What is the preferable alternative? Currently, as we speak. Do you believe that the Al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria, and the FSA groups that fought alongside ISIS and Al-Qaeda, are those preferable alternatives? Because that is the reality on the ground. What is the preferable alternative, as it stands right now, to what exists in Syria? Which is, yes, a very flawed system. But a system that isn't genocidal, like these extremist groups that are the alternative. The alternative is the black... flying over Syria. And before you do answer that, I just want to say, that there is something that the left should support in Syria and that is de-escalation of violence. And the rhetoric that Yasser is using, the blaming everything on the Syrian regime and signing statements that call for intervention as he has done, lead to one thing and that is a furthering and a prolonging of the violence. Our goal should be ending this war. And unfortunately, that means that you have to accept the fact, that the state stays intact and retakes control of areas. But the state, in my opinion, retaking control of areas and being able to have law and order in Syria, is a far better outcome than a bunch of armed insurgent criminal gangs, as they've behaved, as criminal gangs, being in charge of different areas, and using civilians as hostages, and holding them hostage to their whims, and imposing awful Right wing ideologies on them. That is where stand on that issue and there are things that can be done, that are being done to de-escalate the violence in Syria. And that includes reconciliation agreements with the government. Yes, the world should do something in Syria. What it should do, is it should be encouraging the armed groups to pursue reconciliation agreements with the government, under international supervision, that includes amnesties and a gradual process of handing over their weapons back. And re-integrating these areas into the state. And I've seen this. I've visited parts of Syria, where these reconciliation agreements have been put into place, where people have put down their weapons and stayed and received amnesty. And where others have decided to leave and go live with their weapons and continue fighting. But in these areas people have been able to return, displaced people have been able to return and life has been able to go back to some semblance of normality that is better than what has existed for the past seven years. That is what we should be looking towards doing. Trying to make places safer for people. Not looking for ways that we can overthrow government and leave it to the people of Syria to deal with reconstructing the government and the areas that have been crushed. I just don't think the US has any place in Syria after what it's done the last seven years. AARON MATÉ: Yasser Munif, if you could respond to that. That point that, in continuing to encourage a continued battle, we're denying peace to all those Syrian residents who have returned to government controlled areas. I just saw pictures of masses of people in Aleppo, which was the site of such horrible fighting, a few years ago, going to a big public garden. If we continue to call for intervention and continue conflict, are we denying them the right to live in peace? YASSER MUNIF: I mean, the left has no business choosing between a brutal, genocidal Syrian regime and Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The situation is much more complex than that. We don't have to defend or choose between either/or. This kind of binary that some of the left has created is very disturbing, and very violent, and justifies the violence of the Syrian regime. There is a Syrian revolution in Syria and that's what we need to support. RANIA KHALEK: Where, where? I'm sorry, where? Yasser, where? Can you tell me where, tell me where this revolution is? Where is it? Where is this revolution? What is the alternative to the Syrian government? Right now, I want to know where. Who can I, as a Leftist in America, who should I be supporting? Where? Give me the name of a group, an organization. Where? YASSER MUNIF: I could conveniently ask the same question in Palestine. Where is the Palestinian resistance and revolution? And yet it exists and we know that it exists. It's not in the mainstream media, it's not. RANIA KHALEK: No, but you can't compare Palestinian, you can't compare it to Palestine! Palestine is not the equivalent of Syria. It's not. In Palestine, you have people fighting a settler, colonial government, a settler, colonial system that's stealing their land, in Syria you have armed Jihadist groups, armed by outsiders, by foreigners, that have been destroying the country the last seven years. And you refuse to even admit or talk about, you papering over that as if it's not an issue as if people haven't been killed by these groups. As if people haven't been chased out of Syria by these groups. You're acting as if they don't exist, and it's not a big deal, what the US did isn't a big deal. ISIS and Al-Qaeda aren't a big deal. AARON MATÉ: Alright, let's - RANIA KHALEK: I don't understand, what is the alternative? AARON MATÉ: Let's let Yasser respond. Alright, go ahead. YASSER MUNIF: I was in Syria, in the opposition and the government region. In the government's region, if you are stopped at a checkpoint, you can be easily killed if you have medical devices. Going through these areas. In Manbij, where I was, we were able to protest against ISIS, before it became a major force in 2014. So, I don't think it's very productive to compare even those very brutal and criminal factions, ISIS and Al-Qaeda and the Syrian regime. The reason why we have the political Islam and the Jihadist, and Islamists in Syria, is due to the brutality of the dictatorship in Syria that has been going on for forty years. That prevented any kind of political discussion or the emergence of any political alternative, besides radical Islam. Syrian regime, as I said, has been funding Salafism for the kids. That's what we're getting now. The Salafist... AARON MATÉ: Yeah, so let me ask you. On this question of alternatives. So, right now, in Idlib province, you have what the US calls the largest Al-Qaeda safe-haven since 9/11. So, if not Al-Qaeda and not the Syrian government, who is there to control that region? YASSER MUNIF: I think that we have to really think about the complexity of the region and try to prevent talking about very simplistic kinds of scenario or narrative. The situation is not simple in Syria. And so, the left has to produce that kind of complex narrative about Syria. It's complex because there are multiple actors intervening in Syria. There is the West, that would prefer Assadism without Assad. And there is Iran and Russia, that prefer to have Assad in power because they have been supporting him and they know that he is their guy. There is not really a major difference between the West and the Russian and Iran on that matter. One wants Assad without Assadism and the other wants Assad with Assadism. And the left has to produce another solution than that, meaning that you have to look at the corrective movements that do exist... and the popular counsel that do exist, and the resistance tableau that do exist, and have been resisting the Syrian regime and it's violence for seven years now. There are thousands of voices that are speaking about those grassroots movements and grassroots narrative. It's important that we listen to them, and not dismiss them. AARON MATÉ: Alright, so we have to wrap, so let's go to final comments. One minute each. Rania, you go first. RANIA KHALEK: Well, I want to use this to actually respond to the idea that somehow the dictatorships of the region are completely responsible for developing Jihadism in the region. I actually hold the West responsible for a large portion of that, West, with its allied Saudi Arabia, for spreading that ideology across the region. Salafi Jihadism is something that's foreign to Syria. Syria has a very secular, progressive minded population than some of the other countries in the Middle East. So, it's a very foreign element there and to the issue of accusing me and some of the left of Orientalism, for being against Salafi Jihadist groups and ideas, there is a very good reason to. These groups are racist and sectarian. We're not talking about the US context where people are Islamophobic if they think Muslims are coming to take over. But in the Middle East you really do have Salafi Jihadi problem that threatens people for secular, that threatens people even for religious beliefs, who just don't happen to be on the side of Al-Qaeda. That severely threatens minorities like Christians, and Druzes, and Shi'a populations and wants to commit genocide against them. People in the Middle East actually have something to fear from these groups. So, it is not Orientalist to suggest that there is an Al-Qaeda threat. And it's not Orientalist or Islamophobic to be anti-Al-Qaeda, to be anti-ISIS, and to be anti-Salafi-Jihadism. That's the most absurd argument I've ever heard. I think at the end of the day, what our priority should be, in Syria is de-escalating the violence as I mentioned before and also as Americans to understand what our government has done, and to be be against that sort of intervention in the region. Enough with these regime change operations that keep bringing more chaos, and more destabilization, and more lawlessness and state collapse to the region that's causing all this suffering. Enough with that. That should be, as Americans, our first priority. At the very least, we should be able to agree on that. AARON MATÉ: Alright, Yasser Munif, you're final comments as we wrap. RANIA KHALEK: I think that what Rania presented is really Orientalist. I mean, in this narrative of the binary, either/or, either them or us is coming from the Bush playbook. I mean, the idea that the Syrian regime is better than Al-Qaeda and ISIS is really disturbing. And presenting that image to the US audience is very disturbing. I come from Syria, I lived in Syria and Iraq for a long time, I care about Syria, I have family in Syria. I have friends who were killed by the Syrian regime in Syria and I think it's very important to really talk about the complexity. That's the duty of the left, and we don't really have the luxury of choosing between ISIS and Al-Qaeda and the Syrian regime. We have to RANIA KHALEK: I'm sorry, I have to - YASSER MUNIF: The complex narrative - RANIA KHALEK: Yasser, I just want to, Yasser, I just ask you something. On that one point, where you're saying that ISIS, you can't compare, that they're the same, or something, or that the Syrian regime is worse. What do you tell people like me? I'm a woman, I'm an Arab woman from a minority sect background. Do you really believe that for someone like me, ISIS and the Syrian regime living under those two things is no different? YASSER MUNIF: What do you say about the thousands of women who are tortured and killed and raped in the Syrian prison? What about those people? And again, this is again an Orientalist image of the Syrian regime. I don't want to really choose between either/or. I don't think we have the luxury of choosing between either/or, as an Arab and as a Syrian. We have to develop a full-circle project that concerns this binary, that is opposed to Western intervention, to dictatorship, and to Islamist Salafi forces. That narrative is not easy to develop, but that's what we should fight for and that's what we should look for in Syria. AARON MATÉ: Alright, we'll leave it there for now, but hopefully we'll continue this dialogue in the future. I want to thank you, both of you for engaging in it. Yasser Munif is an assistant professor of sociology at Emerson College, co-founder of the Global Campaign of Solidarity for the Syrian Revolution. And Rania Khalek, independent journalist, co-host of the podcast Unauthorized Disclosure. Thank you. YASSER MUNIF: Thank you. RANIA KHALEK: Thank you. AARON MATÉ: And thank you for joining us, on The Real News. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 17:46:12 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:46:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Eschew fascism Message-ID: <71F04898-EA6C-4B29-BAE7-6F0C2F7E807C@gmail.com> “Fascism” isn’t much of analytic category these days - it doesn’t indicate an agreed-on list of policies or practices. No one (with minor exceptions) says, “I’m a fascist." It’s used as a term of abuse against one's opponents. (Who’s the bigger fascist, Clinton or Trump?) I think it should be avoided altogether today. People do say, “I’m on the Left,” or “I’m on the Right,” and it’s important to ask them what they mean. And I think ‘populism' is worth recovering as an analytic category (and not a term of abuse), not easily translated as 'left' or 'right.’ In "Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy" (2008), Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice.” Recent examples include the Iranian demonstrators, the Trump campaign, the Sanders campaign, Brexit, the Le Pen and Mélenchon campaigns, the Five Star and Lega campaigns (in Italy), and the AfD (in Germany)… Only by establishment convention are these movements 'right-wing,' which normally means support for the wealthy. But populism supports the opponents of wealth. The US political establishment (the major party organizations, the ‘intelligence community,’ the leading media [NYT, WaPo et al.] and their pundits) understands this, as their sneers at ‘populism’ shows… I think we should talk about populism, and perhaps avoid the term ‘fascism’ - and they certainly shouldn’t be used as synonyms. —CGE From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 17:46:12 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:46:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Eschew fascism Message-ID: <71F04898-EA6C-4B29-BAE7-6F0C2F7E807C@gmail.com> “Fascism” isn’t much of analytic category these days - it doesn’t indicate an agreed-on list of policies or practices. No one (with minor exceptions) says, “I’m a fascist." It’s used as a term of abuse against one's opponents. (Who’s the bigger fascist, Clinton or Trump?) I think it should be avoided altogether today. People do say, “I’m on the Left,” or “I’m on the Right,” and it’s important to ask them what they mean. And I think ‘populism' is worth recovering as an analytic category (and not a term of abuse), not easily translated as 'left' or 'right.’ In "Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy" (2008), Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice.” Recent examples include the Iranian demonstrators, the Trump campaign, the Sanders campaign, Brexit, the Le Pen and Mélenchon campaigns, the Five Star and Lega campaigns (in Italy), and the AfD (in Germany)… Only by establishment convention are these movements 'right-wing,' which normally means support for the wealthy. But populism supports the opponents of wealth. The US political establishment (the major party organizations, the ‘intelligence community,’ the leading media [NYT, WaPo et al.] and their pundits) understands this, as their sneers at ‘populism’ shows… I think we should talk about populism, and perhaps avoid the term ‘fascism’ - and they certainly shouldn’t be used as synonyms. —CGE From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 12 18:44:13 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:44:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Part 2 of the Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left on The Real News Message-ID: [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/fblikefp.png] [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/twfollowfp.png] [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/subfp.png] NO ADVERTISING, GOVERNMENT OR CORPORATE FUNDING DONATE TODAY * Home * Special Programs * Member Benefits * About Us * Contact Us * Jobs * Log In * Subscribe to our Newsletter HOT TOPICS ▶ Climate Change Undoing The New Deal The Real Baltimore Reality Asserts Itself United Kingdom ________________________________ March 12, 2018 Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left (2/2) In a complex proxy war that has killed so many, where should leftists and people of conscience stand? In the second part of their discussion, independent journalist Rania Khalek and scholar Yasser Munif debate the ongoing siege of Eastern Ghouta and the wider Syrian war ________________________________ Full Episode Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/panel0309syria-thumb.jpg] Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/panel0309syriapt2-thumb.jpg] Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left (2/2) [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/video_page_banner.png] ________________________________ audio [Share to Facebook] [Share to Twitter] [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/webml_share.png] [http://therealnews.com/t2/images/donate_btn.png] TRNN is a rare source of objective facts, analysis and commentary, not available in mainstream news. - Robert Log in and tell us why you support TRNN ________________________________ biography Rania Khalek is an independent journalist and co-host of the weekly podcast Unauthorized Disclosure. Her work has appeared at The Nation, FAIR, Vice, The Intercept, Alternet, Salon, The Electronic Intifada, Al Jazeera and more. Yasser Munif Assistant Professor of Sociology in the Institute for Liberal Arts and Interdisciplinary Studies at Emerson College. He is the co-founder of the Global Campaign of Solidarity for the Syrian Revolution. ________________________________ transcript [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/panel0309syriapt2-240.jpg]AARON MATÉ: This is part two on Eastern Ghouta and the Syrian War. My guests are Yasser Munif of Emerson College and the co-founder of the global campaign of solidarity for the Syrian revolution. Also joined by Rania Khalek, independent journalist, co-host of the podcast Unauthorized Disclosure. Now, she's speaking to us from Beirut, so her connection at times might be a little bit choppy. Yasser Munif, a lot that I respond to, let me ask you first, I mean. in a war where there's sort of no good side, what Rania says there raises a question for me, which is that, on the one side you have this authoritarian ruler, really repressive, versus a foreign funded right wing Islamist militants who pose a threat especially to minorities who are threatening to overtake Damascus. Is the authoritarian repressive ruler, which at least is the sovereign government, and there's some form of state structure, is that not preferable to the foreign backed militants? YASSER MUNIF: No, I don't think so. I mean, I don't agree with that international relation kind of language and state sovereignty. I think that's really not very relevant, to me, at least as electives. I think that the Syrian regime lost its sovereignty and that we should, instead, look at the sovereignty of the people and the popular uprising. So, in that sense, I don't think that the Syrian regime is... It doesn't have any right to invite any foreign force to fight on either side, whether that's the Iranian or the Russian because it's a brutal and genocidal regime. But I wanted to respond to this idea of the people’s protest. I mean, I was in Syria. First of all, I lived in Syria for many years. I don’t Rania did. I witnessed the brutality of the Syrian regime before 2011, and it's the way that it crushed the leftist forces and the secular forces. So, this idea of the beginning of the protest, was not secular or leftist, I mean, show me a country in the Arab world where the left and secular forces are powerful and represent the masses. They don't exist, for a simple reason, because the Arab dictatorship crushed them very early on and funded the Islamist forces. When the Syrian regime crushed the Muslim Brotherhood in 1980, they founded the... that later on became the...force. I mean, it's very convenient to start history from 9/11, but that's not how history or society works. I think it's a very truncated and simplistic version of history that Rania's presenting. I mean, where is the less powerful in the entire world? In the US, or in Europe? Why is she expecting a powerful left in the Arab world or in Syria? I think that's a very orientalist and islamaphobic version of history. I went to demonstrations in Syria. There were thousands of people protesting and some of them were Islamist. Muslims have the right to dignity and freedom and democracy like anyone else. I think Rania's narrative is very similar to some of the right wing and fascistic narratives about Muslims and Islamists, confusing and complicating all these different categories, in a convenient way to make it easy to equate Muslim people, who are pious to the Jihadist, to ISIS, to Al-Qaeda. So, if we want to really understand why the left doesn't exist in the Arab world, we should understand the brutality of the Syrian regime and Arab dictatorship. The Arab dictatorships really prevented any emergence for political spaces or the functioning of any political party in an independent way. We have to remember that Syria was almost a democratic country, with multiple parties in the 1950's and I urge her to go and read about that. There were tens of political parties in the 1950's, there were hundreds of publications, independent publications, and when the Ba'ath came to power in 1963, they crushed all that. It built a security apparatus, and different branches of the security and the military to crush all that political culture, and Leftist them and secularism. And then, blaming the people of Syria for that, is really bewildering and absurd. AARON MATÉ: ...sorry, go ahead. Finish your thought. YASSER MUNIF: I think that the entity to be blamed is the Syrian regime and it's brutality and dictatorship. AARON MATÉ: Alright, let me go to Rania Khalek for a response. RANIA KHALEK: I mean, it's just really stunning, you're completely erasing the consequences of US intervention in Syria. You are having an argument with the Syrian regime. I'm not the Syrian regime. I am talking about US intervention and you completely erase it. What is the preferable alternative? Currently, as we speak. Do you believe that the Al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria, and the FSA groups that fought alongside ISIS and Al-Qaeda, are those preferable alternatives? Because that is the reality on the ground. What is the preferable alternative, as it stands right now, to what exists in Syria? Which is, yes, a very flawed system. But a system that isn't genocidal, like these extremist groups that are the alternative. The alternative is the black... flying over Syria. And before you do answer that, I just want to say, that there is something that the left should support in Syria and that is de-escalation of violence. And the rhetoric that Yasser is using, the blaming everything on the Syrian regime and signing statements that call for intervention as he has done, lead to one thing and that is a furthering and a prolonging of the violence. Our goal should be ending this war. And unfortunately, that means that you have to accept the fact, that the state stays intact and retakes control of areas. But the state, in my opinion, retaking control of areas and being able to have law and order in Syria, is a far better outcome than a bunch of armed insurgent criminal gangs, as they've behaved, as criminal gangs, being in charge of different areas, and using civilians as hostages, and holding them hostage to their whims, and imposing awful Right wing ideologies on them. That is where stand on that issue and there are things that can be done, that are being done to de-escalate the violence in Syria. And that includes reconciliation agreements with the government. Yes, the world should do something in Syria. What it should do, is it should be encouraging the armed groups to pursue reconciliation agreements with the government, under international supervision, that includes amnesties and a gradual process of handing over their weapons back. And re-integrating these areas into the state. And I've seen this. I've visited parts of Syria, where these reconciliation agreements have been put into place, where people have put down their weapons and stayed and received amnesty. And where others have decided to leave and go live with their weapons and continue fighting. But in these areas people have been able to return, displaced people have been able to return and life has been able to go back to some semblance of normality that is better than what has existed for the past seven years. That is what we should be looking towards doing. Trying to make places safer for people. Not looking for ways that we can overthrow government and leave it to the people of Syria to deal with reconstructing the government and the areas that have been crushed. I just don't think the US has any place in Syria after what it's done the last seven years. AARON MATÉ: Yasser Munif, if you could respond to that. That point that, in continuing to encourage a continued battle, we're denying peace to all those Syrian residents who have returned to government controlled areas. I just saw pictures of masses of people in Aleppo, which was the site of such horrible fighting, a few years ago, going to a big public garden. If we continue to call for intervention and continue conflict, are we denying them the right to live in peace? YASSER MUNIF: I mean, the left has no business choosing between a brutal, genocidal Syrian regime and Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The situation is much more complex than that. We don't have to defend or choose between either/or. This kind of binary that some of the left has created is very disturbing, and very violent, and justifies the violence of the Syrian regime. There is a Syrian revolution in Syria and that's what we need to support. RANIA KHALEK: Where, where? I'm sorry, where? Yasser, where? Can you tell me where, tell me where this revolution is? Where is it? Where is this revolution? What is the alternative to the Syrian government? Right now, I want to know where. Who can I, as a Leftist in America, who should I be supporting? Where? Give me the name of a group, an organization. Where? YASSER MUNIF: I could conveniently ask the same question in Palestine. Where is the Palestinian resistance and revolution? And yet it exists and we know that it exists. It's not in the mainstream media, it's not. RANIA KHALEK: No, but you can't compare Palestinian, you can't compare it to Palestine! Palestine is not the equivalent of Syria. It's not. In Palestine, you have people fighting a settler, colonial government, a settler, colonial system that's stealing their land, in Syria you have armed Jihadist groups, armed by outsiders, by foreigners, that have been destroying the country the last seven years. And you refuse to even admit or talk about, you papering over that as if it's not an issue as if people haven't been killed by these groups. As if people haven't been chased out of Syria by these groups. You're acting as if they don't exist, and it's not a big deal, what the US did isn't a big deal. ISIS and Al-Qaeda aren't a big deal. AARON MATÉ: Alright, let's - RANIA KHALEK: I don't understand, what is the alternative? AARON MATÉ: Let's let Yasser respond. Alright, go ahead. YASSER MUNIF: I was in Syria, in the opposition and the government region. In the government's region, if you are stopped at a checkpoint, you can be easily killed if you have medical devices. Going through these areas. In Manbij, where I was, we were able to protest against ISIS, before it became a major force in 2014. So, I don't think it's very productive to compare even those very brutal and criminal factions, ISIS and Al-Qaeda and the Syrian regime. The reason why we have the political Islam and the Jihadist, and Islamists in Syria, is due to the brutality of the dictatorship in Syria that has been going on for forty years. That prevented any kind of political discussion or the emergence of any political alternative, besides radical Islam. Syrian regime, as I said, has been funding Salafism for the kids. That's what we're getting now. The Salafist... AARON MATÉ: Yeah, so let me ask you. On this question of alternatives. So, right now, in Idlib province, you have what the US calls the largest Al-Qaeda safe-haven since 9/11. So, if not Al-Qaeda and not the Syrian government, who is there to control that region? YASSER MUNIF: I think that we have to really think about the complexity of the region and try to prevent talking about very simplistic kinds of scenario or narrative. The situation is not simple in Syria. And so, the left has to produce that kind of complex narrative about Syria. It's complex because there are multiple actors intervening in Syria. There is the West, that would prefer Assadism without Assad. And there is Iran and Russia, that prefer to have Assad in power because they have been supporting him and they know that he is their guy. There is not really a major difference between the West and the Russian and Iran on that matter. One wants Assad without Assadism and the other wants Assad with Assadism. And the left has to produce another solution than that, meaning that you have to look at the corrective movements that do exist... and the popular counsel that do exist, and the resistance tableau that do exist, and have been resisting the Syrian regime and it's violence for seven years now. There are thousands of voices that are speaking about those grassroots movements and grassroots narrative. It's important that we listen to them, and not dismiss them. AARON MATÉ: Alright, so we have to wrap, so let's go to final comments. One minute each. Rania, you go first. RANIA KHALEK: Well, I want to use this to actually respond to the idea that somehow the dictatorships of the region are completely responsible for developing Jihadism in the region. I actually hold the West responsible for a large portion of that, West, with its allied Saudi Arabia, for spreading that ideology across the region. Salafi Jihadism is something that's foreign to Syria. Syria has a very secular, progressive minded population than some of the other countries in the Middle East. So, it's a very foreign element there and to the issue of accusing me and some of the left of Orientalism, for being against Salafi Jihadist groups and ideas, there is a very good reason to. These groups are racist and sectarian. We're not talking about the US context where people are Islamophobic if they think Muslims are coming to take over. But in the Middle East you really do have Salafi Jihadi problem that threatens people for secular, that threatens people even for religious beliefs, who just don't happen to be on the side of Al-Qaeda. That severely threatens minorities like Christians, and Druzes, and Shi'a populations and wants to commit genocide against them. People in the Middle East actually have something to fear from these groups. So, it is not Orientalist to suggest that there is an Al-Qaeda threat. And it's not Orientalist or Islamophobic to be anti-Al-Qaeda, to be anti-ISIS, and to be anti-Salafi-Jihadism. That's the most absurd argument I've ever heard. I think at the end of the day, what our priority should be, in Syria is de-escalating the violence as I mentioned before and also as Americans to understand what our government has done, and to be be against that sort of intervention in the region. Enough with these regime change operations that keep bringing more chaos, and more destabilization, and more lawlessness and state collapse to the region that's causing all this suffering. Enough with that. That should be, as Americans, our first priority. At the very least, we should be able to agree on that. AARON MATÉ: Alright, Yasser Munif, you're final comments as we wrap. RANIA KHALEK: I think that what Rania presented is really Orientalist. I mean, in this narrative of the binary, either/or, either them or us is coming from the Bush playbook. I mean, the idea that the Syrian regime is better than Al-Qaeda and ISIS is really disturbing. And presenting that image to the US audience is very disturbing. I come from Syria, I lived in Syria and Iraq for a long time, I care about Syria, I have family in Syria. I have friends who were killed by the Syrian regime in Syria and I think it's very important to really talk about the complexity. That's the duty of the left, and we don't really have the luxury of choosing between ISIS and Al-Qaeda and the Syrian regime. We have to RANIA KHALEK: I'm sorry, I have to - YASSER MUNIF: The complex narrative - RANIA KHALEK: Yasser, I just want to, Yasser, I just ask you something. On that one point, where you're saying that ISIS, you can't compare, that they're the same, or something, or that the Syrian regime is worse. What do you tell people like me? I'm a woman, I'm an Arab woman from a minority sect background. Do you really believe that for someone like me, ISIS and the Syrian regime living under those two things is no different? YASSER MUNIF: What do you say about the thousands of women who are tortured and killed and raped in the Syrian prison? What about those people? And again, this is again an Orientalist image of the Syrian regime. I don't want to really choose between either/or. I don't think we have the luxury of choosing between either/or, as an Arab and as a Syrian. We have to develop a full-circle project that concerns this binary, that is opposed to Western intervention, to dictatorship, and to Islamist Salafi forces. That narrative is not easy to develop, but that's what we should fight for and that's what we should look for in Syria. AARON MATÉ: Alright, we'll leave it there for now, but hopefully we'll continue this dialogue in the future. I want to thank you, both of you for engaging in it. Yasser Munif is an assistant professor of sociology at Emerson College, co-founder of the Global Campaign of Solidarity for the Syrian Revolution. And Rania Khalek, independent journalist, co-host of the podcast Unauthorized Disclosure. Thank you. YASSER MUNIF: Thank you. RANIA KHALEK: Thank you. AARON MATÉ: And thank you for joining us, on The Real News. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 12 19:15:28 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:15:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Eschew fascism In-Reply-To: <71F04898-EA6C-4B29-BAE7-6F0C2F7E807C@gmail.com> References: <71F04898-EA6C-4B29-BAE7-6F0C2F7E807C@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with your first three statements, especially the defining of left vs right given neoliberals are defined as “left” which is actually “left of center” vs. “right of center.” None the less, we have to accept that language is changing, based upon usage. Fascism is the term used when the state uses “militarism” to control the population. The militarization of our police, now places us in a “fascist state.” If some do not agree, I suggest they look at African American communities, where the police arrest, incarcerate, shoot, and or kill, with impunity. One is jailed for lack of funds to pay fines, one is jailed for the most trivial of offenses. I see that as fascism. When people have no recourse or justice, in a land where the homeless are shunted or bused out of the cities, to experience worse poverty, where property can be confiscated by police with out just cause, when peaceful protestors can be arrested, I see that as a fascist state. I will read Clara Zetkins book, and look deeper into that which Andre Arnove refers to as fascism and “concern in reference to fascism in Europe.” If he is referring to US interference in the Ukraine, which gave rise to a neo nazi, fascist government, then yes, that is something of which we as Americans should be concerned. However, I fear USG military intervention, using fascism as a pretext. As to populist, yes it did mean, and still does, working on behalf of the people to oppose the elites, unfortunately when referring to our two Party system, it is to be sneered at, given they both represent the elites, just as most established political parties in Europe, using populism as a means of positioning themselves as representing the people, when they in fact, usually represent the elites, or a faction thereof. > On Mar 12, 2018, at 10:46, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > “Fascism” isn’t much of analytic category these days - it doesn’t indicate an agreed-on list of policies or practices. No one (with minor exceptions) says, “I’m a fascist." > > It’s used as a term of abuse against one's opponents. (Who’s the bigger fascist, Clinton or Trump?) I think it should be avoided altogether today. > > People do say, “I’m on the Left,” or “I’m on the Right,” and it’s important to ask them what they mean. > > And I think ‘populism' is worth recovering as an analytic category (and not a term of abuse), not easily translated as 'left' or 'right.’ > > In "Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy" (2008), Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice.” > > Recent examples include the Iranian demonstrators, the Trump campaign, the Sanders campaign, Brexit, the Le Pen and Mélenchon campaigns, the Five Star and Lega campaigns (in Italy), and the AfD (in Germany)… > > Only by establishment convention are these movements 'right-wing,' which normally means support for the wealthy. But populism supports the opponents of wealth. > > The US political establishment (the major party organizations, the ‘intelligence community,’ the leading media [NYT, WaPo et al.] and their pundits) understands this, as their sneers at ‘populism’ shows… > > I think we should talk about populism, and perhaps avoid the term ‘fascism’ - and they certainly shouldn’t be used as synonyms. —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Mar 13 15:54:23 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:54:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Criminalization of Immigrants by Aviva Chomsky Message-ID: * Archive * Authors * Books * Press * About * Contact * Support Us Tomgram: Aviva Chomsky, The Fight Over the Criminalization of Immigrants Posted by Aviva Chomsky at 7:41am, March 13, 2018. Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch. Email Print [Note for TomDispatch Readers: Just a reminder that a signed, personalized copy of James Carroll's moving new novel, The Cloister, his vivid retelling of the medieval love story of Abelard and Héloïse, set against the grim backdrop of the Crusades, is still available to any TomDispatch reader willing to donate $100 to this website ($125 if you live outside the United States). Check out Carroll's recent TD piece on our modern version of the Crusades, then think about getting yourself a superb book to read and, while you're at it, helping TDstay afloat in a crazed world. Go to our donation page for the details. Tom] Forget Emma Lazarus’s poetry and the Statue of Liberty; you really don’t want to be an immigrant in today’s America. As Dara Lind recently pointed out at Vox, being an immigrant or the child of one (even if you're a U.S. citizen) now means living in a “miasma of fear.” That’s the conclusion of two recent studies of immigrants of every sort, including those who are permanent residents and their children. And who could be surprised in an American world in which, from Donald Trump’s future wall on the border with Mexico to Attorney General Jeff Session’s court assault on California’s immigration policies, the very idea of being an immigrant has been transformed into a vision of crime, gangs, drugs, and that biggest bugaboo of all in our era, terrorists? Since Trump’s first day in the presidential race in June 2015 when he denounced Mexican immigrants as “rapists,” he and his associates have never let up. Demonizing the very idea of immigration, at least from “shithole countries,” which turn out to be just about anyplace not run by white people, has been the order of the day. As in Europe, so here, the new right-wing populism has engorged itself on a diet of immigrants, refugees, and Islamist terror. And in a world that’s coming increasingly unglued, particularly under the pressure of Washington’s never-ending war on terror across much of the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, we’ve undoubtedly had only a taste of what’s still to come. We already know from figures released last year by the U.N. refugee agency that in 2016 there were an estimated 65.6 million displaced people on this planet, almost 23 million of them refugees (that is, people who had actually crossed at least one international border), startling numbers of them children. Those figures haven’t been matched since the end of World War II. And that’s just a beginning, given those that, in the decades to come, are likely to be uprooted by the ravages of climate change (and the droughts, rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and potential wars that will be associated with it). One U.N. estimate suggests that, by 2050, up to a quarter of a billion people may be displaced by its effects and such figures could prove underestimates. As Todd Miller has written, “By 2050, 10% percent of all Mexicans between 15 and 65 might be heading north, thanks to rising temperatures, droughts, and floods.” So, as a subject, immigration is likely to be alive and well in 2050, by which time god knows where the present criminalization of the immigrant will have gone. That's why it’s so important to talk a little sense when it comes to the overheating world of the American immigrant, as TomDispatch regular Aviva Chomsky, author of Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal, does today. Tom Talking Sense About Immigration Rejecting the President’s Manichaean Worldview By Aviva Chomsky The immigration debate seems to have gone crazy. President Obama’s widely popular Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which offered some 750,000 young immigrants brought to the United States as children a temporary reprieve from deportation, is ending... except it isn’t... except it is... President Trump claims to support it but ordered its halt, while both Republicans and Democrats insist that they want to preserve it and blame each other for its impending demise. (Meanwhile, the Supreme Court recently stepped in to allow DACA recipients to renew their status at least for now.) On a single day in mid-February, the Senate rejected no less than four immigration bills. These ranged from a narrow proposal to punish sanctuary cities that placed limits on local police collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials to major overhauls of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act that established the current system of immigration quotas (with preferences for “family reunification”). And add in one more thing: virtually everyone in the political sphere is now tailoring his or her pronouncements and votes to political opportunism rather than the real issues at hand. Politicians and commentators who once denounced “illegal immigration,” insisting that people “do it the right way,” are now advocating stripping legal status from many who possess it and drastically cutting even legalized immigration. These days, the hearts of conservative Republicans, otherwise promoting programs for plutocrats, are bleeding for low-wage workers whose livelihoods, they claim (quite incorrectly), are being undermined by competition from immigrants. Meanwhile, Chicago Democrat Luis Gutiérrez -- a rare, reliably pro-immigrant voice in Congress -- recently swore that, when it came to Trump’s much-touted wall on the Mexican border, he was ready to “take a bucket, take bricks, and start building it myself... We will dirty our hands in order for the Dreamers to have a clean future in America.” While in Gutiérrez’s neck of the woods, favoring Dreamers may seem politically expedient, giving in to Trump's wall would result in far more than just dirty hands, buckets, and bricks, and the congressman knows that quite well. The significant fortifications already in place on the U.S.-Mexican border have already contributed to the deaths of thousands of migrants, to the increasing militarization of the region, to a dramatic rise of paramilitary drug- and human-smuggling gangs, and to a rise in violent lawlessness on both sides of the border. Add to that a 2,000-mile concrete wall or some combination of walls, fences, bolstered border patrols, and the latest in technology and you’re not just talking about some benign waste of money in return for hanging on to the DACA kids. In the swirl of all this, the demands of immigrant rights organizations for a “clean Dream Act” that would genuinely protect DACA recipients without giving in to Trump’s many anti-immigration demands have come to seem increasingly unrealistic. No matter that they hold the only morally coherent position in town -- and a broadly popular one nationally as well -- DACA's congressional backers seem to have already conceded defeat. Good Guys and Bad Guys It won’t surprise you, I’m sure, to learn that Donald Trump portrays the world in a strikingly black-and-white way when it comes to immigration (and so much else). He emphasizes the violent criminal nature of immigrants and the undocumented, repeatedly highlighting and falsely generalizing from relatively rare cases in which one of them committed a violent crime like the San Francisco killing of Kate Steinle. His sweeping references to “foreign bad guys” and “shithole countries” suggest that he applies the same set of judgments to the international arena. Under Trump’s auspices, the agency in charge of applying the law to immigrants, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has taken the concept of criminality to new heights in order to justify expanded priorities for deportation. Now, an actual criminal conviction is no longer necessary. An individual with “pending criminal charges” or simply a “known gang member” has also become an ICE “priority.” In other words, a fear-inspiring accusation or even rumor is all that’s needed to deem an immigrant a “criminal.” And such attitudes are making their way ever deeper into this society. I’ve seen it at Salem State University, the college where I teach. In a recent memo explaining why he opposes giving the school sanctuary-campus status, the chief of campus police insisted that his force must remain authorized to report students to ICE when there are cases of “bad actors... street gang participation... drug trafficking... even absent a warrant or other judicial order.” In other words, due process be damned, the police, any police, can determine guilt as they wish. And this tendency toward such a Trumpian Manichaean worldview, now being used to justify the growth of what can only be called an incipient police state, is so strong that it’s even infiltrated the thinking of some of the president’s immigration opponents. Take “chain migration,” an obscure concept previously used mainly by sociologists and historians to describe nineteenth and twentieth century global migration patterns. The president has, of course, made it his epithet du jour. Because the president spoke of “chain migration” in such a derogatory way, anti-Trump liberals immediately assumed that the phrase was inherently insulting. MSNBC correspondent Joy Reid typically charged that “the president is saying that the only bill he will approve of must end what they call ‘chain migration’ which is actually a term we in the media should just not use! Because quite frankly it’s not a real thing, it’s a made up term... [and] so offensive! It’s shocking to me that we’re just adopting it wholesale because [White House adviser] Stephen Miller wants to call it that... [The term should be] family migration.” Similarly, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand claimed that “when someone uses the phrase chain migration... it is intentional in trying to demonize families, literally trying to demonize families, and make it a racist slur.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi agreed: “Look what they're doing with family unification, making up a fake name, chain. Chain, they like the word ‘chain.’ That sends tremors through people.” But chain migration is not the same as family reunification. Chain migration is a term used by academics to explain how people tended to migrate from their home communities using pre-existing networks. Examples would include the great migration of African Americans from the rural south to the urban north and west, the migrations of rural Appalachians to Midwestern industrial cities, waves of European migration to the United States at the turn of the last century, as well as contemporary migration from Latin America and Asia. A single individual or a small group, possibly recruited through a state-sponsored system or by an employer, or simply knowing of employment opportunities in a particular area, sometimes making use of a new rail line or steamship or air route, would venture forth, opening up new horizons. Once in a new region or land, such immigrants directly or indirectly recruited friends, acquaintances, and family members. Soon enough, there were growing links -- hence that “chain” -- between the original rural or urban communities where such people lived and distant cities. Financial remittances began to flow back; return migration (or simply visits to the old homeland) took place; letters about the new world arrived; and sometimes new technologies solidified ongoing ties, impelling yet more streams of migrants. That’s the chain in chain migration and, despite the president and his supporters, there’s nothing offensive about it. Family reunification, on the other hand, was a specific part of this country’s 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which imposed quotas globally. These were then distributed through a priority system that privileged the close relatives of immigrants who had already become permanent residents or U.S. citizens. Family reunification opened paths for those who had family members in the United States (though in countries where the urge to migrate was high, the waiting list could be decades long). In the process, however, it made legal migration virtually impossible for those without such ties. There was no “line” for them to wait in. Like DACA and Temporary Protected Status (TPS), the two programs that President Trump is now working so assiduously to dismantle, family reunification has been beneficial to those in a position to take advantage of it, even if it excluded far more people than it helped. [http://www.tomdispatch.com/images/managed/shadows_mccoy.jpg]Why does this matter? As a start, at a moment when political posturing and “fake news” are becoming the norm, it’s important that the immigrant rights movement remain accurate and on solid ground in its arguments. (Indeed, the anti-immigrant right has been quick to gloatover Democrats condemning a term they had been perfectly happy to use in the past.) In addition, it’s crucial not to be swept away by Trump’s Manichaean view of the world when it comes to immigration. Legally, family reunification was never an open-arms policy. It was always a key component in a system of quotas meant to limit, control, and police migration, often in stringent ways. It was part of a system built to exclude at least as much as include. There may be good reasons to defend the family reunification provisions of the 1965 Act, just as there are good reasons to defend DACA -- but that does not mean that a deeply problematic status quo should be glorified. Racism and the Immigrant “Threat” Those very quotas and family-reunification policies served to “illegalize” most Mexican migration to the United States. That, in turn, created the basis not just for militarizing the police and the border, but for what anthropologist Leo Chávez has called the “Latino threat narrative”: the notion that the United States somehow faces an existential threat from Mexican and other Latino immigrants. So President Trump has drawn on a long legacy here, even if in a particularly invidious fashion. The narrative evolved over time in ways that sought to downplay its explicitly racial nature. Popular commentators railed against “illegal” immigrants, while lauding those who “do it the right way.” The threat narrative, for instance, lurked at the very heart of the immigration policies of the Obama administration. President Obama regularly hailed exceptional Latino and other immigrants, even as the criminalization, mass incarceration, and deportation of so many were, if anything, being ramped up. Criminalization provided a “color-blind” cover as the president separatedundocumented immigrants into two distinct groups: “felons” and “families.” In those years, so many commentators postured on the side of those they defined as the deserving exceptions, while adding further fuel to the threat narrative. President Trump has held onto a version of this ostensibly color-blind and exceptionalist narrative, while loudly proclaiming himself “the least racist person” anyone might ever run into and praising DACA recipients as “good, educated, and accomplished young people.” But the racist nature of his anti-immigrant extremism and his invocations of the “threat” have gone well beyond Obama’s programs. In his attack on legal immigration, chain migration, and legal statuses like DACA and TPS, race has again reared its head explicitly. Unless they were to come from “countries like Norway” or have some special “merit,” Trump seems to believe that immigrants should essentially all be illegalized, prohibited, or expelled. Some of his earliest policy moves like his attacks on refugees and his travel ban were aimed precisely at those who would otherwise fall into a legal category, those who had “followed the rules,” “waited in line,” “registered with the government,” or “paid taxes,” including refugees, DACA kids, and TPS recipients -- all of them people already in the system and approved for entry or residence. As ICE spokespeople remind us when asked to comment on particularly egregious examples of the arbitrary detention and deportation of long-term residents, President Trump has rescinded the Obama-era “priority enforcement” program that emphasized the apprehension and deportation of people with criminal records and recent border-crossers. Now, “no category of removable aliens [is] exempt from enforcement.” While President Trump has continued to verbally support the Dreamers, his main goal in doing so has clearly been to use them as a bargaining chip in obtaining his dramatically restrictionist priorities from a reluctant Congress. The U.S. Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) made the new restrictionist turn official in late February when it revised its mission statement to delete this singular line: “USCIS secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants.” No longer. Instead, we are now told, the agency “administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise... while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.” Challenging the Restrictionist Agenda Many immigrant rights organizations have fought hard against the criminalization narrative that distinguishes the Dreamers from other categories of immigrants. Mainstream and Democrat-affiliated organizations have, however, generally pulled the other way, emphasizing the “innocence” of those young people who were brought here “through no fault of their own.” Dreamers, TPS recipients, refugees, and even those granted priority under the family reunification policy have all operated as exceptions to what has long been a far broader restrictionist immigration agenda. Trump has now taken that agenda in remarkably extreme directions. So fighting to protect such exceptional categories makes sense, given the millions who have benefited from them, but no one should imagine that America’s policies have ever been generous or open. Regarding refugees, for example, the State Department website still suggeststhat “the United States is proud of its history of welcoming immigrants and refugees... The U.S. refugee resettlement program reflects the United States’ highest values and aspirations to compassion, generosity, and leadership.” Even before Trump entered the Oval Office, this wasn’t actually true: the refugee resettlement program has always been both small and highly politicized. For example, out of approximately seven million Syrian refugeeswho fled the complex set of conflicts in their country since 2011 -- conflicts that would not have unfolded as they did without the American invasion of Iraq -- the United States has accepted only 21,000. Now, however, the fight to preserve even such numbers looks like a losing rearguard battle. Given that a truly just reform of the country’s immigration system is inconceivable at the moment, it makes sense that those concerned with immigrant rights concentrate on areas where egregious need or popular sympathy have made stopgap measures realistic. The problem is that, over the years, this approach has tended to separate out particular groups of immigrants from the larger narrative and so failed to challenge the underlying racial and criminalizing animus toward all those immigrants consigned to the depths of the economic system and systematically denied the right of belonging. In a sense, President Trump is correct: there really isn’t a way to draw a hard and fast line between legal and illegal immigration or between the felons and the families. Many immigrants live in mixed-status households, including those whose presence has been authorized in different ways or not authorized at all. And most of those felons, often convicted of recently criminalized, immigration-related or other minor violations, have families, too. Trump and his followers, of course, want just about all immigrants to be criminalized and excluded or deported because, in one way or another, they consider them dangers to the rest of us. While political realism demands that battles be fought for the rights of particular groups of immigrants, it’s no less important to challenge the looming narrative of immigrant criminalization and to refuse to assume that the larger war has already been lost. In the end, isn’t it time to challenge the notion that people in general, and immigrants in particular, can be easily divided into deserving good guys and undeserving bad guys? Aviva Chomsky is professor of history and coordinator of Latin American studies at Salem State University in Massachusetts and a TomDispatchregular. Her most recent book is Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal. Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, as well as John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands, Nick Turse's Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World. Copyright 2018 Aviva Chomsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 13 19:37:51 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:37:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, Tuesday 13 March Message-ID: <4C5A7BA8-0DBA-44AC-B432-4D3C17646F32@gmail.com> Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, presented by members and friends of AWARE, the “anti-war anti-racism effort,” a local Champaign-Urbana peace group. We are recording this at noon on Tuesday, March 13, in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, Illinois. Our subject is the wars the US government is waging around the world, and the racism we display to those we’re killing, in accord with the Latin proverb, ‘Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris” - “It’s human nature to hate those you have injured.” At this moment the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, & Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of the Mideast and North Africa, which the US uses as a weapon against its economic rivals from Germany to China. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing people in these countries, although most Americans are barely aware of it. ~ More than a quarter of a million US troops are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. ~ The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. As the rest of the world recognizes - but Americans don’t - they are nothing less than American death squads. The rest of the world recognizes that the US today is what ML King called it long ago, the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” - an international criminal surpassing all others. But most Americans don’t know that, protected as they are by government and media propaganda. What we do here at AWARE ON THE AIR is talk about US war-making. ==========news today======================= Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State; Mike Pompeo (now director of the CIA) is in as SOS. Gina Haspell in as director of the CIA. In 2017 the European Center for Constitutional Rights called on Germany's Public Prosecutor General to issue an arrest warrant against Haspel, who conducted a US torture site in Germany. The long-standing debate within the US government is, Which of the "peer competitors" should be favored, in order to break up their conjunction - Russia (as Kissinger thought) or China (as Brzezinski thought)? Fired Secretary of State Tillerson (Exxon) seemed to favor Russia and attacked China on his recent (disastrous) Africa trip. Does incoming Secretary of State Pompeo favor China, at least to the extent of not torpedoing Trump's willingness to talk to Kim? (The hysteria about the DPRK has always seemed to be primarily anti-China.) ============================================== WAR AND THE LOCAL PRIMARY ELECTION, MARCH 20 There’s only one way to vote against the wars and war provocations the U.S. is conducting around the world, in the local primary on March 20: vote for Democrat David Gill, the only candidate in the election who calls for an end to U.S. war-making. Gill is running for the Democratic party’s nomination for the seat in the House of Representatives presently occupied by Republican Rodney Davis (Illinois Congressional District 13). His opponents include Betsy Londrigan, a former staffer for Sen. Dick Durbin; Erik Jones, a former Illinois assistant attorney general; and Jonathan Ebel, a college teacher and former U.S. Navy intelligence officer. Davis supports the wars the U.S. is conducting around the world, as do his putative Democrat opponents - with the exception of Gill, the only one to answer, “Yes,” to my question, “Should U.S. troops and weapons be brought home from MENA (the Mideast and North Africa)?” At a recent candidates’ forum sponsored by the Champaign County Young Democrats, the others answered, “No” - Ebel in particular, who boasted of his ‘service’ in as a military officer from Yugoslavia to the Mideast, where the U.S. has prosecuted criminal wars since the Clinton administration. A friend reports that at another Democratic party 13th Congressional candidate forum - this one at the Plumbers-Pipefitters Union Hall - “Gill not once but twice in response to two different questions spoke out against the U.S. imperial wars by tying them to draining our economy which prevents us from having free college tuition for all and Medicare for all. Of course the other three candidates were silent on that account.” David Johnson, of the excellent “World Labor Hour’ on WRFU, notes that “Currently Gill is neck to neck in the polls for 1st place at 40% each with Betsy Dirksen Londrigen (which is difficult to believe if you have ever seen her speak and the blatant neo-liberal positions she supports). Ebel is in last place with 7% and Jones ( the sneaky neo-liberal who tries to come across as ‘Oh-schucks-I-am-just-an-ordinary-guy-from-a-small-town’) in second to last at 14% - despite Jones having ten times more money than all of the other candidates ($250,000 as of August – see )...” The current administration inherits eight wars from the previous one - Obama being the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two presidential terms: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and the Philippines. More than a quarter million U.S. military personnel are today deployed in a thousand foreign U.S. bases, most of them ringing Russia and China. Obama’s drone assassinations, which killed thousands and were accurately called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times,” continue under Trump - as do the war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. Much of the world regards them as nothing less than American death squads. If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. He is perhaps the weakest U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge. But what both Obama and Trump knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to be opposed to the wars, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people, for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire...” We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. David Gill is the only local candidate in the current election cycle who favors that. Chris Hedges notes that 1/4 of all Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have a background in intelligence (CIA, NSA, ETC.) The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. Jon Ebel in the local Congressional district is an example. He’s a thoroughly reprehensible war-monger. ============================================== Putin’s March 1st presentation of new Russian weapons has been greatly misunderstood as a declaration of strategic parity or triumphalism. There was a much more urgent need, namely, to prevent an imminent strike. This danger is not over yet, for a week later, on March, 7, President Putin emphasised his readiness to employ the nuclear weapons for retaliation purposes, even if it would end the world. “Certainly, it would be a global disaster for humanity; a disaster for the entire world,” Putin said, “but, as a citizen of Russia and the head of the Russian state I must ask myself: Why would we want a world without Russia?” This was a bold answer. A lesser man would probably reply hypocritically, dodging the brutal “yes, I shall destroy the world.” It means that the danger is still imminent, and that by these frank words President Putin wants to dissuade whoever intends to push him too far. Why indeed, all of a sudden, did the Russian President decide now, of all times, to tell the world about these new weapons? It’s not that the Russians (or the Americans, for that matter) are accustomed to deliver hardware updates orbi et urbi. And 2002, the year the US withdrew from the ABM treaty, was consigned to history years ago. What was the reason, or at least the trigger? Some observers bet it was a wily pre-election trick aimed at a domestic audience. This could be a consideration, but a minor one. The leading opponent of Mr Putin, the communist candidate Mr Grudinin, didn’t argue against Putin’s foreign policy or defence spending; the voters do approve of Putin’s foreign policy, anyway. Putin’s revelation made Russians proud, but they would vote Putin anyway. The reason for Putin’s speech was a different and more urgent one: a terrible crescendo of threats had made Russia feel very vulnerable. Presumably their spy agencies convinced the Russian leader the threats were real. The US establishment has been looking for a way to humiliate and punish Russia since Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians. The indictment alleged that “the Russian conspirators wanted to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy,” in the words of Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing the Mueller’s inquiry. It did not matter that the indicted Russians weren’t officials of the Russian state; that their effort (if these existed at all) were puny: a few ads at the cost of about $100,000, a drop in the ocean compared to the vast amounts of money spent by both the Clinton and Trump campaigns. However, the US establishment called these minor actions of private Russian citizens an “act of war.” On February 19, Glenn Greenwald summed up the US reactions in the piece called A Consensus Emerges: Russia Committed an “Act of War” on Par With Pearl Harbor and 9/11. He reminded us that Senators from both parties, such as Republican John McCain and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, have long described Russian meddling in 2016 as an “act of war.” Hillary Clinton described Russia’s alleged hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s email inbox as a “cyber 9/11.” Tom Friedman of the New York Times said on “Morning Joe” that Russian hacking “was a 9/11-scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor-scale event.” After the indictment, this comparison became a common place rhetoric. “The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, complaining about President Donald Trump’s inaction, asked readers to “imagine how history would have judged Franklin D. Roosevelt in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, if he had taken to the radio airwaves to declare that Tokyo was ‘laughing their asses off.’ Or if George W. Bush had stood in the rubble of the World Trade Center with a bullhorn and launched a name-calling tirade against the Democrats.” Greenwald concluded: “If Russian election meddling is on par with the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks, then should the U.S. response be on par with its response to those attacks?” In other words, the US politicians and media called to give Russia the same treatment the US gave to Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and to Afghanistan (invasion followed by 16 years of occupation). In the search for escalation from fiery talk to fire, the Anglo-American establishment turned to the familiar device of alleged Syrian gas attacks. People have been trained to respond to such accusations (and alternatively, to keep mum while the US bombs Mosul and Raqqa, or prepares to nuke North Korea). Assad and Russia were accused of gassing the rebel stronghold of Eastern Ghouta, the West’s last chance to enforce regime change in Syria by virtue of its location near the capital. The alleged gas chlorine attack was reported on February 25th, and it was immediately denied by the Russians and the Syrians. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that this anonymous ‘bogus report’ had been originated in the US in order to denigrate Syrian government and its troops, to accuse them of war crimes and to cause permanent breakup of Syria. The US and its allies, he said, were “simply exploiting baseless allegations of toxic weapons use by Damascus as a tool of anti-Syrian political engineering”. The rebels said they were attacked by chlorine gas, as opposed to previous times when they claimed gas sarin was used. Chlorine gas is a tricky stuff; it is not deadly though unhealthy for inhaling. It is also quite difficult to monitor and verify, for chlorine is widely used for domestic purposes from cleaning bathrooms to purifying water and is not a banned substance (though the gas chlorine is forbidden). This difficulty to verify had made it an easy one to claim. The situation in E. Ghouta was a replay of Aleppo; reports of wounded children, films produced by the White Helmets, and stubborn attempts by the rebels to prevent civilian exodus from the area. Whenever the rebels are pushed hard, they produce a story of suffering civilians and of gas attacks, hoping the US will force the Syrian government and their Russian allies to relent. Undoubtedly civilians have suffered in the Syrian war; however, there is a way to end their suffering. The rebels could lay down their arms and join the political process, like everybody else. There are plenty of Americans unhappy with the Trump regime, but they do not shell Washington DC; they hope for a better and different outcome at the next elections. Their example can be emulated by the Syrian rebels, and then, the civilians won’t suffer. If that’s too much to ask for, they can let the civilians leave; and fight to the bitter end. But no, they do not let the civilians out; instead, they produce reports of civilians suffering and wait for the Mounties to ride in and save them. There was an extra angle. The rebels of E. Ghouta are trained and led by British and American intelligence officers, and they came under Russian fire. Perhaps it was a Russian payoff for the bombardment of oil field installations near Deir ez-Zor where the Russian private military company (called Wagner after their leader nickname’s) bore the brunt of and suffered many casualties. Thierry Meyssan, the well known French journalist resident in Damascus claimed that Russian ground troops also participated in the assault on Eastern Ghouta. It is possible that the Russians and the Americans are already fighting directly, though both sides are loth to admit their losses. The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was the first to “seriously consider” air strikes in Syria. He missed the fun of Libya (“we came, we saw, he died”) and now the redhead is eager to bomb anybody. However, his Parliament does not allow him to do so. The ball was taken up by the Americans. Bloomberg editorialized: “It’s time for another red line, one that the U.S. won’t back away from. Trump should tell Assad and his Russian backers that any more proved use of any chemical weapon, including chlorine, will be met with even greater retaliation than what happened in April.” [This is a reference to Trump’s cruise missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat air base, allegedly in revenge for Syrian sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun. Doubts about this “sarin gas attack” emerged right away, and Unz.com published it quickly. In June 2017, Seymour Hersh exposed the full story behind Shayrat: there was no “sarin attack”, and President Trump was told by his own intelligence officers to drop the case. He still insisted and attacked but warned the Russians in advance, and there were no Russian or Syrian casualties, and very little damage at the cost of $100 million to the US taxpayer. The US mainstream media was exuberant, and congratulated Trump with this example of Presidential behaviour.] The American Conservative, the Republican and Trump-friendly site objected to plans to bomb Syria: “Trump had no authority to order the attack on Syrian forces last year, and he still doesn’t have it now. There is no international mandate for U.S. forces to be in Syria, nor is there any authorization for military action against Syrian government forces or their allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack, the U.S. will be committing more acts of war against a government that poses no threat to us, has done nothing to us or our treaty allies, and is still fighting inside its own internationally recognized borders.” But voices of those supporting the strikes and punishing Russians and Syrians sounded stronger. “White House considers new military action against Syrian regime,” wrote The Washington Post on March, 5. The newspaper added details who pushed for the attack (national security adviser H.R. McMaster) and who objected (Defense Secretary Jim Mattis). “Other officials, particularly at the White House and the State Department, appear more open to renewed action against Assad,” said the report. This is the background of Putin’s speech of March 1st. The Russian president spoke of the new Russian missiles impervious to Aegis and unstoppable by ground fire that can turn the US aircraft carriers, the most potent symbol of the US power, into sitting ducks. Russia will sink them in case of an attack on Russia or on her allies, said Putin. ‘Allies’ is the keyword in the message. The threatened ally of Russia is Syria. Putin warned the Americans that their air strike on Syria may be answered with a strike upon their Carrier Strike Group (CSG) in the area. If you bomb Damascus, we shall send your CSGs in the Med and in the Gulf down to the sea bottom. We can incinerate your air bases in the area, too. The sharply raised stakes were a game-changer. Who knows what will be the Russian response on this or other action of the Western allies? The warlike neocons say Russia is all talk, all bluff. Realists say that the US may suffer the humiliating and painful loss of its CSGs with thousands of lives at sea. The US President had enjoyed the previous strike of Syria with dozens of Tomahawks before returning to his beautiful chocolate cake. If the strike were revisited upon the striking SCGs – this is totally different matter. Did you say Pearl Harbour? Even if this exchange would not lead to massive nuclear strikes of the mainland US and Russia and total world-destroying war, it would have a very high price tag. The Russians can even strike President Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla as they naughtily presented on the mock video. Apparently, President Trump discussed it now with the UK Prime Minister Theresa May. The Brits are for some reason more keen to push for war with Russia. Now they try their best to stop the rapprochement between the US and Russia. The peculiar story of poisoning their own ex-spy with a nerve gas adds spice to their effort, and the Russian Embassy UK Twitter troll twitted: “In today’s papers: pundits call on @Theresa_May to disrupt possible Russia-US thaw. No trust in Britain’s best friend and ally?” The nuclear poker game just became more exciting. Are the Russians bluffing, or aren’t they? Will they play, or will they drop their cards, this is the question. There is no answer yet. Only history can answer it. Meanwhile, judging by the tense calm in the Middle East and elsewhere, Putin’s game had been successful. The US missiles rested at their launching sites, and so did the Russian ones. The Russian-Syrian offensive in E. Ghouta proceeds unabated, while the US ground operations in Syria came to standstill, as the Kurds are too busy confronting the Turks. Perhaps we shall survive this almost-confrontation, as we have survived the 2011 almost-confrontation. [> “Putin’s Missiles: Deterring an American Attack?” by Israel Shamir • March 11, 2018] 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 11th WEEK OF 2018 [Mar. 13] - ANOTHER week in which the world can see that the most extensive global terrorism is US world-wide war-making. ~ My thanks tonight as usual to DR.KNOW/J. B. Nicholson for research. SEE KNOW’S NOTES on the FB page for AOTA, along with articles referred to tonight, and ~ Also OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING NICHOLSON BAKER’S ‘WHY I AM A PACIFIST; THE MYTH OF THE GOOD WAR’ [i.e., WWII]. We’ll conclude tonight with a piece from The Real News Network, “Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left”: In a complex proxy war that has killed so many, where should leftists and people of conscience stand? Independent journalist Rania Khalek and scholar Yasser Munif debate the ongoing siege of Eastern Ghouta and the wider Syrian war > > ============= ~ NEWS FORM NEPTUNE this week is produced and directed by Jason Liggett & Andrew Scolari, thanks to whom also this program & others like it are available on YouTube & ~ Aware Meeting This Sunday, 5-6Pm - Hammerhead Coffee Shop, 608 E. University Avenue. At the corner of Wright Street, on the edge of campus. ~ And 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 members & friends of AWARE saying, in the words of the late Edward Murrow, “Good night - and good luck." ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Tue Mar 13 21:07:57 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:07:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Killing the "Deep State" Conspiracy Message-ID: <67C854CD-C296-41F0-870C-57D4210C4B91@illinois.edu> Newsmax/Moneynews, 3/13/18 The secret plan to destroy President Trump revealed . . . NY Times bestselling author Jerome Corsi says Trump must fight back to save his presidency and America . . . Dear Friend, We have more to fear than the Democrats, the far left, and “swamp” creatures. In fact, there’s a group operating in the shadows that is far more powerful, diabolical, and even destructive. This group is called the Deep State — and, as President Trump himself has discovered, it often operates as the de facto government of the United States. This clandestine faction secretly maneuvers behind the curtain of “national security” in Washington, D.C. Now, for the first time, renowned investigative author Jerome Corsi rips the veil off this secret government in his latest bestseller Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump. Killing the Deep State is the true tale of the powerful players who pull the strings, no matter who you voted for, who actually sits in the Oval Office, or even who controls Congress. Corsi is not just any author — he wrote the two New York Times runaway bestsellers The Obama Nation and Unfit for Command, the book that sank John Kerry’s presidential bid in 2004. In Killing the Deep State Corsi reveals the proof — including what he says is “smoking gun” evidence — that operatives in the FBI, CIA, DOJ, NSA, and even the Federal Reserve have been working to remove President Trump from office. Corsi argues that no government agency, department, or official inside Washington — including the president of the United States — is immune from the powerful grip of the Deep State. Saving Trump Inside his explosive new book Killing the Deep State, Corsi lays it all out — including the alarming evidence for the virtual coup d’état to take out President Trump. He also provides new evidence that Barack Obama and his key lieutenants are orchestrating the Deep State — relying on many of his most trusted aides who are still in the government working for President Trump! Killing the Deep State shows that the investigation led by Robert Mueller, the former FBI director who served under Obama, is nothing more than a political witch hunt. Corsi says President Trump is not only key to restoring America, protecting the U.S. Constitution, our borders, and our way of life — but is the man who stands in the way of the globalist dream of a New World Order. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Wed Mar 14 00:13:21 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:13:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, Tuesday 13 March Message-ID: Thank you for publishing the transcript, Carl! YouTube is becoming impossible to use. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Tue, Mar 13, 2018 2:38 PMTo: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Cc: peace;Subject:[Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, Tuesday 13 March Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, presented by members and friends of AWARE, the “anti-war anti-racism effort,” a local Champaign-Urbana peace group.  We are recording this at noon on Tuesday, March 13, in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, Illinois.   Our subject is the wars the US government is waging around the world, and the racism we display to those we’re killing, in accord with the Latin proverb, ‘Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris” - “It’s human nature to hate those you have injured.” At this moment the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, &  Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of the Mideast and North Africa, which the US uses as a weapon against its economic rivals from Germany to China. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing people in these countries, although most Americans are barely aware of it.   ~ More than a quarter of a million US troops are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. ~ The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. As the rest of the world recognizes - but Americans don’t - they are nothing less than American death squads.  The rest of the world recognizes that the US today is what ML King called it long ago,  the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” - an international criminal surpassing all others. But most Americans don’t know that, protected as they are by government and media propaganda. What we do here at AWARE ON THE AIR is talk about US war-making.  ==========news today=======================  Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State; Mike Pompeo (now director of the CIA) is in as SOS.  Gina Haspell in as director of the CIA. In 2017 the European Center for Constitutional Rights called on Germany's Public Prosecutor General to issue an arrest warrant against Haspel, who conducted a US torture site in Germany. The long-standing debate within the US government is, Which of the "peer competitors" should be favored, in order to break up their conjunction - Russia (as Kissinger thought) or China (as Brzezinski thought)? Fired Secretary of State Tillerson (Exxon) seemed to favor Russia and attacked China on his recent (disastrous) Africa trip. Does incoming Secretary of State Pompeo favor China, at least to the extent of not torpedoing Trump's willingness to talk to Kim? (The hysteria about the DPRK has always seemed to be primarily anti-China.) ============================================== WAR AND THE LOCAL PRIMARY ELECTION, MARCH 20 There’s only one way to vote against the wars and war provocations the U.S. is conducting around the world, in the local primary on March 20: vote for Democrat David Gill, the only candidate in the election who calls for an end to U.S. war-making.  Gill is running for the Democratic party’s nomination for the seat in the House of Representatives presently occupied by Republican Rodney Davis (Illinois Congressional District 13). His opponents include Betsy Londrigan, a former staffer for Sen. Dick Durbin; Erik Jones, a former Illinois assistant attorney general; and Jonathan Ebel, a college teacher and former U.S.  Navy intelligence officer.  Davis supports the wars the U.S. is conducting around the world, as do his putative Democrat opponents - with the exception of Gill, the only one to answer, “Yes,” to my question, “Should U.S. troops and weapons be brought home from MENA (the Mideast and North Africa)?”   At a recent candidates’ forum sponsored by the Champaign County Young Democrats, the others answered, “No” - Ebel in particular, who boasted of his ‘service’ in as a military officer from Yugoslavia to the Mideast, where the U.S.  has prosecuted criminal wars since the Clinton administration. A friend reports that at another Democratic party 13th Congressional candidate forum - this one at the Plumbers-Pipefitters Union Hall - “Gill not once but twice in response to two different questions spoke out against the U.S. imperial wars by tying them to draining our economy which prevents us from having free college tuition for all and Medicare for all. Of course the other three candidates were silent on that account.” David Johnson, of the excellent “World Labor Hour’ on WRFU, notes that  “Currently Gill is neck to neck in the polls for 1st place at 40% each with Betsy Dirksen Londrigen (which is difficult to believe if you have ever seen her speak and the blatant neo-liberal positions she supports). Ebel is in last place with 7% and Jones ( the sneaky neo-liberal who tries to come across as ‘Oh-schucks-I-am-just-an-ordinary-guy-from-a-small-town’) in second to last at 14% - despite Jones having ten times more money than all of the other candidates ($250,000 as of August – see )...” The current administration inherits eight wars from the previous one - Obama being the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two presidential terms: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and the Philippines.  More than a quarter million U.S. military personnel are today deployed in a thousand foreign U.S. bases, most of them ringing Russia and China. Obama’s drone assassinations, which killed thousands and were accurately called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times,” continue under Trump - as do the war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. Much of the world regards them as nothing less than American death squads.  If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged.    President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. He is perhaps the weakest U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge. But what both Obama and Trump knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to be opposed to the wars, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people, for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them.  The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be  elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire...” We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. David Gill is the only local candidate in the current election cycle who favors that. Chris Hedges notes that 1/4 of all Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have a background in intelligence (CIA, NSA, ETC.) The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. Jon Ebel in the local Congressional district is an example. He’s a thoroughly reprehensible war-monger. ==============================================Putin’s March 1st presentation of new Russian weapons has been greatly misunderstood as a declaration of strategic parity or triumphalism. There was a much more urgent need, namely, to prevent an imminent strike. This danger is not over yet, for a week later, on March, 7, President Putin emphasised his readiness to employ the nuclear weapons for retaliation purposes, even if it would end the world. “Certainly, it would be a global disaster for humanity; a disaster for the entire world,” Putin said, “but, as a citizen of Russia and the head of the Russian state I must ask myself: Why would we want a world without Russia?” This was a bold answer. A lesser man would probably reply hypocritically, dodging the brutal “yes, I shall destroy the world.” It means that the danger is still imminent, and that by these frank words President Putin wants to dissuade whoever intends to push him too far. Why indeed, all of a sudden, did the Russian President decide now, of all times, to tell the world about these new weapons? It’s not that the Russians (or the Americans, for that matter) are accustomed to deliver hardware updates orbi et urbi. And 2002, the year the US withdrew from the ABM treaty, was consigned to history years ago. What was the reason, or at least the trigger? Some observers bet it was a wily pre-election trick aimed at a domestic audience. This could be a consideration, but a minor one. The leading opponent of Mr Putin, the communist candidate Mr Grudinin, didn’t argue against Putin’s foreign policy or defence spending; the voters do approve of Putin’s foreign policy, anyway. Putin’s revelation made Russians proud, but they would vote Putin anyway. The reason for Putin’s speech was a different and more urgent one: a terrible crescendo of threats had made Russia feel very vulnerable. Presumably their spy agencies convinced the Russian leader the threats were real. The US establishment has been looking for a way to humiliate and punish Russia since Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians. The indictment alleged that “the Russian conspirators wanted to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy,” in the words of Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing the Mueller’s inquiry. It did not matter that the indicted Russians weren’t officials of the Russian state; that their effort (if these existed at all) were puny: a few ads at the cost of about $100,000, a drop in the ocean compared to the vast amounts of money spent by both the Clinton and Trump campaigns. However, the US establishment called these minor actions of private Russian citizens an “act of war.” On February 19, Glenn Greenwald summed up the US reactions in the piece called A Consensus Emerges: Russia Committed an “Act of War” on Par With Pearl Harbor and 9/11. He reminded us that Senators from both parties, such as Republican John McCain and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, have long described Russian meddling in 2016 as an “act of war.” Hillary Clinton described Russia’s alleged hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s email inbox as a “cyber 9/11.” Tom Friedman of the New York Times said on “Morning Joe” that Russian hacking “was a 9/11-scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor-scale event.” After the indictment, this comparison became a common place rhetoric. “The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, complaining about President Donald Trump’s inaction, asked readers to “imagine how history would have judged Franklin D. Roosevelt in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, if he had taken to the radio airwaves to declare that Tokyo was ‘laughing their asses off.’ Or if George W. Bush had stood in the rubble of the World Trade Center with a bullhorn and launched a name-calling tirade against the Democrats.” Greenwald concluded: “If Russian election meddling is on par with the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks, then should the U.S. response be on par with its response to those attacks?” In other words, the US politicians and media called to give Russia the same treatment the US gave to Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and to Afghanistan (invasion followed by 16 years of occupation). In the search for escalation from fiery talk to fire, the Anglo-American establishment turned to the familiar device of alleged Syrian gas attacks. People have been trained to respond to such accusations (and alternatively, to keep mum while the US bombs Mosul and Raqqa, or prepares to nuke North Korea). Assad and Russia were accused of gassing the rebel stronghold of Eastern Ghouta, the West’s last chance to enforce regime change in Syria by virtue of its location near the capital. The alleged gas chlorine attack was reported on February 25th, and it was immediately denied by the Russians and the Syrians. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that this anonymous ‘bogus report’ had been originated in the US in order to denigrate Syrian government and its troops, to accuse them of war crimes and to cause permanent breakup of Syria. The US and its allies, he said, were “simply exploiting baseless allegations of toxic weapons use by Damascus as a tool of anti-Syrian political engineering”. The rebels said they were attacked by chlorine gas, as opposed to previous times when they claimed gas sarin was used. Chlorine gas is a tricky stuff; it is not deadly though unhealthy for inhaling. It is also quite difficult to monitor and verify, for chlorine is widely used for domestic purposes from cleaning bathrooms to purifying water and is not a banned substance (though the gas chlorine is forbidden). This difficulty to verify had made it an easy one to claim. The situation in E. Ghouta was a replay of Aleppo; reports of wounded children, films produced by the White Helmets, and stubborn attempts by the rebels to prevent civilian exodus from the area. Whenever the rebels are pushed hard, they produce a story of suffering civilians and of gas attacks, hoping the US will force the Syrian government and their Russian allies to relent. Undoubtedly civilians have suffered in the Syrian war; however, there is a way to end their suffering. The rebels could lay down their arms and join the political process, like everybody else. There are plenty of Americans unhappy with the Trump regime, but they do not shell Washington DC; they hope for a better and different outcome at the next elections. Their example can be emulated by the Syrian rebels, and then, the civilians won’t suffer. If that’s too much to ask for, they can let the civilians leave; and fight to the bitter end. But no, they do not let the civilians out; instead, they produce reports of civilians suffering and wait for the Mounties to ride in and save them. There was an extra angle. The rebels of E. Ghouta are trained and led by British and American intelligence officers, and they came under Russian fire. Perhaps it was a Russian payoff for the bombardment of oil field installations near Deir ez-Zor where the Russian private military company (called Wagner after their leader nickname’s) bore the brunt of and suffered many casualties. Thierry Meyssan, the well known French journalist resident in Damascus claimed that Russian ground troops also participated in the assault on Eastern Ghouta. It is possible that the Russians and the Americans are already fighting directly, though both sides are loth to admit their losses. The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was the first to “seriously consider” air strikes in Syria. He missed the fun of Libya (“we came, we saw, he died”) and now the redhead is eager to bomb anybody. However, his Parliament does not allow him to do so. The ball was taken up by the Americans. Bloomberg editorialized: “It’s time for another red line, one that the U.S. won’t back away from. Trump should tell Assad and his Russian backers that any more proved use of any chemical weapon, including chlorine, will be met with even greater retaliation than what happened in April.” [This is a reference to Trump’s cruise missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat air base, allegedly in revenge for Syrian sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun. Doubts about this “sarin gas attack” emerged right away, and Unz.com published it quickly. In June 2017, Seymour Hersh exposed the full story behind Shayrat: there was no “sarin attack”, and President Trump was told by his own intelligence officers to drop the case. He still insisted and attacked but warned the Russians in advance, and there were no Russian or Syrian casualties, and very little damage at the cost of $100 million to the US taxpayer. The US mainstream media was exuberant, and congratulated Trump with this example of Presidential behaviour.] The American Conservative, the Republican and Trump-friendly site objected to plans to bomb Syria: “Trump had no authority to order the attack on Syrian forces last year, and he still doesn’t have it now. There is no international mandate for U.S. forces to be in Syria, nor is there any authorization for military action against Syrian government forces or their allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack, the U.S. will be committing more acts of war against a government that poses no threat to us, has done nothing to us or our treaty allies, and is still fighting inside its own internationally recognized borders.” But voices of those supporting the strikes and punishing Russians and Syrians sounded stronger. “White House considers new military action against Syrian regime,” wrote The Washington Post on March, 5. The newspaper added details who pushed for the attack (national security adviser H.R. McMaster) and who objected (Defense Secretary Jim Mattis). “Other officials, particularly at the White House and the State Department, appear more open to renewed action against Assad,” said the report. This is the background of Putin’s speech of March 1st. The Russian president spoke of the new Russian missiles impervious to Aegis and unstoppable by ground fire that can turn the US aircraft carriers, the most potent symbol of the US power, into sitting ducks. Russia will sink them in case of an attack on Russia or on her allies, said Putin. ‘Allies’ is the keyword in the message. The threatened ally of Russia is Syria. Putin warned the Americans that their air strike on Syria may be answered with a strike upon their Carrier Strike Group (CSG) in the area. If you bomb Damascus, we shall send your CSGs in the Med and in the Gulf down to the sea bottom. We can incinerate your air bases in the area, too. The sharply raised stakes were a game-changer. Who knows what will be the Russian response on this or other action of the Western allies? The warlike neocons say Russia is all talk, all bluff. Realists say that the US may suffer the humiliating and painful loss of its CSGs with thousands of lives at sea. The US President had enjoyed the previous strike of Syria with dozens of Tomahawks before returning to his beautiful chocolate cake. If the strike were revisited upon the striking SCGs – this is totally different matter. Did you say Pearl Harbour? Even if this exchange would not lead to massive nuclear strikes of the mainland US and Russia and total world-destroying war, it would have a very high price tag. The Russians can even strike President Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla as they naughtily presented on the mock video. Apparently, President Trump discussed it now with the UK Prime Minister Theresa May. The Brits are for some reason more keen to push for war with Russia. Now they try their best to stop the rapprochement between the US and Russia. The peculiar story of poisoning their own ex-spy with a nerve gas adds spice to their effort, and the Russian Embassy UK Twitter troll twitted: “In today’s papers: pundits call on @Theresa_May to disrupt possible Russia-US thaw. No trust in Britain’s best friend and ally?” The nuclear poker game just became more exciting. Are the Russians bluffing, or aren’t they? Will they play, or will they drop their cards, this is the question. There is no answer yet. Only history can answer it. Meanwhile, judging by the tense calm in the Middle East and elsewhere, Putin’s game had been successful. The US missiles rested at their launching sites, and so did the Russian ones. The Russian-Syrian offensive in E. Ghouta proceeds unabated, while the US ground operations in Syria came to standstill, as the Kurds are too busy confronting the Turks. Perhaps we shall survive this almost-confrontation, as we have survived the 2011 almost-confrontation. [ “Putin’s Missiles: Deterring an American Attack?” by Israel Shamir • March 11, 2018] 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 11th WEEK OF 2018 [Mar. 13] - ANOTHER week in which the world can see that the most extensive global terrorism is US world-wide war-making.  ~ My thanks tonight as usual to DR.KNOW/J. B. Nicholson for research. SEE KNOW’S NOTES on the FB page for AOTA, along with articles referred to tonight, and ~ Also OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING NICHOLSON BAKER’S ‘WHY I AM A PACIFIST; THE MYTH OF THE GOOD WAR’ [i.e., WWII]. We’ll conclude tonight with a piece from The Real News Network, “Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left”:   In a complex proxy war that has killed so many, where should leftists and people of conscience stand? Independent journalist Rania Khalek and scholar Yasser Munif debate the ongoing siege of Eastern Ghouta and the wider Syrian war  ============= ~ NEWS FORM NEPTUNE this week is produced and directed by Jason Liggett & Andrew Scolari, thanks to whom also this program & others like it are available on YouTube & ~ Aware Meeting This Sunday, 5-6Pm - Hammerhead Coffee Shop, 608 E. University Avenue. At the corner of Wright Street, on the edge of campus. ~ And 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 members & friends of AWARE saying, in the words of the late Edward Murrow, “Good night - and good luck."      ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Wed Mar 14 00:18:35 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:18:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, Tuesday 13 March Message-ID: I can no longer find the last two Aware episodes on You Tube: #443 and 444. Those are Feb 27 and March 6 I believe. I don't know if you all pulled them or if You Tube has censored them. If censored, I can guess why.. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Tue, Mar 13, 2018 2:38 PMTo: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Cc: peace;Subject:[Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, Tuesday 13 March Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, presented by members and friends of AWARE, the “anti-war anti-racism effort,” a local Champaign-Urbana peace group.  We are recording this at noon on Tuesday, March 13, in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, Illinois.   Our subject is the wars the US government is waging around the world, and the racism we display to those we’re killing, in accord with the Latin proverb, ‘Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris” - “It’s human nature to hate those you have injured.” At this moment the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, &  Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of the Mideast and North Africa, which the US uses as a weapon against its economic rivals from Germany to China. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing people in these countries, although most Americans are barely aware of it.   ~ More than a quarter of a million US troops are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. ~ The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. As the rest of the world recognizes - but Americans don’t - they are nothing less than American death squads.  The rest of the world recognizes that the US today is what ML King called it long ago,  the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” - an international criminal surpassing all others. But most Americans don’t know that, protected as they are by government and media propaganda. What we do here at AWARE ON THE AIR is talk about US war-making.  ==========news today=======================  Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State; Mike Pompeo (now director of the CIA) is in as SOS.  Gina Haspell in as director of the CIA. In 2017 the European Center for Constitutional Rights called on Germany's Public Prosecutor General to issue an arrest warrant against Haspel, who conducted a US torture site in Germany. The long-standing debate within the US government is, Which of the "peer competitors" should be favored, in order to break up their conjunction - Russia (as Kissinger thought) or China (as Brzezinski thought)? Fired Secretary of State Tillerson (Exxon) seemed to favor Russia and attacked China on his recent (disastrous) Africa trip. Does incoming Secretary of State Pompeo favor China, at least to the extent of not torpedoing Trump's willingness to talk to Kim? (The hysteria about the DPRK has always seemed to be primarily anti-China.) ============================================== WAR AND THE LOCAL PRIMARY ELECTION, MARCH 20 There’s only one way to vote against the wars and war provocations the U.S. is conducting around the world, in the local primary on March 20: vote for Democrat David Gill, the only candidate in the election who calls for an end to U.S. war-making.  Gill is running for the Democratic party’s nomination for the seat in the House of Representatives presently occupied by Republican Rodney Davis (Illinois Congressional District 13). His opponents include Betsy Londrigan, a former staffer for Sen. Dick Durbin; Erik Jones, a former Illinois assistant attorney general; and Jonathan Ebel, a college teacher and former U.S.  Navy intelligence officer.  Davis supports the wars the U.S. is conducting around the world, as do his putative Democrat opponents - with the exception of Gill, the only one to answer, “Yes,” to my question, “Should U.S. troops and weapons be brought home from MENA (the Mideast and North Africa)?”   At a recent candidates’ forum sponsored by the Champaign County Young Democrats, the others answered, “No” - Ebel in particular, who boasted of his ‘service’ in as a military officer from Yugoslavia to the Mideast, where the U.S.  has prosecuted criminal wars since the Clinton administration. A friend reports that at another Democratic party 13th Congressional candidate forum - this one at the Plumbers-Pipefitters Union Hall - “Gill not once but twice in response to two different questions spoke out against the U.S. imperial wars by tying them to draining our economy which prevents us from having free college tuition for all and Medicare for all. Of course the other three candidates were silent on that account.” David Johnson, of the excellent “World Labor Hour’ on WRFU, notes that  “Currently Gill is neck to neck in the polls for 1st place at 40% each with Betsy Dirksen Londrigen (which is difficult to believe if you have ever seen her speak and the blatant neo-liberal positions she supports). Ebel is in last place with 7% and Jones ( the sneaky neo-liberal who tries to come across as ‘Oh-schucks-I-am-just-an-ordinary-guy-from-a-small-town’) in second to last at 14% - despite Jones having ten times more money than all of the other candidates ($250,000 as of August – see )...” The current administration inherits eight wars from the previous one - Obama being the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two presidential terms: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and the Philippines.  More than a quarter million U.S. military personnel are today deployed in a thousand foreign U.S. bases, most of them ringing Russia and China. Obama’s drone assassinations, which killed thousands and were accurately called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times,” continue under Trump - as do the war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. Much of the world regards them as nothing less than American death squads.  If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged.    President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. He is perhaps the weakest U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge. But what both Obama and Trump knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to be opposed to the wars, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people, for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them.  The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be  elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire...” We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. David Gill is the only local candidate in the current election cycle who favors that. Chris Hedges notes that 1/4 of all Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have a background in intelligence (CIA, NSA, ETC.) The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history. Jon Ebel in the local Congressional district is an example. He’s a thoroughly reprehensible war-monger. ==============================================Putin’s March 1st presentation of new Russian weapons has been greatly misunderstood as a declaration of strategic parity or triumphalism. There was a much more urgent need, namely, to prevent an imminent strike. This danger is not over yet, for a week later, on March, 7, President Putin emphasised his readiness to employ the nuclear weapons for retaliation purposes, even if it would end the world. “Certainly, it would be a global disaster for humanity; a disaster for the entire world,” Putin said, “but, as a citizen of Russia and the head of the Russian state I must ask myself: Why would we want a world without Russia?” This was a bold answer. A lesser man would probably reply hypocritically, dodging the brutal “yes, I shall destroy the world.” It means that the danger is still imminent, and that by these frank words President Putin wants to dissuade whoever intends to push him too far. Why indeed, all of a sudden, did the Russian President decide now, of all times, to tell the world about these new weapons? It’s not that the Russians (or the Americans, for that matter) are accustomed to deliver hardware updates orbi et urbi. And 2002, the year the US withdrew from the ABM treaty, was consigned to history years ago. What was the reason, or at least the trigger? Some observers bet it was a wily pre-election trick aimed at a domestic audience. This could be a consideration, but a minor one. The leading opponent of Mr Putin, the communist candidate Mr Grudinin, didn’t argue against Putin’s foreign policy or defence spending; the voters do approve of Putin’s foreign policy, anyway. Putin’s revelation made Russians proud, but they would vote Putin anyway. The reason for Putin’s speech was a different and more urgent one: a terrible crescendo of threats had made Russia feel very vulnerable. Presumably their spy agencies convinced the Russian leader the threats were real. The US establishment has been looking for a way to humiliate and punish Russia since Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians. The indictment alleged that “the Russian conspirators wanted to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy,” in the words of Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing the Mueller’s inquiry. It did not matter that the indicted Russians weren’t officials of the Russian state; that their effort (if these existed at all) were puny: a few ads at the cost of about $100,000, a drop in the ocean compared to the vast amounts of money spent by both the Clinton and Trump campaigns. However, the US establishment called these minor actions of private Russian citizens an “act of war.” On February 19, Glenn Greenwald summed up the US reactions in the piece called A Consensus Emerges: Russia Committed an “Act of War” on Par With Pearl Harbor and 9/11. He reminded us that Senators from both parties, such as Republican John McCain and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, have long described Russian meddling in 2016 as an “act of war.” Hillary Clinton described Russia’s alleged hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s email inbox as a “cyber 9/11.” Tom Friedman of the New York Times said on “Morning Joe” that Russian hacking “was a 9/11-scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor-scale event.” After the indictment, this comparison became a common place rhetoric. “The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, complaining about President Donald Trump’s inaction, asked readers to “imagine how history would have judged Franklin D. Roosevelt in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, if he had taken to the radio airwaves to declare that Tokyo was ‘laughing their asses off.’ Or if George W. Bush had stood in the rubble of the World Trade Center with a bullhorn and launched a name-calling tirade against the Democrats.” Greenwald concluded: “If Russian election meddling is on par with the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks, then should the U.S. response be on par with its response to those attacks?” In other words, the US politicians and media called to give Russia the same treatment the US gave to Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and to Afghanistan (invasion followed by 16 years of occupation). In the search for escalation from fiery talk to fire, the Anglo-American establishment turned to the familiar device of alleged Syrian gas attacks. People have been trained to respond to such accusations (and alternatively, to keep mum while the US bombs Mosul and Raqqa, or prepares to nuke North Korea). Assad and Russia were accused of gassing the rebel stronghold of Eastern Ghouta, the West’s last chance to enforce regime change in Syria by virtue of its location near the capital. The alleged gas chlorine attack was reported on February 25th, and it was immediately denied by the Russians and the Syrians. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that this anonymous ‘bogus report’ had been originated in the US in order to denigrate Syrian government and its troops, to accuse them of war crimes and to cause permanent breakup of Syria. The US and its allies, he said, were “simply exploiting baseless allegations of toxic weapons use by Damascus as a tool of anti-Syrian political engineering”. The rebels said they were attacked by chlorine gas, as opposed to previous times when they claimed gas sarin was used. Chlorine gas is a tricky stuff; it is not deadly though unhealthy for inhaling. It is also quite difficult to monitor and verify, for chlorine is widely used for domestic purposes from cleaning bathrooms to purifying water and is not a banned substance (though the gas chlorine is forbidden). This difficulty to verify had made it an easy one to claim. The situation in E. Ghouta was a replay of Aleppo; reports of wounded children, films produced by the White Helmets, and stubborn attempts by the rebels to prevent civilian exodus from the area. Whenever the rebels are pushed hard, they produce a story of suffering civilians and of gas attacks, hoping the US will force the Syrian government and their Russian allies to relent. Undoubtedly civilians have suffered in the Syrian war; however, there is a way to end their suffering. The rebels could lay down their arms and join the political process, like everybody else. There are plenty of Americans unhappy with the Trump regime, but they do not shell Washington DC; they hope for a better and different outcome at the next elections. Their example can be emulated by the Syrian rebels, and then, the civilians won’t suffer. If that’s too much to ask for, they can let the civilians leave; and fight to the bitter end. But no, they do not let the civilians out; instead, they produce reports of civilians suffering and wait for the Mounties to ride in and save them. There was an extra angle. The rebels of E. Ghouta are trained and led by British and American intelligence officers, and they came under Russian fire. Perhaps it was a Russian payoff for the bombardment of oil field installations near Deir ez-Zor where the Russian private military company (called Wagner after their leader nickname’s) bore the brunt of and suffered many casualties. Thierry Meyssan, the well known French journalist resident in Damascus claimed that Russian ground troops also participated in the assault on Eastern Ghouta. It is possible that the Russians and the Americans are already fighting directly, though both sides are loth to admit their losses. The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was the first to “seriously consider” air strikes in Syria. He missed the fun of Libya (“we came, we saw, he died”) and now the redhead is eager to bomb anybody. However, his Parliament does not allow him to do so. The ball was taken up by the Americans. Bloomberg editorialized: “It’s time for another red line, one that the U.S. won’t back away from. Trump should tell Assad and his Russian backers that any more proved use of any chemical weapon, including chlorine, will be met with even greater retaliation than what happened in April.” [This is a reference to Trump’s cruise missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat air base, allegedly in revenge for Syrian sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun. Doubts about this “sarin gas attack” emerged right away, and Unz.com published it quickly. In June 2017, Seymour Hersh exposed the full story behind Shayrat: there was no “sarin attack”, and President Trump was told by his own intelligence officers to drop the case. He still insisted and attacked but warned the Russians in advance, and there were no Russian or Syrian casualties, and very little damage at the cost of $100 million to the US taxpayer. The US mainstream media was exuberant, and congratulated Trump with this example of Presidential behaviour.] The American Conservative, the Republican and Trump-friendly site objected to plans to bomb Syria: “Trump had no authority to order the attack on Syrian forces last year, and he still doesn’t have it now. There is no international mandate for U.S. forces to be in Syria, nor is there any authorization for military action against Syrian government forces or their allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack, the U.S. will be committing more acts of war against a government that poses no threat to us, has done nothing to us or our treaty allies, and is still fighting inside its own internationally recognized borders.” But voices of those supporting the strikes and punishing Russians and Syrians sounded stronger. “White House considers new military action against Syrian regime,” wrote The Washington Post on March, 5. The newspaper added details who pushed for the attack (national security adviser H.R. McMaster) and who objected (Defense Secretary Jim Mattis). “Other officials, particularly at the White House and the State Department, appear more open to renewed action against Assad,” said the report. This is the background of Putin’s speech of March 1st. The Russian president spoke of the new Russian missiles impervious to Aegis and unstoppable by ground fire that can turn the US aircraft carriers, the most potent symbol of the US power, into sitting ducks. Russia will sink them in case of an attack on Russia or on her allies, said Putin. ‘Allies’ is the keyword in the message. The threatened ally of Russia is Syria. Putin warned the Americans that their air strike on Syria may be answered with a strike upon their Carrier Strike Group (CSG) in the area. If you bomb Damascus, we shall send your CSGs in the Med and in the Gulf down to the sea bottom. We can incinerate your air bases in the area, too. The sharply raised stakes were a game-changer. Who knows what will be the Russian response on this or other action of the Western allies? The warlike neocons say Russia is all talk, all bluff. Realists say that the US may suffer the humiliating and painful loss of its CSGs with thousands of lives at sea. The US President had enjoyed the previous strike of Syria with dozens of Tomahawks before returning to his beautiful chocolate cake. If the strike were revisited upon the striking SCGs – this is totally different matter. Did you say Pearl Harbour? Even if this exchange would not lead to massive nuclear strikes of the mainland US and Russia and total world-destroying war, it would have a very high price tag. The Russians can even strike President Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla as they naughtily presented on the mock video. Apparently, President Trump discussed it now with the UK Prime Minister Theresa May. The Brits are for some reason more keen to push for war with Russia. Now they try their best to stop the rapprochement between the US and Russia. The peculiar story of poisoning their own ex-spy with a nerve gas adds spice to their effort, and the Russian Embassy UK Twitter troll twitted: “In today’s papers: pundits call on @Theresa_May to disrupt possible Russia-US thaw. No trust in Britain’s best friend and ally?” The nuclear poker game just became more exciting. Are the Russians bluffing, or aren’t they? Will they play, or will they drop their cards, this is the question. There is no answer yet. Only history can answer it. Meanwhile, judging by the tense calm in the Middle East and elsewhere, Putin’s game had been successful. The US missiles rested at their launching sites, and so did the Russian ones. The Russian-Syrian offensive in E. Ghouta proceeds unabated, while the US ground operations in Syria came to standstill, as the Kurds are too busy confronting the Turks. Perhaps we shall survive this almost-confrontation, as we have survived the 2011 almost-confrontation. [ “Putin’s Missiles: Deterring an American Attack?” by Israel Shamir • March 11, 2018] 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 11th WEEK OF 2018 [Mar. 13] - ANOTHER week in which the world can see that the most extensive global terrorism is US world-wide war-making.  ~ My thanks tonight as usual to DR.KNOW/J. B. Nicholson for research. SEE KNOW’S NOTES on the FB page for AOTA, along with articles referred to tonight, and ~ Also OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING NICHOLSON BAKER’S ‘WHY I AM A PACIFIST; THE MYTH OF THE GOOD WAR’ [i.e., WWII]. We’ll conclude tonight with a piece from The Real News Network, “Debate: Syria, Ghouta, and the Left”:   In a complex proxy war that has killed so many, where should leftists and people of conscience stand? Independent journalist Rania Khalek and scholar Yasser Munif debate the ongoing siege of Eastern Ghouta and the wider Syrian war  ============= ~ NEWS FORM NEPTUNE this week is produced and directed by Jason Liggett & Andrew Scolari, thanks to whom also this program & others like it are available on YouTube & ~ Aware Meeting This Sunday, 5-6Pm - Hammerhead Coffee Shop, 608 E. University Avenue. At the corner of Wright Street, on the edge of campus. ~ And 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 members & friends of AWARE saying, in the words of the late Edward Murrow, “Good night - and good luck."      ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Mar 14 01:08:29 2018 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:08:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, Tuesday 13 March In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55f7bbcb-93f3-213d-f3f4-c0a8f7c51559@forestfield.org> bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > I can no longer find the last two Aware episodes on You Tube: #443 and > 444. Those are Feb 27 and March 6 I believe. I don't know if you all > pulled them or if You Tube has censored them. If censored, I can guess > why.. AWARE on the Air (AOTA) episode #443 is the most recent episode available on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUltMq0zbzc AOTA episode #444 (the most current as of the time/date of this email) is, as far as I can tell, not yet available. I trust it will show up soon. If you reload https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2B283336F85E5A0 you should be able to find the latest AOTA episode at the top of that list, and you'll see the date of the latest episode reflected on that page as well. Urbana Public Television uploads to YouTube so uploaded shows appear there first. https://archive.org/search.php?query=aware%20on%20the%20air never has DRM or ads in the shows or on the site. And archive.org works with an ordinary "Save as..." already built into your browser. After a while episodes of AOTA and News from Neptune appear on archive.org. One can download YouTube videos via youtube-dl or avideo; you can avoid whatever ads YouTube puts on the show and keep copies of videos even if YouTube censors them or deletes them. youtube-dl https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ avideo https://notabug.org/GPast/avideo/ Both youtube-dl and avideo programs do the same thing: they let you download videos from multiple video streaming services (YouTube, Comedy Central, Vimeo, etc.). avideo won't run the proprietary DRM on some YouTube videos, but youtube-dl might. But youtube-dl is updated multiple times per month -- run "youtube-dl --update" to let the program update itself. Both programs are free software -- free to run, inspect, share, and modify at any time for any reason. Happy hacking. From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Mar 14 02:36:11 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 02:36:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Eschew fascism Message-ID: https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2018-March/047882.html _______________ Obviously, Carl does not want us to denounce Trump as the Fascist that he is. LOL! fab. From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 03:12:08 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:12:08 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Eschew fascism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Mar 13, 2018, at 9:36 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/2018-March/047882.html > _______________ > Obviously, Carl does not want us to denounce Trump as the Fascist that he is. LOL! fab. TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM; U.S. WAR-MAKING IS. AMERICANS MUST RENOUNCE WHAT OUR LEADERS ARE DOING. ~ Trump inherited eight wars from Obama, who was the first U.S. president ever to be at war throughout two presidential terms: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and the Philippines. More than a quarter million U.S. military personnel are today deployed in a thousand foreign U.S. bases, most of them ringing Russia and China. Obama’s drone assassinations, which killed thousands and were accurately called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times,” continue under Trump - as do the war provocations against Russia and China, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in no less than three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. Much of the world regards them as nothing less than American death squads. If American leaders were put on trial today as German leaders were, at Nuremberg after World War II, for “launching aggressive war,” they - like the German leaders - would be hanged. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into America’s longest war, in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. He is perhaps the weakest U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge. But what both Obama and Trump knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; both candidates had to seem to be opposed to the wars, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. When World War II ended in 1945, the U.S. was the least-damaged major country on either side, and controlled the world economy. America’s wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have killed between 20 and 30 million people for the purpose of maintaining that control. Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. The Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire...” We must demand that foreign military bases be closed, U.S. troops (and weapons) be brought home, and social support - including free medical care, education, and a universal basic income - be provided for Americans immiserated by generations of U.S. government wars. ~ [This flyer is distributed at events sponsored by AWARE, the ‘Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort’ of Champaign-Urbana . AWARE meets every Sunday evening from 5 to 6pm at Hammerhead Coffee, 608 E. University Avenue - at Wright St. (parking on north side). Everyone who opposes U.S. wars and wishes to build a local anti-war movement is invited to join us.] —CGE From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 14 12:19:56 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:19:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Further shift toward global war? Message-ID: Trump’s firing of Tillerson signals further shift toward global war By Bill Van Auken 14 March 2018 President Donald Trump’s sudden firing of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Tuesday and the announcement of CIA Director Mike Pompeo as his replacement is bound up with the accelerating shift by the US administration toward a policy of global war as the solution to the deep-seated crisis of American capitalism. Fired by a morning tweet from Trump, Tillerson was reported by his aides to have had no advance warning that he was to be removed from his post. The tweet came just hours after Tillerson had returned from a week-long trip to Africa, basically an apology tour over Trump’s reference to the continent as “shithole countries.” Trump also announced that Pompeo will be replaced by Gina Haspel, an individual who is directly implicated in crimes of torture and forced disappearances. While Trump’s method of removing Tillerson was abrupt, rumors that the secretary of state would lose his cabinet seat had circulated for months in Washington amid the repeated interventions by the US president to undercut his supposed spokesman to the world. In an extraordinary rebuke to the US secretary of state last October, Trump tweeted from his New Jersey golf club that Tillerson was “wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man,” the nickname he had adopted for North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, adding, “we’ll do what has to be done!”, suggesting military action. The tweet came just as Tillerson was holding talks with Chinese officials on the crisis on the Korean peninsula. During the same week, it emerged that Tillerson had referred to Trump as a “moron” at a Pentagon meeting over the president’s statement to advisors that he wanted a tenfold increase in US nuclear weapons. Whatever the frictions between the US president and Tillerson, the multi-millionaire former CEO of ExxonMobil, Trump on Tuesday pointed to a particular difference over foreign policy. “I actually got along well with Rex but really it was a different mind-set, a different thinking,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House for a trip to California. “When you look at the Iran deal, I think it’s terrible. I guess he thought it was okay. . . So we were not really thinking the same. With Mike, Mike Pompeo, we have a very similar thought process. I think it’s going to go very well.” With a personal fortune of over $300 million and a career that brought him to the top of one of the largest oil conglomerates in the world, Tillerson is a dedicated defender of US capitalist interests. He had significant tactical differences with Trump and others in the administration, however, including over whether some of these interests could be achieved by means of diplomatic negotiations rather than military aggression. Tillerson was reportedly among those in the White House who last month dissuaded Trump from upending the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated between Iran and the P5+1—the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany—by refusing to sign the four-month waiver of US sanctions imposed over the nuclear program. Trump has reportedly complained that he regretted the decision and has vowed to reimpose the sanctions in May, the next waiver deadline, unless there is a deal to renegotiate the agreement, including terms that Tehran cannot and will not accept. In an apparent response to the cabinet reshuffle, Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted Tuesday: “Mr Trump has made habit of being unpredictable and thus unreliable for anybody to engage with. Nobody will be interested in reaching any agreement with the White House if US signature only good for 4-8 yrs.” Tillerson had also repeatedly spoken in favor of negotiations with North Korea, even as Trump threatened “fire and fury” and to “totally destroy” the country of 25 million people. In the end, however, Tillerson was caught off guard by Trump, who suddenly declared last week his willingness to participate in direct talks with Korea’s Kim Jong-un on the de-nuclearization of North Korea to be held by May. Trump made his announcement just a day after Tillerson had told reporters in Ethiopia that it was unclear “whether the conditions are right to even begin thinking about negotiations.” Tillerson’s proposed replacement as secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, has repeatedly made clear his determination to scrap the Iran nuclear treaty and pursue a strategy of regime change in Tehran. After Trump’s election, he tweeted: “I look forward to rolling back this disastrous deal with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.” As CIA director, Pompeo, who has repeatedly engaged in anti-Muslim rhetoric, referred to Iran as a “despotic theocracy” and a “pernicious empire that is expanding its power and influence across the Middle East.” A former US Army tank officer and right-wing Tea Party congressman from Kansas, whose political career was bankrolled by the Koch brothers, Pompeo boasted last October that under his leadership, the CIA would become a “much more vicious agency.” He directed the deployment of CIA assassination squads in Afghanistan to eliminate opponents of the US-backed regime in Kabul. Pompeo has also made clear his support for regime change in North Korea, declaring last July that he was “hopeful we will find a way to separate that regime from this system ... The North Korean people, I’m sure, are lovely people and would love to see him go.” Speaking on a news talk show Sunday, Pompeo stressed that in any negotiations between Trump and Kim, “there will be no concessions made.” Sources in Washington have indicated that Trump wanted to install Pompeo as secretary of state before any negotiations began. The appointment of Pompeo strongly suggests that the acceptance of talks with Kim is a ruse on the part of the Trump administration, aimed at paving the way to US military action. Asked on Sunday in an appearance on ABC where there was a possibility that the talks would not take place, White House spokesman Raj Shah responded, “there’s the possibility. If it does, it’s the North Koreans’ fault, they have not lived up to the promises that they made.” The replacement of Tillerson by Pompeo provoked worried responses from Washington’s erstwhile European allies. “The dismissal of Rex #Tillerson does not make anything better,” German Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Roth said in a tweet Tuesday. Thomas Oppermann, the deputy speaker of the German parliament, meanwhile, warned that the removal of Tillerson, whom he described as “a reliable, intelligent interlocutor,” would result in a “further setback for German-American relations.” The sudden changes at the top of the US administration, he added, was a manifestation of Trump’s “capricious and erratic” methods. Trump’s ostensible political opponents within the Democratic Party responded to the cabinet reshuffle entirely from the standpoint of the anti-Russia campaign that they have made the focus of their opposition to the administration. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, said that Tillerson “was not close to tough enough on Russia,” and that he hoped that Pompeo “will be a lot tougher and we hope he can persuade the president to be tougher.” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, attributed Tillerson’s firing to his having implicated Russia in connection with the poisoning of an ex-spy living in Britain. “President Trump’s actions show that every official in his Administration is at the mercy of his personal whims and his worship of Putin,” she tweeted. When Tillerson was nominated as secretary of state, Democrats opposed him not out of concern that a top oil CEO would be taking over the senior foreign policy position in the US government, but rather over his deals he struck with Russia. Now, far from opposing the further turn toward war by the Trump administration, they are only demanding that it focus more directly on nuclear-armed Russia. In a statement on Tuesday, Schumer also made it clear that he was not calling on Democrats to oppose Trump’s nominee to replace Pompeo as director of the CIA, Haspel, a 30-year CIA veteran who was directly involved in the torture of detainees under the Bush administration, as well as in the destruction of video evidence documenting those war crimes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Mar 14 12:22:38 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:22:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Blood and soil': Protesters chant Nazi slogan in Charlottesville Message-ID: Check out this story on CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-unite-the-right-rally/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 14 12:51:48 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:51:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Blood and soil': Protesters chant Nazi slogan in Charlottesville In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: While there is no doubt there is a rise in right wing nationalism in the US as well as elsewhere in the world, given the economy. I think its best not to focus too much on these “activities”, given they are probably meant to provoke a reaction. Those going out and countering them, are contributing to the attention these people are seeking. This is exactly what the USG wants, to have Americans fighting among themselves, right versus left. A distraction to keep attention off of what the government is doing globally. More than likely this is fomented by agent provocateurs for that purpose. Germany had a history of just this, which is what is terrifying, but when Communists confronted the nationalists with physical action, the Communists were were defeated. Thus I urge those on the left, to do what the Jewish people in Skokie, Illinois did many years ago. Ignore them. On Mar 14, 2018, at 05:22, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Check out this story on CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-unite-the-right-rally/index.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 fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Mar 14 13:25:16 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:25:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Blood and soil': Protesters chant Nazi slogan in Charlottesville In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: …to do what the Jewish people in Skokie, Illinois did many years ago. Ignore them… With all due respect to you, I was living in Boston at the time, and I stand subject to correction: But I was told by someone who was there that despite their victory in court the Nazis never physically marched in Skokie, home to so many Holocaust Survivors—the Nazis chickened out because of the Jewish Resistance in Skokie. If Carl does not believe Trump is a Fascist, that is his problem. I will stand against Trump Fascism wherever and whenever they rear their ugly head. Just like the two of us did before this Trump College of Law against the Trump Department of Injustice Henchman. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 7:52 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] 'Blood and soil': Protesters chant Nazi slogan in Charlottesville While there is no doubt there is a rise in right wing nationalism in the US as well as elsewhere in the world, given the economy. I think its best not to focus too much on these “activities”, given they are probably meant to provoke a reaction. Those going out and countering them, are contributing to the attention these people are seeking. This is exactly what the USG wants, to have Americans fighting among themselves, right versus left. A distraction to keep attention off of what the government is doing globally. More than likely this is fomented by agent provocateurs for that purpose. Germany had a history of just this, which is what is terrifying, but when Communists confronted the nationalists with physical action, the Communists were were defeated. Thus I urge those on the left, to do what the Jewish people in Skokie, Illinois did many years ago. Ignore them. On Mar 14, 2018, at 05:22, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Check out this story on CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-unite-the-right-rally/index.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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 14 14:09:01 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:09:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Blood and soil': Protesters chant Nazi slogan in Charlottesville In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Then I was told wrong, or misunderstood, my Jewish friends in the seventies, when I was outraged over anti-semitic statements made by some people, and wanted to do “something” to prevent it. They referred to that which took place in Skokie, sometime in the late sixties? They supported “freedom of speech, and assembly” given the history of the German Holocaust, and the experiences of their “parents.” I agree with speaking out against fascism, yes, but not countering fascists physically in any form, which I believe is their goal, to provoke the left. However, I also don’t believe we, by “we” I refer to individuals, groups, organizations, universities, do not need to give fascists, or racists, a “platform, soapbox, stage or megaphone” to speak. We simply speak out against them based upon the issues they support, but never physically prevent them from speaking. There is a major difference that needs to be clarified and understood. When we use the term “resistance” we always need to define, just what we mean by that. On Mar 14, 2018, at 06:25, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: …to do what the Jewish people in Skokie, Illinois did many years ago. Ignore them… With all due respect to you, I was living in Boston at the time, and I stand subject to correction: But I was told by someone who was there that despite their victory in court the Nazis never physically marched in Skokie, home to so many Holocaust Survivors—the Nazis chickened out because of the Jewish Resistance in Skokie. If Carl does not believe Trump is a Fascist, that is his problem. I will stand against Trump Fascism wherever and whenever they rear their ugly head. Just like the two of us did before this Trump College of Law against the Trump Department of Injustice Henchman. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 7:52 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] 'Blood and soil': Protesters chant Nazi slogan in Charlottesville While there is no doubt there is a rise in right wing nationalism in the US as well as elsewhere in the world, given the economy. I think its best not to focus too much on these “activities”, given they are probably meant to provoke a reaction. Those going out and countering them, are contributing to the attention these people are seeking. This is exactly what the USG wants, to have Americans fighting among themselves, right versus left. A distraction to keep attention off of what the government is doing globally. More than likely this is fomented by agent provocateurs for that purpose. Germany had a history of just this, which is what is terrifying, but when Communists confronted the nationalists with physical action, the Communists were were defeated. Thus I urge those on the left, to do what the Jewish people in Skokie, Illinois did many years ago. Ignore them. On Mar 14, 2018, at 05:22, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Check out this story on CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-unite-the-right-rally/index.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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 14 14:47:04 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:47:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trumps latest appointment Message-ID: Frankly, just about anyone leading the CIA is likely to have been involved in torture of one form or another. Whether through rendition or our usual interventions and training of proxies. However, we are becoming so overt in our illegal and atrocious behavior, that it takes on the veneer of acceptability and normality. This we must resist. Opinion | EDITORIAL Having a Torturer Lead the C.I.A. By THE EDITORIAL BOARDMARCH 13, 2018 Continue reading the main storyShare This Page * Share * Tweet * Email * More * Save Photo [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/03/14/opinion/14wed3/merlin_86648062_f2cb5ab1-b346-4454-a60b-3234f5e17bf3-master768.jpg] CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times President Trump has displayed enthusiasm for brutality over the past year. He has told the police to treat suspects roughly, praised President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines for murdering people suspected of drug ties and called for the execution of drug dealers. But one of his most unsettling beliefs is still his acceptance of the value of torture. “In my opinion, it works,” he told Sean Hannity of Fox News early last year. Previously, anyone alarmed by Mr. Trump’s cavalier embrace of government-sanctioned cruelty was reassured by his vow to accept the advice of his defense secretary, Jim Mattis, who opposes torture and promised at his Senate confirmation hearing that he would uphold American and international laws against it. Now we have reason to be uneasy yet again. When it comes to torture, no American officials have been more practiced in those heinous dark arts than the agents and employees of the Central Intelligence Agency who applied it to terrorism suspects after 9/11. Few American officials were so directly involved in that frenzy of abuse, which began under President George W. Bush and was ended by President Barack Obama, as Gina Haspel. On Tuesday, in announcing that he had dismissed Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and was replacing him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, Mr. Trump said that Mr. Pompeo’s successor would be his deputy, Ms. Haspel. Continue reading the main story As an undercover C.I.A. officer, Ms. Haspel played a direct role in the agency’s “extraordinary rendition program,” under which suspected militants were remanded to foreign governments and held at secret facilities, where they were tortured by agency personnel. Ms. Haspel ran the first detention site in Thailand and oversaw the brutal interrogations of two detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Mr. Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times in a single month; his C.I.A. torturers bashed his head into walls and subjected him to other unspeakable brutalities. This cruelty stopped when investigators decided he had nothing useful to tell them. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Opinion Today Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. * SEE SAMPLE * PRIVACY POLICY * OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME The sessions were videotaped and the recordings stored in a safe at the C.I.A. station in Thailand until they were ordered destroyed in 2005. And who did that? By then, Ms. Haspel was at C.I.A. headquarters, and while the agency said the decision to destroy evidence was made by her boss at the time, Jose Rodriguez, Ms. Haspel’s name was on the cable with the destruction orders. In 2013, these activities were of such concern that Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, blocked Ms. Haspel’s promotion to be head of the agency’s clandestine service. Since then the two have spent time together, leading Ms. Feinstein on Tuesday to describe Ms. Haspel as a “good deputy” and to say she would wait until the confirmation hearing to make a judgment on the appointment. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a former prisoner of war, insisted that during the confirmation process, Ms. Haspel must “explain the nature and extent of her involvement” in the interrogation program. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said her roles overseeing the waterboarding of detainees and the destruction of tapes were troubling. He and the American Civil Liberties Union called for Ms. Haspel’s C.I.A. records to be declassified as part of her nomination. The use of torture and secret foreign prisons — think of the deeply disgraceful events at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq — was a boon to terrorist groups, helping their propaganda and recruitment efforts. Such activities were also an irritant to key allies and even put American forces and personnel at risk of legal liability and being subjected to harsh treatment when they are detained. Ms. Haspel is reportedly respected by many C.I.A. agents. But she effectively ran an illegal program, and her promotion to such a top administration position, unless she forcefully renounces the use of torture during her confirmation hearing, would send an undeniable signal to the agency, and the country, that Mr. Trump is indifferent to this brutality, regardless of what Secretary Mattis believes. Members of Congress and public interest groups need to stand up and make clear that, otherwise, the appointment is wrong. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Mar 14 15:08:11 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 15:08:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trumps latest appointment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah, I just gave an interview to RT on this. Will let you know if and when it comes out. Of course Trump is a Fascist! Fab Francis 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-discuss On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 9:47 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trumps latest appointment Frankly, just about anyone leading the CIA is likely to have been involved in torture of one form or another. Whether through rendition or our usual interventions and training of proxies. However, we are becoming so overt in our illegal and atrocious behavior, that it takes on the veneer of acceptability and normality. This we must resist. Opinion | EDITORIAL Having a Torturer Lead the C.I.A. By THE EDITORIAL BOARDMARCH 13, 2018 Continue reading the main storyShare This Page · Share · Tweet · Email · More · Save Photo [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/03/14/opinion/14wed3/merlin_86648062_f2cb5ab1-b346-4454-a60b-3234f5e17bf3-master768.jpg] CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times President Trump has displayed enthusiasm for brutality over the past year. He has told the police to treat suspects roughly, praised President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines for murdering people suspected of drug ties and called for the execution of drug dealers. But one of his most unsettling beliefs is still his acceptance of the value of torture. “In my opinion, it works,” he told Sean Hannity of Fox News early last year. Previously, anyone alarmed by Mr. Trump’s cavalier embrace of government-sanctioned cruelty was reassured by his vow to accept the advice of his defense secretary, Jim Mattis, who opposes torture and promised at his Senate confirmation hearing that he would uphold American and international laws against it. Now we have reason to be uneasy yet again. When it comes to torture, no American officials have been more practiced in those heinous dark arts than the agents and employees of the Central Intelligence Agency who applied it to terrorism suspects after 9/11. Few American officials were so directly involved in that frenzy of abuse, which began under President George W. Bush and was ended by President Barack Obama, as Gina Haspel. On Tuesday, in announcing that he had dismissed Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and was replacing him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, Mr. Trump said that Mr. Pompeo’s successor would be his deputy, Ms. Haspel. Continue reading the main story As an undercover C.I.A. officer, Ms. Haspel played a direct role in the agency’s “extraordinary rendition program,” under which suspected militants were remanded to foreign governments and held at secret facilities, where they were tortured by agency personnel. Ms. Haspel ran the first detention site in Thailand and oversaw the brutal interrogations of two detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Mr. Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times in a single month; his C.I.A. torturers bashed his head into walls and subjected him to other unspeakable brutalities. This cruelty stopped when investigators decided he had nothing useful to tell them. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Opinion Today Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world. Sign Up [ ] You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. · SEE SAMPLE · PRIVACY POLICY · OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME The sessions were videotaped and the recordings stored in a safe at the C.I.A. station in Thailand until they were ordered destroyed in 2005. And who did that? By then, Ms. Haspel was at C.I.A. headquarters, and while the agency said the decision to destroy evidence was made by her boss at the time, Jose Rodriguez, Ms. Haspel’s name was on the cable with the destruction orders. In 2013, these activities were of such concern that Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, blocked Ms. Haspel’s promotion to be head of the agency’s clandestine service. Since then the two have spent time together, leading Ms. Feinstein on Tuesday to describe Ms. Haspel as a “good deputy” and to say she would wait until the confirmation hearing to make a judgment on the appointment. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a former prisoner of war, insisted that during the confirmation process, Ms. Haspel must “explain the nature and extent of her involvement” in the interrogation program. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said her roles overseeing the waterboarding of detainees and the destruction of tapes were troubling. He and the American Civil Liberties Union called for Ms. Haspel’s C.I.A. records to be declassified as part of her nomination. The use of torture and secret foreign prisons — think of the deeply disgraceful events at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq — was a boon to terrorist groups, helping their propaganda and recruitment efforts. Such activities were also an irritant to key allies and even put American forces and personnel at risk of legal liability and being subjected to harsh treatment when they are detained. Ms. Haspel is reportedly respected by many C.I.A. agents. But she effectively ran an illegal program, and her promotion to such a top administration position, unless she forcefully renounces the use of torture during her confirmation hearing, would send an undeniable signal to the agency, and the country, that Mr. Trump is indifferent to this brutality, regardless of what Secretary Mattis believes. Members of Congress and public interest groups need to stand up and make clear that, otherwise, the appointment is wrong. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 14 15:41:46 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 15:41:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hear interview of Gus Wood, on the News Gazette podcast today Message-ID: http://www.news-gazette.com/podcasts/… -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Mar 14 16:00:18 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:00:18 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trumps latest appointment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rand Paul just came out against this very strongly. This is stoppable. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni Children https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from-starving-yemeni-kids @SenatorShaheen and @SenToddYoung: Stop Starving Yemeni Children https://www.change.org/p/senatorshaheen-and-sentoddyoung-stop-starving-yemeni-children On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Frankly, just about anyone leading the CIA is likely to have been involved > in torture of one form or another. Whether through rendition or our usual > interventions and training of proxies. However, we are becoming so overt in > our illegal and atrocious behavior, that it takes on the veneer of > acceptability and normality. This we must resist. > > Opinion | EDITORIAL Having > a Torturer Lead the C.I.A. > > By THE EDITORIAL BOARD > MARCH > 13, 2018 > Continue reading the main story > Share > This Page > > - Share > - Tweet > - Email > - More > - Save > > Photo > CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times > > President Trump has displayed enthusiasm for brutality over the past year. > He has told the police to treat suspects roughly > > , praised President Rodrigo Duterte > of > the Philippines for murdering people suspected of drug ties and called for > the execution of drug dealers > > . > > But one of his most unsettling beliefs is still his acceptance of the > value of torture. “In my opinion, it works, > ” > he told Sean Hannity of Fox News early last year. > > Previously, anyone alarmed by Mr. Trump’s cavalier embrace of > government-sanctioned cruelty was reassured by his vow to accept the > advice of his defense secretary > , > Jim Mattis, who opposes torture and promised at his Senate confirmation > hearing that he would uphold American and international laws against it. > > Now we have reason to be uneasy yet again. > > When it comes to torture, no American officials have been more practiced > in those heinous dark arts than the agents and employees of the Central > Intelligence Agency who applied it to terrorism suspects after 9/11. Few > American officials were so directly involved in that frenzy of abuse, which > began under President George W. Bush and was ended by President Barack > Obama, as Gina Haspel. > > On Tuesday, in announcing that he had dismissed Rex Tillerson as secretary > of state and was replacing him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, Mr. > Trump said that Mr. Pompeo’s successor would be his deputy, Ms. Haspel. > Continue reading the main story > > > As an undercover C.I.A. officer, Ms. Haspel played a direct role in the > agency’s “extraordinary rendition program, > ” > under which suspected militants were remanded to foreign governments and > held at secret facilities, where they were tortured by agency personnel. > > Ms. Haspel ran the first detention site in Thailand and oversaw the brutal > interrogations of two detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. > Mr. Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times in a single month; his > C.I.A. torturers bashed his head into walls and subjected him to other > unspeakable brutalities. This cruelty stopped when investigators decided he > had nothing useful to tell them. > Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story > Opinion > Today > > Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The > Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world. > Sign Up > You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New > York Times's products and services. > > - SEE SAMPLE > > > - PRIVACY POLICY > - OPT OUT OR CONTACT US > ANYTIME > > The sessions were videotaped and the recordings stored in a safe at the > C.I.A. station in Thailand until they were ordered destroyed in 2005. And > who did that? By then, Ms. Haspel was at C.I.A. headquarters, and while the > agency said the decision to destroy evidence was made by her boss at the > time, Jose Rodriguez, Ms. Haspel’s name was on the cable with the > destruction orders. > > In 2013 > , > these activities were of such concern that Senator Dianne Feinstein of > California, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, > blocked Ms. Haspel’s promotion to be head of the agency’s clandestine > service. Since then the two have spent time together, leading Ms. Feinstein > on Tuesday to describe Ms. Haspel as a “good deputy” and to say she would > wait until the confirmation hearing to make a judgment on the appointment. > > Senator John McCain > , > Republican of Arizona and a former prisoner of war, insisted that during > the confirmation process, Ms. Haspel must “explain the nature and extent of > her involvement” in the interrogation program. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat > of Oregon, said her roles overseeing the waterboarding of detainees and the > destruction of tapes were troubling. He and the American Civil Liberties > Union called for Ms. Haspel’s C > > .I.A. > records > to be declassified > as > part of her nomination. > > The use of torture and secret foreign prisons — think of the deeply > disgraceful events at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq — was a boon to terrorist > groups, helping their propaganda and recruitment efforts. Such activities > were also an irritant to key allies and even put American forces and > personnel at risk of legal liability and being subjected to harsh treatment > when they are detained. > > Ms. Haspel is reportedly respected by many C.I.A. agents. But she > effectively ran an illegal program, and her promotion to such a top > administration position, unless she forcefully renounces the use of torture > during her confirmation hearing, would send an undeniable signal to the > agency, and the country, that Mr. Trump is indifferent to this brutality, > regardless of what Secretary Mattis believes. Members of Congress and > public interest groups need to stand up and make clear that, otherwise, the > appointment is wrong. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Mar 14 16:01:28 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:01:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trumps latest appointment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Let me know if I can help out. fab Francis 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-discuss On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 11:00 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trumps latest appointment Rand Paul just came out against this very strongly. This is stoppable. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni Children https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from-starving-yemeni-kids @SenatorShaheen and @SenToddYoung: Stop Starving Yemeni Children https://www.change.org/p/senatorshaheen-and-sentoddyoung-stop-starving-yemeni-children On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Frankly, just about anyone leading the CIA is likely to have been involved in torture of one form or another. Whether through rendition or our usual interventions and training of proxies. However, we are becoming so overt in our illegal and atrocious behavior, that it takes on the veneer of acceptability and normality. This we must resist. Opinion | EDITORIAL Having a Torturer Lead the C.I.A. By THE EDITORIAL BOARDMARCH 13, 2018 Continue reading the main storyShare This Page · Share · Tweet · Email · More · Save Photo [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/03/14/opinion/14wed3/merlin_86648062_f2cb5ab1-b346-4454-a60b-3234f5e17bf3-master768.jpg] CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times President Trump has displayed enthusiasm for brutality over the past year. He has told the police to treat suspects roughly, praised President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines for murdering people suspected of drug ties and called for the execution of drug dealers. But one of his most unsettling beliefs is still his acceptance of the value of torture. “In my opinion, it works,” he told Sean Hannity of Fox News early last year. Previously, anyone alarmed by Mr. Trump’s cavalier embrace of government-sanctioned cruelty was reassured by his vow to accept the advice of his defense secretary, Jim Mattis, who opposes torture and promised at his Senate confirmation hearing that he would uphold American and international laws against it. Now we have reason to be uneasy yet again. When it comes to torture, no American officials have been more practiced in those heinous dark arts than the agents and employees of the Central Intelligence Agency who applied it to terrorism suspects after 9/11. Few American officials were so directly involved in that frenzy of abuse, which began under President George W. Bush and was ended by President Barack Obama, as Gina Haspel. On Tuesday, in announcing that he had dismissed Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and was replacing him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, Mr. Trump said that Mr. Pompeo’s successor would be his deputy, Ms. Haspel. Continue reading the main story As an undercover C.I.A. officer, Ms. Haspel played a direct role in the agency’s “extraordinary rendition program,” under which suspected militants were remanded to foreign governments and held at secret facilities, where they were tortured by agency personnel. Ms. Haspel ran the first detention site in Thailand and oversaw the brutal interrogations of two detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Mr. Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times in a single month; his C.I.A. torturers bashed his head into walls and subjected him to other unspeakable brutalities. This cruelty stopped when investigators decided he had nothing useful to tell them. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Opinion Today Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world. Sign Up [ ] You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. · SEE SAMPLE · PRIVACY POLICY · OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME The sessions were videotaped and the recordings stored in a safe at the C.I.A. station in Thailand until they were ordered destroyed in 2005. And who did that? By then, Ms. Haspel was at C.I.A. headquarters, and while the agency said the decision to destroy evidence was made by her boss at the time, Jose Rodriguez, Ms. Haspel’s name was on the cable with the destruction orders. In 2013, these activities were of such concern that Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, blocked Ms. Haspel’s promotion to be head of the agency’s clandestine service. Since then the two have spent time together, leading Ms. Feinstein on Tuesday to describe Ms. Haspel as a “good deputy” and to say she would wait until the confirmation hearing to make a judgment on the appointment. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a former prisoner of war, insisted that during the confirmation process, Ms. Haspel must “explain the nature and extent of her involvement” in the interrogation program. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said her roles overseeing the waterboarding of detainees and the destruction of tapes were troubling. He and the American Civil Liberties Union called for Ms. Haspel’s C.I.A. records to be declassified as part of her nomination. The use of torture and secret foreign prisons — think of the deeply disgraceful events at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq — was a boon to terrorist groups, helping their propaganda and recruitment efforts. Such activities were also an irritant to key allies and even put American forces and personnel at risk of legal liability and being subjected to harsh treatment when they are detained. Ms. Haspel is reportedly respected by many C.I.A. agents. But she effectively ran an illegal program, and her promotion to such a top administration position, unless she forcefully renounces the use of torture during her confirmation hearing, would send an undeniable signal to the agency, and the country, that Mr. Trump is indifferent to this brutality, regardless of what Secretary Mattis believes. Members of Congress and public interest groups need to stand up and make clear that, otherwise, the appointment is wrong. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Mar 14 16:05:18 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:05:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trumps latest appointment References: Message-ID: Here is a comment I wrote for RT if you want to put something out on Haspel. Fab. OK. here is the Complaint I filed with the International Criminal Court against the US Government officials involved in the CIA Rendition/Torture Program, including Tenet the Director of the CIA at that time—her boss. These matters are currently under review by the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court. All the legal arguments applicable to Tenet below apply to her as well. Succinctly put, torture during war time is a war crime. And in this case, where her CIA torture and enforced disappearances of human beings is both widespread and systematic they constitute a crime against humanity. Wherever Haspel travels in the world today she would be subject to prosecution for war crimes, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and the Convention Against Torture ( just like Pinochet), inter alia. We International Lawyers will keep track of her foreign travels and try to get her prosecuted on these grounds wherever she might go! Francis A. Boyle Professor of International Law Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 11:01 AM To: 'Robert Naiman' ; Karen Aram Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Trumps latest appointment Let me know if I can help out. fab Francis 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-discuss > On Behalf Of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 11:00 AM To: Karen Aram > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Trumps latest appointment Rand Paul just came out against this very strongly. This is stoppable. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 Senate: Wield the Constitution to Stop Saudi Starvation of Yemeni Children https://www.change.org/p/senate-invoke-war-powers-to-stop-saudi-from-starving-yemeni-kids @SenatorShaheen and @SenToddYoung: Stop Starving Yemeni Children https://www.change.org/p/senatorshaheen-and-sentoddyoung-stop-starving-yemeni-children On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Frankly, just about anyone leading the CIA is likely to have been involved in torture of one form or another. Whether through rendition or our usual interventions and training of proxies. However, we are becoming so overt in our illegal and atrocious behavior, that it takes on the veneer of acceptability and normality. This we must resist. Opinion | EDITORIAL Having a Torturer Lead the C.I.A. By THE EDITORIAL BOARDMARCH 13, 2018 Continue reading the main storyShare This Page · Share · Tweet · Email · More · Save Photo [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/03/14/opinion/14wed3/merlin_86648062_f2cb5ab1-b346-4454-a60b-3234f5e17bf3-master768.jpg] CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times President Trump has displayed enthusiasm for brutality over the past year. He has told the police to treat suspects roughly, praised President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines for murdering people suspected of drug ties and called for the execution of drug dealers. But one of his most unsettling beliefs is still his acceptance of the value of torture. “In my opinion, it works,” he told Sean Hannity of Fox News early last year. Previously, anyone alarmed by Mr. Trump’s cavalier embrace of government-sanctioned cruelty was reassured by his vow to accept the advice of his defense secretary, Jim Mattis, who opposes torture and promised at his Senate confirmation hearing that he would uphold American and international laws against it. Now we have reason to be uneasy yet again. When it comes to torture, no American officials have been more practiced in those heinous dark arts than the agents and employees of the Central Intelligence Agency who applied it to terrorism suspects after 9/11. Few American officials were so directly involved in that frenzy of abuse, which began under President George W. Bush and was ended by President Barack Obama, as Gina Haspel. On Tuesday, in announcing that he had dismissed Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and was replacing him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, Mr. Trump said that Mr. Pompeo’s successor would be his deputy, Ms. Haspel. Continue reading the main story As an undercover C.I.A. officer, Ms. Haspel played a direct role in the agency’s “extraordinary rendition program,” under which suspected militants were remanded to foreign governments and held at secret facilities, where they were tortured by agency personnel. Ms. Haspel ran the first detention site in Thailand and oversaw the brutal interrogations of two detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Mr. Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times in a single month; his C.I.A. torturers bashed his head into walls and subjected him to other unspeakable brutalities. This cruelty stopped when investigators decided he had nothing useful to tell them. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Opinion Today Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world. Sign Up [ ] You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. · SEE SAMPLE · PRIVACY POLICY · OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME The sessions were videotaped and the recordings stored in a safe at the C.I.A. station in Thailand until they were ordered destroyed in 2005. And who did that? By then, Ms. Haspel was at C.I.A. headquarters, and while the agency said the decision to destroy evidence was made by her boss at the time, Jose Rodriguez, Ms. Haspel’s name was on the cable with the destruction orders. In 2013, these activities were of such concern that Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, blocked Ms. Haspel’s promotion to be head of the agency’s clandestine service. Since then the two have spent time together, leading Ms. Feinstein on Tuesday to describe Ms. Haspel as a “good deputy” and to say she would wait until the confirmation hearing to make a judgment on the appointment. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a former prisoner of war, insisted that during the confirmation process, Ms. Haspel must “explain the nature and extent of her involvement” in the interrogation program. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said her roles overseeing the waterboarding of detainees and the destruction of tapes were troubling. He and the American Civil Liberties Union called for Ms. Haspel’s C.I.A. records to be declassified as part of her nomination. The use of torture and secret foreign prisons — think of the deeply disgraceful events at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq — was a boon to terrorist groups, helping their propaganda and recruitment efforts. Such activities were also an irritant to key allies and even put American forces and personnel at risk of legal liability and being subjected to harsh treatment when they are detained. Ms. Haspel is reportedly respected by many C.I.A. agents. But she effectively ran an illegal program, and her promotion to such a top administration position, unless she forcefully renounces the use of torture during her confirmation hearing, would send an undeniable signal to the agency, and the country, that Mr. Trump is indifferent to this brutality, regardless of what Secretary Mattis believes. Members of Congress and public interest groups need to stand up and make clear that, otherwise, the appointment is wrong. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Mar 14 16:57:53 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:57:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Int'l Criminal Court Complaint Filed Against Bush et al. In-Reply-To: References: <7CABA588D06FEAD0EE1B7EDE274483943B113531E5EC2DAA@emm.adhost.com> Message-ID: The arguments applicable to Tenet below also apply to Haspel who worked for Tenet. Fab. Francis 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, December 10, 2014 10:22 AM To: Killeacle Subject: Int'l Criminal Court Complaint Filed Against Bush et al. BUSH TO THE HAGUE International Criminal Court Complaint Filed Against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice and Gonzales INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANTS REQUESTED Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, U.S.A. has filed a Complaint with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in The Hague against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (the "Accused") for their criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition" perpetrated upon about 100 human beings. This term is really their euphemism for the enforced disappearance of persons and their consequent torture. This criminal policy and practice by the Accused constitute Crimes against Humanity in violation of the Rome Statute establishing the I.C.C. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless the Accused have ordered and been responsible for the commission of I.C.C. statutory crimes within the respective territories of many I.C.C. member states, including several in Europe. Consequently, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction to prosecute the Accused for their I. C.C. statutory crimes under Rome Statute article 12(2)(a) that affords the I.C.C. jurisdiction to prosecute for I.C. C. statutory crimes committed in I.C.C. member states. The Complaint requests (1) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor open an investigation of the Accused on his own accord under Rome Statute article 15(1); and (2) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor also formally "submit to the [I.C.C.] Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation" of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3). For similar reasons, the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration risk the filing of a follow-up Complaint with the I.C.C. if they do not immediately terminate the Accused's criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition," which the Obama administration has continued to implement. The Complaint concludes with a request that the I.C.C. Prosecutor obtain International Arrest Warrants for the Accused from the I.C.C. in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), 58(1)(b)(i), 58(1)(b)(ii), and 58(1)(b) (iii). In order to demonstrate your support for this Complaint you can contact the I.C.C. Prosecutor by letter, fax, or email as indicated below. The Honorable Luis Moreno-Ocampo Office of the Prosecutor International Criminal Court Post Office Box 19519 2500 CM, The Hague The Netherlands Fax No.: 31-70-515-8555 Email: OTP.InformationDesk at icc-cpi.int January 19, 2010 Dear Sir: Please accept my personal compliments. I have the honor hereby to file with you and the International Criminal Court this Complaint against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice , and Alberto Gonzales (hereinafter referred to as the "Accused") for their criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition." This term is really a euphemism for the enforced disappearancesof persons, their torture, severe deprivation of their liberty, their violent sexual abuse, and other inhumane acts perpetrated upon these Victims. The Accused have inflicted this criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition" upon about one hundred (100) human beings, almost all of whom are Muslims/Arabs/Asians and People of Color. I doubt very seriously that the Accused would have inflicted these criminal practices upon 100 White Judeo-Christian men. The Accused's criminal policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition" are both "widespread" and "systematic" within the meaning of Rome Statute article 7(1). Therefore the Accused have committed numerous "Crimes against Humanity" in flagrant and repeated and longstanding violation of Rome Statute articles 5(1)(b), 7(1)(a), 7 (1)(e), 7(1)(f), 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i), and 7(1)(k). Furthermore, the Accused's Rome Statute Crimes Against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues even as of today. The United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless, the Accused ordered and were responsible for the commission of these I.C.C. statutory crimes on, in, and over the respective territories of several I.C.C. member states, including many located in Europe. Therefore, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction over the Accused for their I.C.C. statutory crimes in accordance with Rome Statute article 12(2)(a), which provides as follows: Article 12 Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction ... 2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3: (a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred ... So the fact that United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute is no bar to the I.C.C.'s prosecution of the Accused because they have ordered and been responsible for the commission of Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity on, in, and over the respective territories of several I.C.C. member states. Consequently, I hereby respectfully request that the Court exercise its jurisdiction over the Accused for these Crimes against Humanity in accordance with Rome Statute article 13(c), which provides as follows: Article 13 Exercise of Jurisdiction The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if: ... (c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15. Pursuant to Rome Statute article 13(c), I hereby respectfully request that you initiate an investigation proprio motu against the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute article 15(1): "The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court." My detailed Complaint against the Accused constitutes the sufficient "information" required by article 15(1). Furthermore, I respectfully submit that this Complaint by itself constitutes "a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation" under Rome Statute article 15(3). Hence, I also respectfully request that you formally "submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation" of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3) at this time. Please inform me at your earliest convenience about the status and disposition of my two requests set forth immediately above. Based upon your extensive human rights work in Argentina, you know full well from direct personal experience the terrors and the horrors of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture. According to reputable news media sources here in the United States, about 100 human beings have been subjected to enforced disappearances and subsequent torture by the Accused. We still have no accounting for these Victims. In other words, many of these Victims of enforced disappearances and torture by the Accused could still be alive today. Their very lives are at stake right now as we communicate. You could very well save some of their lives by publicly stating that you are opening an investigation of my Complaint. As for those Victims of enforced disappearances by the Accused who have died, your opening an investigation of my Complaint is the only means by which we might be able to obtain some explanation and accounting for their whereabouts and the location of their remains in order to communicate this critical information to their next- of-kin and loved-ones. Based upon your extensive experience combating enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture in Argentina, you know full well how important that objective is. The next-of-kin, loved-ones, and friends of "disappeared" human beings can never benefit from psychological "closure" unless and until there is an accounting for the fates, if not the remains, of the Victims. In part that is precisely why the Accused's enforced disappearances of about 100 human beings constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues as of today and will continue until the fates of all their Victims have been officially determined by you opening an investigation into my Complaint. Let us mutually suppose that during the so-called "dirty war" in Argentina the International Criminal Court had been in existence. I submit that as an Argentinean human rights lawyer you would have moved heaven and earth and done everything in your power to get the I.C.C. and its Prosecutor to assume jurisdiction over the Argentine Junta in order to terminate and prosecute their enforced disappearances and torture of your fellow Argentinean citizens. I would have done the same. Unfortunately, the I.C.C. did not exist during those darkest of days for the Argentine Republic when we could have so acted. But today as the I.C.C. Prosecutor, you have both the opportunity and the legal power to do something to rectify this mass and total human rights annihilation, and to resolve and to terminate and to prosecute the "widespread" and "systematic" policy and practice of enforced disappearances and consequent torture of about 100 human beings by the Accused. Unfortunately, the new Obama administration in the United States has made it perfectly clear by means of public statements by President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder that they are not going to open any criminal investigation of any of the Accused for these aforementioned Crimes against Humanity. Hence an I.C.C. "case" against the Accused is "admissible" under Rome Statute article 1(complementarity) and article 17. As of right now you and the I.C.C. Judges are the only people in the entire world who can bring some degree of Justice, Closure, and Healing into this dire, tragic, and deplorable situation for the lives and well-being of about one hundred "disappeared" and tortured human beings as well as for their loved-ones and next-of-kin, who are also Victims of the Accused's Crimes against Humanity. On behalf of them all, as a fellow human rights lawyer I implore you to open an investigation into my Complaint and to issue a public statement to that effect. Also, most regretfully, the new Obama administration has publicly stated that it will continue the Accused's policy and practice of "extraordinary rendition," which is really their euphemism for enforced disappearances of human beings and consequent torture by other States. Hence the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration fully intend to commit their own Crimes against Humanity under the I.C.C. Rome Statute - unless you stop them! Your opening an investigation of my Complaint will undoubtedly deter the Obama administration from engaging in any more "extraordinary renditions" -- enforced disappearances of human beings and having them tortured by other States. Indeed your opening of an investigation into my Complaint might encourage the Obama administration to terminate its criminal "extraordinary rendition" program immediately and thoroughly by means of issuing a public statement to that effect. In other words, your opening an investigation of my Complaint could very well save the lives of a large number of additional human beings who otherwise will be subjected by the Obama administration to the Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture by other States, inter alia. The lives and well-being of countless human beings are now at risk, hanging in the balance, waiting for you to act promptly, effectively, and immediately to save them from becoming Victims of Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity perpetrated by the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration as successors-in-law to the Accused by opening an investigation of my Complaint. Otherwise, I shall be forced to file with you and the I.C.C. a follow-up Complaint against the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration. I certainly hope it will not come to that. Please make it so. Finally, for reasons more fully explained in the Conclusion to my Complaint, I respectfully request that you obtain I.C.C. arrest warrants for the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), article 58(1)(b)(i), article 58(1)(b)(ii), and article 58(1)(b)(iii). The sooner, the better for all humankind. I respectfully request that you schedule a meeting with me at our earliest mutual convenience in order to discuss this Complaint. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. This transmission letter is an integral part of my Complaint against the Accused and is hereby incorporated by reference into the attached Complaint dated as of today as well. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. Francis A. Boyle Professor of International Law FRANCIS A. BOYLE is a leading American expert in international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court. He served as legal adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993. In 2007, he delivered the Bertrand Russell Peace Lectures. Previous Russell Lecturers have included E.P. Thompson, Elena Bonner, Edward Said, Ramsey Clark, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Joseph Rotblat, Johan Galtung, and Noam Chomsky. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign and is author of, inter alia, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World Order, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, Destroying World Order, Biowarfare & Terrorism. And Tackling America's Toughest Questions. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University. You are listed as a subscriber to the list of Clarity Press, Inc. If this is incorrect and you wish to be removed, please click here -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Mar 14 16:59:50 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:59:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Prosecuting Torture References: <15925808.1418310794083.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: As you can see, we scared Bush out of Geneva with my ICC Complaint. We will try to prosecute Haspel wherever she may be found anywhere in the world. Fab. Francis 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, March 2, 2018 9:12 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Cc: 'Davis, Ben' > Subject: FW: Prosecuting Torture Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: public at lists.accuracy.org [mailto:public at lists.accuracy.org] On Behalf Of Institute for Public Accuracy Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:13 AM To: Institute for Public Accuracy > Subject: Prosecuting Torture Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org ___________________________________________ Thursday, December 11, 2014 Prosecuting Torture AP reports: "UN Officials Demand Prosecutions for U.S. Torture." MICHAEL RATNER, mratner at ccrjustice.org, @justleft Available for a limited number of interviews, Ratner is president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, author of the book The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld, and co-counsel in European cases to hold former president George W. Bush and other officials accountable. He said today: "Since the inception of the CIA's program, the Bush administration setting up Guantanamo, its rendition program etc., CCR has made efforts both in the United States and around the world to hold government officials and private contractors accountable. The Senate Intelligence Committee report again, and with great force, tells us why officials must be held accountable. The United States government is required to do so under the convention against torture. The pressure on it must be maximized to do so. As the government seems to have clay feet, including Obama, international prosecutions in Europe and around the world are necessary. CCR has brought such efforts in Spain, where the case is still pending, Switzerland and Germany. Our efforts in this area now have an even greater chance to succeed. I don't think the courts of the world will stand by while the country that claims it is a human rights protector becomes a major example of a human rights violator. Bush and company shouldn't plan on visiting the Prado soon unless they want to end up in Spanish jail." FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of Tackling America’s Toughest Questions. International Business Times reports: "Some human rights advocates have called for former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and others in Bush’s administration to be tried for the abuses. Bush, Cheney, Rice and others were referred to the ICC [International Criminal Court] in 2010 by a team of prosecutors that later successfully levied war crimes charges against them in the independent and semi-symbolic Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. "Francis Boyle, a prosecutor in the Kuala Lumpur case and a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, filed that complaint, but it remains pending. He said it’s a good sign it wasn’t immediately dismissed and that the Senate Intelligence Committee report could be what convinces an ICC prosecutor to open an investigation. “'This is important because now we have an official branch of the U.S. government adopting and making these findings of fact,' he said. 'In addition to ICC prosecution, this now will help us pursue these individuals around the world [through the UN Convention Against Torture and Geneva Conventions]. All states signed to that convention, of which the U.S. is one of them, is required to have domestic legislature in place to prosecute torture. It does seem that if any of these individuals go outside of the U.S., we can go after them.' "Boyle helped lobby the Swiss government to arrest Bush during a visit in 2011, which he, Human Rights Watch, and other rights groups said prompted Bush to cancel that trip. Bush’s spokesman said the group Bush was scheduled to speak but canceled because of security concerns. "Donald Rumsfeld, former defense secretary under Bush, nearly cancelled a trip to Germany in 2005 after prosecutors there initially threatened him with war crimes case, but later backed down. In addition, the U.S. has pursued over 100 “Bilateral Immunity Agreements” with foreign states that essentially bar that state from referring U.S. officials -- current or former -- to the ICC. "Boyle believes that bringing a case against Bush and his officials is crucial to rebuilding the ICC as a legitimate international court that doesn’t just go after 'tin pot dictators' in Africa. He said he will submit follow-up appeals to the ICC after reading through the entirety of the [declassified sections of the] Senate report." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 _________________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: public at lists.accuracy.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: public-unsubscribe at lists.accuracy.org For all list information and functions, including changing your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page: http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Mar 14 20:26:57 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia In-Reply-To: <90008938-A588-4404-B038-0DAE49D21055@twf.org> References: <90008938-A588-4404-B038-0DAE49D21055@twf.org> 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: The Wisdom Fund Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:16 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia [THE WISDOM FUND: News & Views] SUBSCRIBE to The Wisdom Fund — unsubscribe fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (add listserve at twf.org and staff at twf.org to your address book) JOIN TWF.ORG founder on Facebook JOIN TWF.ORG on Twitter May 12, 2012 Foreign Policy Journal Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia by Yvonne Ridley In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia. The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is also asking that the names of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington and Haynes be entered and included in the Commission's Register of War Criminals for public record. The tribunal is the initiative of Malaysia's retired Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. He sat through the entire hearing as it took personal statements and testimonies of three witnesses namely Abbas Abid, Moazzam Begg and Jameelah Hameedi. The tribunal also heard two other Statutory Declarations of Iraqi citizen Ali Shalal and Rahul Ahmed, another British citizen. After the guilty verdict reached by five senior judges was delivered, Mahathir Mohamad said: "Powerful countries are getting away with murder." War crimes expert and lawyer Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in America, was part of the prosecution team. After the case he said: "This is the first conviction of these people anywhere in the world." While the hearing is regarded by some as being purely symbolic, human rights activist Boyle said he was hopeful that Bush and Co could soon find themselves facing similar trials elsewhere in the world. "We tried three times to get Bush in Canada but were thwarted by the Canadian Government, then we scared Bush out of going to Switzerland. The Spanish attempt failed because of the government there and the same happened in Germany." Boyle then referenced the Nuremberg Charter which was used as the format for the tribunal when asked about the credibility of the initiative in Malaysia. He quoted: "Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of such a plan." The US is subject to customary international law and to the Principles of the Nuremberg Charter said Boyle who also believes the week-long trial was "almost certainly" being monitored closely by both Pentagon and White House officials. Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, who headed the prosecution said: "The tribunal was very careful to adhere scrupulously to the regulations drawn up by the Nuremberg courts and the International Criminal Courts". He added that he was optimistic the tribunal would be followed up elsewhere in the world where "countries have a duty to try war criminals" and he cited the case of the former Chilean dictator Augustine Pinochet who was arrested in Britain to be extradited to Spain on charges of war crimes. "Pinochet was only eight years out of his presidency when that happened." The Pinochet case was the first time that several European judges applied the principle of universal jurisdiction, declaring themselves competent to judge crimes committed by former heads of state, despite local amnesty laws. Throughout the week the tribunal was packed with legal experts and law students as witnesses gave testimony and then cross examination by the defence led by lawyer Jason Kay Kit Leon. The court heard how - Abbas Abid, a 48-year-old engineer from Fallujah in Iraq had his fingernails removed by pliers. - Ali Shalal was attached with bare electrical wires and electrocuted and hung from a wall. - Moazzam Begg was beaten, hooded and put in solitary confinement. - Jameelah was stripped and humiliated, and was used as a human shield whilst being transported by helicopter. The witnesses also detailed how they have residual injuries till today. Moazzam Begg, now working as a director for the London-based human rights group Cageprisoners said he was delighted with the verdict, but added: "When people talk about Nuremberg you have to remember those tried were all prosecuted after the war. "Right now Guantanamo is still open, people are still being held there and are still being tortured there." In response to questions about the difference between the Bush and Obama Administrations, he added: "If President Bush was the President of extra-judicial torture then US President Barak Obama is the President of extra judicial killing through drone strikes. Our work has only just begun." The prosecution case rested on proving how the decision-makers at the highest level President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld, aided and abetted by the lawyers and the other commanders and CIA officials – all acted in concert. Torture was systematically applied and became an accepted norm. According to the prosecution, the testimony of all the witnesses exposed a sustained perpetration of brutal, barbaric, cruel and dehumanising course of conduct against them. These acts of crimes were applied cumulatively to inflict the worst possible pain and suffering, said lawyers. The president of the tribunal Tan Sri Dato Lamin bin Haji Mohd Yunus Lamin, found that the prosecution had established beyond a "reasonable doubt that the accused persons, former President George Bush and his co-conspirators engaged in a web of instructions, memos, directives, legal advice and action that established a common plan and purpose, joint enterprise and/or conspiracy to commit the crimes of Torture and War Crimes, including and not limited to a common plan and purpose to commit the following crimes in relation to the "War on Terror" and the wars launched by the U.S. and others in Afghanistan and Iraq." President Lamin told a packed courtroom: "As a tribunal of conscience, the Tribunal is fully aware that its verdict is merely declaratory in nature. The tribunal has no power of enforcement, no power to impose any custodial sentence on any one or more of the 8 convicted persons. What we can do, under Article 31 of Chapter VI of Part 2 of the Charter is to recommend to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission to submit this finding of conviction by the Tribunal, together with a record of these proceedings, to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council. "The Tribunal also recommends to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission that the names of all the 8 convicted persons be entered and included in the Commission's Register of War Criminals and be publicised accordingly. "The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions if any of these Accused persons may enter their jurisdictions". [https://www.dmanalytics2.com/open?d=90Y8W678-5600-4W0W-8Y1Y-9016VYZX0Z6Z&e=fboyle at law.uiuc.edu&a=61U71383-5X8Y-4U5Z-YV00-5V4WY30ZUYX2] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 01:03:36 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:03:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] SPLC In-Reply-To: References: <90008938-A588-4404-B038-0DAE49D21055@twf.org> Message-ID: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/09/update-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment splcenter.org Explanation and apology: The multipolar spin: how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment March 14, 2018 Facebook Twitter On March 9, 2018, we posted an article on our Hatewatch blog entitled “The multipolar spin: how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment.” Shortly after its publication, we received complaints registered by or on behalf of several journalists mentioned in the article that it falsely described one or another of them as white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, and falsely accused them of engaging in a conspiracy with the Putin regime to promote such views. Because neither we nor the article’s author intended to make any such accusations, we took it down while we re-examined its contents. That re-examination has caused us to conclude that, while the intent of the article, which we thought was clear at the time of publication, was to show only that individuals on the left share some policy views with respect to multipolarism that are also held by the far right and/or appear on far-right media and conferences advocating them, the article did not make that point as clearly as it could or should have. Accordingly, we have decided not to re-post it. In addition, we extend a sincere apology to those who believe they have been falsely described in it, including Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Tim Pool, Rania Khalek, and Brian Becker, and disclaim, as clearly as we can, any intention to suggest that any of them are white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, that they hold such views, or that they are engaged in a conspiracy with the Russian government to promote such views or otherwise. ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Mar 15 01:26:23 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:26:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] SPLC In-Reply-To: References: <90008938-A588-4404-B038-0DAE49D21055@twf.org> Message-ID: <1DD12A62-81F1-4943-BF21-F7772FE6DE8E@illinois.edu> SPLC - the 'Southern Poverty Law Center’ was classically described by the late (and much missed) Alex Cockburn 9 years ago. They seem to be up to their old tricks. Those of us on the Left and in the anti-war movement should be aware of that: > —CGE > On Mar 14, 2018, at 8:03 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/09/update-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment > > splcenter.org > Explanation and apology: The multipolar spin: how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment > > March 14, 2018 Facebook Twitter > > On March 9, 2018, we posted an article on our Hatewatch blog entitled “The multipolar spin: how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment.” > > Shortly after its publication, we received complaints registered by or on behalf of several journalists mentioned in the article that it falsely described one or another of them as white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, and falsely accused them of engaging in a conspiracy with the Putin regime to promote such views. Because neither we nor the article’s author intended to make any such accusations, we took it down while we re-examined its contents. > > That re-examination has caused us to conclude that, while the intent of the article, which we thought was clear at the time of publication, was to show only that individuals on the left share some policy views with respect to multipolarism that are also held by the far right and/or appear on far-right media and conferences advocating them, the article did not make that point as clearly as it could or should have. > > Accordingly, we have decided not to re-post it. In addition, we extend a sincere apology to those who believe they have been falsely described in it, including Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Tim Pool, Rania Khalek, and Brian Becker, and disclaim, as clearly as we can, any intention to suggest that any of them are white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, that they hold such views, or that they are engaged in a conspiracy with the Russian government to promote such views or otherwise. > > ### > > _______________________________________________ > 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu Mar 15 01:49:26 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:49:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Trumps latest appointment Message-ID: Thank you for all you have and are doing.!! Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Date: Wed, Mar 14, 2018 10:08 AMTo: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] FW: Trumps latest appointment Yeah, I just gave an interview to RT on this. Will let you know if and when it comes out. Of course Trump is a Fascist!   Fab     Francis 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-discuss > On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 9:47 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trumps latest appointment   Frankly, just about anyone leading the CIA is likely to have been involved in torture of one form or another. Whether through rendition or our usual interventions and training of proxies. However, we are becoming so overt in our illegal and atrocious behavior, that it takes on the veneer of acceptability and normality. This we must resist.   Opinion |  EDITORIAL Having a Torturer Lead the C.I.A. By THE EDITORIAL BOARDMARCH 13, 2018 Continue reading the main storyShare This Page ·       Share ·       Tweet ·       Email ·       More ·       Save Photo CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times  President Trump has displayed enthusiasm for brutality over the past year. He has told the police to treat suspects roughly, praised President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines for murdering people suspected of drug ties and called for the execution of drug dealers. But one of his most unsettling beliefs is still his acceptance of the value of torture. “In my opinion, it works,” he told Sean Hannity of Fox News early last year. Previously, anyone alarmed by Mr. Trump’s cavalier embrace of government-sanctioned cruelty was reassured by his vow to accept the advice of his defense secretary, Jim Mattis, who opposes torture and promised at his Senate confirmation hearing that he would uphold American and international laws against it. Now we have reason to be uneasy yet again. When it comes to torture, no American officials have been more practiced in those heinous dark arts than the agents and employees of the Central Intelligence Agency who applied it to terrorism suspects after 9/11. Few American officials were so directly involved in that frenzy of abuse, which began under President George W. Bush and was ended by President Barack Obama, as Gina Haspel. On Tuesday, in announcing that he had dismissed Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and was replacing him with Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director, Mr. Trump said that Mr. Pompeo’s successor would be his deputy, Ms. Haspel. Continue reading the main story As an undercover C.I.A. officer, Ms. Haspel played a direct role in the agency’s “extraordinary rendition program,” under which suspected militants were remanded to foreign governments and held at secret facilities, where they were tortured by agency personnel. Ms. Haspel ran the first detention site in Thailand and oversaw the brutal interrogations of two detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Mr. Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times in a single month; his C.I.A. torturers bashed his head into walls and subjected him to other unspeakable brutalities. This cruelty stopped when investigators decided he had nothing useful to tell them. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Opinion Today Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world. Sign Up [ ] You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. ·   SEE SAMPLE  ·       PRIVACY POLICY  ·       OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME The sessions were videotaped and the recordings stored in a safe at the C.I.A. station in Thailand until they were ordered destroyed in 2005. And who did that? By then, Ms. Haspel was at C.I.A. headquarters, and while the agency said the decision to destroy evidence was made by her boss at the time, Jose Rodriguez, Ms. Haspel’s name was on the cable with the destruction orders. In 2013, these activities were of such concern that Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, blocked Ms. Haspel’s promotion to be head of the agency’s clandestine service. Since then the two have spent time together, leading Ms. Feinstein on Tuesday to describe Ms. Haspel as a “good deputy” and to say she would wait until the confirmation hearing to make a judgment on the appointment. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and a former prisoner of war, insisted that during the confirmation process, Ms. Haspel must “explain the nature and extent of her involvement” in the interrogation program. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said her roles overseeing the waterboarding of detainees and the destruction of tapes were troubling. He and the American Civil Liberties Union called for Ms. Haspel’s C.I.A. records to be declassified as part of her nomination. The use of torture and secret foreign prisons — think of the deeply disgraceful events at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq — was a boon to terrorist groups, helping their propaganda and recruitment efforts. Such activities were also an irritant to key allies and even put American forces and personnel at risk of legal liability and being subjected to harsh treatment when they are detained. Ms. Haspel is reportedly respected by many C.I.A. agents. But she effectively ran an illegal program, and her promotion to such a top administration position, unless she forcefully renounces the use of torture during her confirmation hearing, would send an undeniable signal to the agency, and the country, that Mr. Trump is indifferent to this brutality, regardless of what Secretary Mattis believes. Members of Congress and public interest groups need to stand up and make clear that, otherwise, the appointment is wrong. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 05:42:06 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:42:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] SPLC In-Reply-To: References: <90008938-A588-4404-B038-0DAE49D21055@twf.org> Message-ID: In spite of SPLC's deserved bad reputation per Cockburn etc., those being slandered by it (Blumenthal, Khalek etc.) are deferring to its more common liberal reputation as a civil rights organization. That may be a tactical move on their part. Alexander Reid Ross, the culprit, has published on Counterpunch and been interviewed by Eric Draitser on their podcast. Similarly, Louis Proyect has attacked Blumenthal etc. on Counterpunch last weekend, and continues to do so during this week on his blog. So continues the scare campaign against "red-brown" alliances as an aspect of the antiwar movement, promoted by those supporting intensified U.S. intervention in Syria, including the fellow who debated Khalek on TRNN earlier this week, as shown also on AoTA. It can also be questioned whether legal suppression is an appropriate tactic in this case. DG DG DG On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:03 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/09/update- > multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment > > splcenter.org > Explanation and apology: The multipolar spin: how fascists operationalize > left-wing resentment > > March 14, 2018 Facebook Twitter > > On March 9, 2018, we posted an article on our Hatewatch blog entitled “The > multipolar spin: how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment.” > > Shortly after its publication, we received complaints registered by or on > behalf of several journalists mentioned in the article that it falsely > described one or another of them as white supremacists, fascists, and/or > anti-Semites, and falsely accused them of engaging in a conspiracy with the > Putin regime to promote such views. Because neither we nor the article’s > author intended to make any such accusations, we took it down while we > re-examined its contents. > > That re-examination has caused us to conclude that, while the intent of > the article, which we thought was clear at the time of publication, was to > show only that individuals on the left share some policy views with respect > to multipolarism that are also held by the far right and/or appear on > far-right media and conferences advocating them, the article did not make > that point as clearly as it could or should have. > > Accordingly, we have decided not to re-post it. In addition, we extend a > sincere apology to those who believe they have been falsely described in > it, including Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Tim Pool, Rania Khalek, and Brian > Becker, and disclaim, as clearly as we can, any intention to suggest that > any of them are white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, that > they hold such views, or that they are engaged in a conspiracy with the > Russian government to promote such views or otherwise. > > ### > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 rwhelbig at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 10:18:09 2018 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 03:18:09 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia In-Reply-To: References: <90008938-A588-4404-B038-0DAE49D21055@twf.org> Message-ID: Kangaroo courts have zero jurisdiction anywhere. Malaysia has routinely had these sham trials. If you were a real lawyer, who dealt in evidence, you would pick their evidence and witnesses apart instead of pushing out their sham judgments. You have a law degree and even teach the stuff so you should occasionally dig out your basic evidence texts. I know that prior sham trials here had witnesses who were total frauds. Leuren K Moret was a witness. She's a pal of your buddy Douglas Lind Rokke (I use his full name deliberately because he is a criminal who should have been convicted for perjury years ago) so you probably would buy into her lies too. If you had your evidence hat on, though, you would know that she is totally pretend, just like Rokke. Roger W Helbig On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign, IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only)* > > > > *From:* The Wisdom Fund > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:16 PM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Subject:* Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia > > > > [image: THE WISDOM FUND: News & Views] > > > *SUBSCRIBE > to > The Wisdom Fund — unsubscribe > fboyle at law.uiuc.edu > * > > *(add **listserve at twf.org ** and **staff at twf.org > ** to your address book)* > > > > *JOIN TWF.ORG* > * founder > on Facebook* > > *JOIN TWF.ORG > on > Twitter* > > > > May 12, 2012 > Foreign Policy Journal > Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia > > by Yvonne Ridley > > In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, > the former US President and seven key members of his administration were > yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes. > > Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto > Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were > tried in absentia in Malaysia. > > The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from > victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors > in Iraq and Afghanistan. > > They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo > detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the > notorious Abu Ghraib prison. > > At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously > delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key > legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and > cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. > > Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant > material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International > Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council. > > The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is also asking that the names of > Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington and Haynes be > entered and included in the Commission's Register of War Criminals for > public record. > > The tribunal is the initiative of Malaysia's retired Prime Minister > Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq > in 2003. > > He sat through the entire hearing as it took personal statements and > testimonies of three witnesses namely Abbas Abid, Moazzam Begg and Jameelah > Hameedi. The tribunal also heard two other Statutory Declarations of Iraqi > citizen Ali Shalal and Rahul Ahmed, another British citizen. > > After the guilty verdict reached by five senior judges was delivered, > Mahathir Mohamad said: "Powerful countries are getting away with murder." > > War crimes expert and lawyer Francis Boyle, professor of international law > at the University of Illinois College of Law in America, was part of the > prosecution team. > > After the case he said: "This is the first conviction of these people > anywhere in the world." > > While the hearing is regarded by some as being purely symbolic, human > rights activist Boyle said he was hopeful that Bush and Co could soon find > themselves facing similar trials elsewhere in the world. > > "We tried three times to get Bush in Canada but were thwarted by the > Canadian Government, then we scared Bush out of going to Switzerland. The > Spanish attempt failed because of the government there and the same > happened in Germany." > > Boyle then referenced the Nuremberg Charter which was used as the format > for the tribunal when asked about the credibility of the initiative in > Malaysia. He quoted: "Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices > participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or > conspiracy to commit war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by > any person in execution of such a plan." > > The US is subject to customary international law and to the Principles of > the Nuremberg Charter said Boyle who also believes the week-long trial was > "almost certainly" being monitored closely by both Pentagon and White House > officials. > > Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, who headed the prosecution said: "The > tribunal was very careful to adhere scrupulously to the regulations drawn > up by the Nuremberg courts and the International Criminal Courts". > > He added that he was optimistic the tribunal would be followed up > elsewhere in the world where "countries have a duty to try war criminals" > and he cited the case of the former Chilean dictator Augustine Pinochet who > was arrested in Britain to be extradited to Spain on charges of war crimes. > > "Pinochet was only eight years out of his presidency when that happened." > > The Pinochet case was the first time that several European judges applied > the principle of universal jurisdiction, declaring themselves competent to > judge crimes committed by former heads of state, despite local amnesty > laws. > > Throughout the week the tribunal was packed with legal experts and law > students as witnesses gave testimony and then cross examination by the > defence led by lawyer Jason Kay Kit Leon. > > The court heard how > > - Abbas Abid, a 48-year-old engineer from Fallujah in Iraq had his > fingernails removed by pliers. > > - Ali Shalal was attached with bare electrical wires and electrocuted and > hung from a wall. > > - Moazzam Begg was beaten, hooded and put in solitary confinement. > > - Jameelah was stripped and humiliated, and was used as a human shield > whilst being transported by helicopter. > > The witnesses also detailed how they have residual injuries till today. > > Moazzam Begg, now working as a director for the London-based human rights > group Cageprisoners said he was delighted with the verdict, but added: > "When people talk about Nuremberg you have to remember those tried were all > prosecuted after the war. > > "Right now Guantanamo is still open, people are still being held there and > are still being tortured there." > > In response to questions about the difference between the Bush and Obama > Administrations, he added: "If President Bush was the President of > extra-judicial torture then US President Barak Obama is the President of > extra judicial killing through drone strikes. Our work has only just > begun." > > The prosecution case rested on proving how the decision-makers at the > highest level President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defence > Rumsfeld, aided and abetted by the lawyers and the other commanders and CIA > officials – all acted in concert. Torture was systematically applied and > became an accepted norm. > > According to the prosecution, the testimony of all the witnesses exposed a > sustained perpetration of brutal, barbaric, cruel and dehumanising course > of conduct against them. > > These acts of crimes were applied cumulatively to inflict the worst > possible pain and suffering, said lawyers. > > The president of the tribunal Tan Sri Dato Lamin bin Haji Mohd Yunus > Lamin, found that the prosecution had established beyond a "reasonable > doubt that the accused persons, former President George Bush and his > co-conspirators engaged in a web of instructions, memos, directives, legal > advice and action that established a common plan and purpose, joint > enterprise and/or conspiracy to commit the crimes of Torture and War > Crimes, including and not limited to a common plan and purpose to commit > the following crimes in relation to the "War on Terror" and the wars > launched by the U.S. and others in Afghanistan and Iraq." > > President Lamin told a packed courtroom: "As a tribunal of conscience, the > Tribunal is fully aware that its verdict is merely declaratory in nature. > The tribunal has no power of enforcement, no power to impose any custodial > sentence on any one or more of the 8 convicted persons. What we can do, > under Article 31 of Chapter VI of Part 2 of the Charter is to recommend to > the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission to submit this finding of conviction > by the Tribunal, together with a record of these proceedings, to the Chief > Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United > Nations and the Security Council. > > "The Tribunal also recommends to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission > that the names of all the 8 convicted persons be entered and included in > the Commission's Register of War Criminals and be publicised accordingly. > > "The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest > international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as > these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations > to institute prosecutions if any of these Accused persons may enter their > jurisdictions". > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 15 12:03:54 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:03:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News discusses the newly appointed CIA Director Message-ID: http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21363:The-CIA%27s-New-Torturer-in-Chief Log in and tell us why you support TRNN ________________________________ biography Marcy Wheeler is a national security reporter and author. Her website is Empty Wheel. ________________________________ transcript [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/mwheeler0313pompeo-240.jpg]AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. President Trump has had several major Cabinet shake ups since taking office, but his latest is his boldest yet. Earlier today, Trump announcing that Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State, replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo. And replacing Pompeo at CIA is his deputy, Gina Haspel. Trump spoke to reporters on the White House south lawn. DONALD TRUMP: I've worked with Mike Pompeo now for quite some time. Tremendous energy, tremendous intellect. We're always on the same wavelength. The relationship has been very good, and that's what I need as Secretary of State. I wish Rex Tillerson well. Gina, by the way, who I know very well, who I've worked very closely, will be the first woman Director of the CIA. She's an outstanding person who also I have gotten to know very well. So, I've gotten to know a lot of people very well over the last year, and I'm really at a point where we're getting very close to having the Cabinet and other things that I want. AARON MATÉ: In elevating Pompeo, Trump would have a Secretary of State even more in line with confronting Iran. In installing Gina Haspel as head of the CIA, Trump also has someone who would be in line with one of his other defining views, embracing torture. Haspel was in charge of the CIA's first secret overseas prison site in Thailand, and there she oversaw the torture of two prisoners and later ordered the destruction of video footage that caught their abuse on camera. Joining me is Marcy Wheeler, national security reporter whose website is emptywheel.net. Welcome Marcy. Lots to talk about. Let's start with the presumptive new CIA Director, Gina Haspel. Tell us about her record. MARCY WHEELER: As you said, she was the Chief of Station for the first black sites or for Thailand, where the first black site, where our torture program was. She oversaw the torture of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri in 2002, when really CIA was just experimenting with it. In that role, because people are already saying that she was just doing what she was told, she was just following orders, in that role, she was also particularly sadistic. She at times when other people said Abu Zubaydah's fully compliant, he's told us all he knows, would say, "You go back and keep torturing him until he tells us more." That's her role in torture. And then while she was still Chief of Station there in 2002, she said, "Let's get rid of all of the videos we took of this torture." CIA didn't permit her to do that in 2002 because there were ongoing investigations, but when, in 2005, she and Jose Rodriguez, who kind of instituted the torture program, when they were at a much more senior level at CIA, she said, "Hey, great idea. Let's get rid of those videos that we took back in 2002, even though there are court rulings that say we should not be able to get rid of them." So, she oversaw the destruction of them, so both the torture and the cover up of the torture. That's who we're getting to run the CIA. AARON MATÉ: And for one of those prisoners who was tortured, last year, this nonprofit group in Europe, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, issued a statement calling for an arrest warrant for her. Now, I'm wondering, do you think that as the CIA Director if she travels overseas, especially to Europe where there have been cases around torture and there have been extradition requests for people who committed rights abuses, that she could be vulnerable to arrest? MARCY WHEELER: I think people, activists in Europe, certainly will try and make that an issue because yes, she is on the record as having played a key role in our torture program. And Europe for years has used whatever leverage they can to try and at least shame us for the torture program we've had. By the way, both Abu Zubaydah, Abu Zubaydah has never been charged. He's still at Gitmo. He's one of those people in this kind of holding pattern. His lawyers every once in a while say, "Hey..." something about him. Then Nashiri's trial is very troubled right now. She will be undergoing confirmation process at the same time as daily crazy stuff happens in Gitmo as they try and move closer to finally try this guy. He was allegedly responsible for the USS Cole bombing in 2000, before 9/11. So, the entire background, both before and after she gets confirmed, is going to emphasize her role in the torture, which will make for a pretty antagonistic debate about her nomination, I think rightly so. AARON MATÉ: Now, in terms of antagonism, the question for me is whether she'll face serious antagonism from Democrats in the Senate. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the powerful Democratic senator from California, has already indicated today that she will support Haspel's nomination. On this front, I'm wondering. We famously know that when President Obama took office, he talked about looking forward, not backwards, and essentially not prosecuting those who took part in torture. I'm wondering how much of a role Democratic inaction around torture has played in elevating someone like Gina Haspel to the top CIA post today. MARCY WHEELER: Well, I can't believe I'm going to defend Dianne Feinstein. I don't think she said that she will support Haspel's nomination. I think she has said she will give it a good listen, which probably means she's going to support it, but she also has a real primary challenge this year. And, I think that, again, this is the kind of thing that people can bring some political pressure on Feinstein about. She's no longer the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is the committee Haspel's nomination will go through. That puts her in less of a position to influence it. I mean, I expect that Wyden and Heinrich, and maybe Kamala Harris, will raise that as an issue in the confirmation process, but you're right. Feinstein is one of those people who's saying, "Well, she was just doing what she was ordered to do, and therefore, it's not that big of a deal." One of Feinstein's laudable actions in her time as a senator is making sure that the Senate report, the Senate torture report, actually got finished. Then to have what could be her last year in the Senate, have her rubber stamp this torturer to run the whole CIA, because even, I mean, Aaron, it's terrible enough that this torturer might run the whole CIA, but the other thing is the cover up, right? There were congressional inquiries into the torture program at the time those videos were destroyed. Carl Levin, for one, was asking for precisely that kind of data. Jay Rockefeller even was, Feinstein's predecessor as ranking member on the committee. And so, the notion that this woman who oversaw the obstruction of multiple investigations into CIA torture, including congressional investigations, the notion that she should become CIA Director, just invites CIA to continue to refuse all oversight from our democratically elected members of Congress. That, if you are a member of Congress, should be as important as the torture. They're both important, but the obstruction, as a member of Congress, as somebody who is supposed to oversee this agency, that really ought to be disqualifying, but apparently it's not for Feinstein. AARON MATÉ: Right. Speaking of congressional oversight of the CIA, there also was the fact that the CIA, after the initial cover up with the videotapes and so forth, back when the Senate was compiling its torture report, you had the CIA actually spying on the senators who were writing it. MARCY WHEELER: Under John Brennan, so yeah, that's under Barack Obama. Obama did not side with Dianne Feinstein in that battle. That's not the only obstruction. At one point, I made a long list, and it was a long list of all of the documents on the CIA torture program that disappeared into the ether. And it was a bipartisan effort from 2002 all the way to today, but yeah, this wasn't fixed under Barack Obama. Gina Haspel not only stayed in government, but continued to get promoted. And now, she's about to take over the agency. Again, for all the complaints about the deep state investigating Donald Trump and being out of control and what have you, confirming Gina Haspel as Director of CIA will further empower whatever uncontrollable power the deep state has. AARON MATÉ: All right. We're going to leave it there for part one. In part two, we'll talk about Mike Pompeo as a new Secretary of State. Marcy Wheeler of emptywheel.net, thank you. And thank you for joining us on The Real News. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 12:24:01 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:24:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] SPLC In-Reply-To: References: <90008938-A588-4404-B038-0DAE49D21055@twf.org> Message-ID: “Publish and be damned!” seems to me right in such matters. I don’t think legal suppression is right even for scurrilous political views. But it seems worthwhile to demand an apology like this. Why, who could imagine that the wretched SPLC had "any intention to suggest that any of them* are white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, that they hold such views, or that they are engaged in a conspiracy with the Russian government to promote such views or otherwise”?! —CGE _____________________ * Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Tim Pool, Rania Khalek, and Brian Becker > On Mar 15, 2018, at 12:42 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > In spite of SPLC's deserved bad reputation per Cockburn etc., those being slandered by it (Blumenthal, Khalek etc.) are deferring to its more common liberal reputation as a civil rights organization. That may be a tactical move on their part. > > Alexander Reid Ross, the culprit, has published on Counterpunch and been interviewed by Eric Draitser on their podcast. Similarly, Louis Proyect has attacked Blumenthal etc. on Counterpunch last weekend, and continues to do so during this week on his blog. > > So continues the scare campaign against "red-brown" alliances as an aspect of the antiwar movement, promoted by those supporting intensified U.S. intervention in Syria, including the fellow who debated Khalek on TRNN earlier this week, as shown also on AoTA. > > It can also be questioned whether legal suppression is an appropriate tactic in this case. > > DG > > DG > > DG > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:03 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/09/update-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment > > splcenter.org > Explanation and apology: The multipolar spin: how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment > > March 14, 2018 Facebook Twitter > > On March 9, 2018, we posted an article on our Hatewatch blog entitled “The multipolar spin: how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment.” > > Shortly after its publication, we received complaints registered by or on behalf of several journalists mentioned in the article that it falsely described one or another of them as white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, and falsely accused them of engaging in a conspiracy with the Putin regime to promote such views. Because neither we nor the article’s author intended to make any such accusations, we took it down while we re-examined its contents. > > That re-examination has caused us to conclude that, while the intent of the article, which we thought was clear at the time of publication, was to show only that individuals on the left share some policy views with respect to multipolarism that are also held by the far right and/or appear on far-right media and conferences advocating them, the article did not make that point as clearly as it could or should have. > > Accordingly, we have decided not to re-post it. In addition, we extend a sincere apology to those who believe they have been falsely described in it, including Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Tim Pool, Rania Khalek, and Brian Becker, and disclaim, as clearly as we can, any intention to suggest that any of them are white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, that they hold such views, or that they are engaged in a conspiracy with the Russian government to promote such views or otherwise. > > ### > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 12:38:14 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:38:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News discusses the newly appointed CIA Director In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We should demand that our senators not vote to confirm this criminal. Durbin: Duckworth: > On Mar 15, 2018, at 7:03 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21363:The-CIA%27s-New-Torturer-in-Chief > > Log in and tell us why you support TRNN > > > biography > Marcy Wheeler is a national security reporter and author. Her website is Empty Wheel. > > transcript > AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. President Trump has had several major Cabinet shake ups since taking office, but his latest is his boldest yet. Earlier today, Trump announcing that Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State, replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo. And replacing Pompeo at CIA is his deputy, Gina Haspel. Trump spoke to reporters on the White House south lawn. > > DONALD TRUMP: I've worked with Mike Pompeo now for quite some time. Tremendous energy, tremendous intellect. We're always on the same wavelength. The relationship has been very good, and that's what I need as Secretary of State. I wish Rex Tillerson well. Gina, by the way, who I know very well, who I've worked very closely, will be the first woman Director of the CIA. She's an outstanding person who also I have gotten to know very well. So, I've gotten to know a lot of people very well over the last year, and I'm really at a point where we're getting very close to having the Cabinet and other things that I want. > > AARON MATÉ: In elevating Pompeo, Trump would have a Secretary of State even more in line with confronting Iran. In installing Gina Haspel as head of the CIA, Trump also has someone who would be in line with one of his other defining views, embracing torture. Haspel was in charge of the CIA's first secret overseas prison site in Thailand, and there she oversaw the torture of two prisoners and later ordered the destruction of video footage that caught their abuse on camera. > > Joining me is Marcy Wheeler, national security reporter whose website is emptywheel.net. Welcome Marcy. Lots to talk about. Let's start with the presumptive new CIA Director, Gina Haspel. Tell us about her record. > > MARCY WHEELER: As you said, she was the Chief of Station for the first black sites or for Thailand, where the first black site, where our torture program was. She oversaw the torture of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri in 2002, when really CIA was just experimenting with it. In that role, because people are already saying that she was just doing what she was told, she was just following orders, in that role, she was also particularly sadistic. She at times when other people said Abu Zubaydah's fully compliant, he's told us all he knows, would say, "You go back and keep torturing him until he tells us more." That's her role in torture. > > And then while she was still Chief of Station there in 2002, she said, "Let's get rid of all of the videos we took of this torture." CIA didn't permit her to do that in 2002 because there were ongoing investigations, but when, in 2005, she and Jose Rodriguez, who kind of instituted the torture program, when they were at a much more senior level at CIA, she said, "Hey, great idea. Let's get rid of those videos that we took back in 2002, even though there are court rulings that say we should not be able to get rid of them." So, she oversaw the destruction of them, so both the torture and the cover up of the torture. That's who we're getting to run the CIA. > > AARON MATÉ: And for one of those prisoners who was tortured, last year, this nonprofit group in Europe, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, issued a statement calling for an arrest warrant for her. Now, I'm wondering, do you think that as the CIA Director if she travels overseas, especially to Europe where there have been cases around torture and there have been extradition requests for people who committed rights abuses, that she could be vulnerable to arrest? > > MARCY WHEELER: I think people, activists in Europe, certainly will try and make that an issue because yes, she is on the record as having played a key role in our torture program. And Europe for years has used whatever leverage they can to try and at least shame us for the torture program we've had. By the way, both Abu Zubaydah, Abu Zubaydah has never been charged. He's still at Gitmo. He's one of those people in this kind of holding pattern. His lawyers every once in a while say, "Hey..." something about him. Then Nashiri's trial is very troubled right now. > > She will be undergoing confirmation process at the same time as daily crazy stuff happens in Gitmo as they try and move closer to finally try this guy. He was allegedly responsible for the USS Cole bombing in 2000, before 9/11. So, the entire background, both before and after she gets confirmed, is going to emphasize her role in the torture, which will make for a pretty antagonistic debate about her nomination, I think rightly so. > > AARON MATÉ: Now, in terms of antagonism, the question for me is whether she'll face serious antagonism from Democrats in the Senate. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the powerful Democratic senator from California, has already indicated today that she will support Haspel's nomination. On this front, I'm wondering. We famously know that when President Obama took office, he talked about looking forward, not backwards, and essentially not prosecuting those who took part in torture. I'm wondering how much of a role Democratic inaction around torture has played in elevating someone like Gina Haspel to the top CIA post today. > > MARCY WHEELER: Well, I can't believe I'm going to defend Dianne Feinstein. I don't think she said that she will support Haspel's nomination. I think she has said she will give it a good listen, which probably means she's going to support it, but she also has a real primary challenge this year. And, I think that, again, this is the kind of thing that people can bring some political pressure on Feinstein about. She's no longer the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is the committee Haspel's nomination will go through. That puts her in less of a position to influence it. > > I mean, I expect that Wyden and Heinrich, and maybe Kamala Harris, will raise that as an issue in the confirmation process, but you're right. Feinstein is one of those people who's saying, "Well, she was just doing what she was ordered to do, and therefore, it's not that big of a deal." One of Feinstein's laudable actions in her time as a senator is making sure that the Senate report, the Senate torture report, actually got finished. Then to have what could be her last year in the Senate, have her rubber stamp this torturer to run the whole CIA, because even, I mean, Aaron, it's terrible enough that this torturer might run the whole CIA, but the other thing is the cover up, right? > > There were congressional inquiries into the torture program at the time those videos were destroyed. Carl Levin, for one, was asking for precisely that kind of data. Jay Rockefeller even was, Feinstein's predecessor as ranking member on the committee. And so, the notion that this woman who oversaw the obstruction of multiple investigations into CIA torture, including congressional investigations, the notion that she should become CIA Director, just invites CIA to continue to refuse all oversight from our democratically elected members of Congress. That, if you are a member of Congress, should be as important as the torture. They're both important, but the obstruction, as a member of Congress, as somebody who is supposed to oversee this agency, that really ought to be disqualifying, but apparently it's not for Feinstein. > > AARON MATÉ: Right. Speaking of congressional oversight of the CIA, there also was the fact that the CIA, after the initial cover up with the videotapes and so forth, back when the Senate was compiling its torture report, you had the CIA actually spying on the senators who were writing it. > > MARCY WHEELER: Under John Brennan, so yeah, that's under Barack Obama. Obama did not side with Dianne Feinstein in that battle. That's not the only obstruction. At one point, I made a long list, and it was a long list of all of the documents on the CIA torture program that disappeared into the ether. And it was a bipartisan effort from 2002 all the way to today, but yeah, this wasn't fixed under Barack Obama. Gina Haspel not only stayed in government, but continued to get promoted. And now, she's about to take over the agency. Again, for all the complaints about the deep state investigating Donald Trump and being out of control and what have you, confirming Gina Haspel as Director of CIA will further empower whatever uncontrollable power the deep state has. > > AARON MATÉ: All right. We're going to leave it there for part one. In part two, we'll talk about Mike Pompeo as a new Secretary of State. Marcy Wheeler of emptywheel.net, thank you. And thank you for joining us on The Real News. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 15 12:52:11 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:52:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News discusses the newly appointed CIA Director In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Criminal indeed. Just remember that our Marquis De Sade Professor of Law at our Trump Law School Michael Moore has publicly admitted he works with both the CIA and the Mossad on torture. Mikey and his Consort our Fired and Disgraced Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd have been stinking up this campus and this community ever since their arrival here advocating torture for the CIA and the Mossad and along the lines of the KGB. Two Thugs. Fab. 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 7:38 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Real News discusses the newly appointed CIA Director We should demand that our senators not vote to confirm this criminal. Durbin: Duckworth: > On Mar 15, 2018, at 7:03 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21363:The-CIA%27s-New-Torturer-in-Chief > > Log in and tell us why you support TRNN > > > biography > Marcy Wheeler is a national security reporter and author. Her website is Empty Wheel. > > transcript > AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. President Trump has had several major Cabinet shake ups since taking office, but his latest is his boldest yet. Earlier today, Trump announcing that Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State, replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo. And replacing Pompeo at CIA is his deputy, Gina Haspel. Trump spoke to reporters on the White House south lawn. > > DONALD TRUMP: I've worked with Mike Pompeo now for quite some time. Tremendous energy, tremendous intellect. We're always on the same wavelength. The relationship has been very good, and that's what I need as Secretary of State. I wish Rex Tillerson well. Gina, by the way, who I know very well, who I've worked very closely, will be the first woman Director of the CIA. She's an outstanding person who also I have gotten to know very well. So, I've gotten to know a lot of people very well over the last year, and I'm really at a point where we're getting very close to having the Cabinet and other things that I want. > > AARON MATÉ: In elevating Pompeo, Trump would have a Secretary of State even more in line with confronting Iran. In installing Gina Haspel as head of the CIA, Trump also has someone who would be in line with one of his other defining views, embracing torture. Haspel was in charge of the CIA's first secret overseas prison site in Thailand, and there she oversaw the torture of two prisoners and later ordered the destruction of video footage that caught their abuse on camera. > > Joining me is Marcy Wheeler, national security reporter whose website is emptywheel.net. Welcome Marcy. Lots to talk about. Let's start with the presumptive new CIA Director, Gina Haspel. Tell us about her record. > > MARCY WHEELER: As you said, she was the Chief of Station for the first black sites or for Thailand, where the first black site, where our torture program was. She oversaw the torture of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri in 2002, when really CIA was just experimenting with it. In that role, because people are already saying that she was just doing what she was told, she was just following orders, in that role, she was also particularly sadistic. She at times when other people said Abu Zubaydah's fully compliant, he's told us all he knows, would say, "You go back and keep torturing him until he tells us more." That's her role in torture. > > And then while she was still Chief of Station there in 2002, she said, "Let's get rid of all of the videos we took of this torture." CIA didn't permit her to do that in 2002 because there were ongoing investigations, but when, in 2005, she and Jose Rodriguez, who kind of instituted the torture program, when they were at a much more senior level at CIA, she said, "Hey, great idea. Let's get rid of those videos that we took back in 2002, even though there are court rulings that say we should not be able to get rid of them." So, she oversaw the destruction of them, so both the torture and the cover up of the torture. That's who we're getting to run the CIA. > > AARON MATÉ: And for one of those prisoners who was tortured, last year, this nonprofit group in Europe, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, issued a statement calling for an arrest warrant for her. Now, I'm wondering, do you think that as the CIA Director if she travels overseas, especially to Europe where there have been cases around torture and there have been extradition requests for people who committed rights abuses, that she could be vulnerable to arrest? > > MARCY WHEELER: I think people, activists in Europe, certainly will try and make that an issue because yes, she is on the record as having played a key role in our torture program. And Europe for years has used whatever leverage they can to try and at least shame us for the torture program we've had. By the way, both Abu Zubaydah, Abu Zubaydah has never been charged. He's still at Gitmo. He's one of those people in this kind of holding pattern. His lawyers every once in a while say, "Hey..." something about him. Then Nashiri's trial is very troubled right now. > > She will be undergoing confirmation process at the same time as daily crazy stuff happens in Gitmo as they try and move closer to finally try this guy. He was allegedly responsible for the USS Cole bombing in 2000, before 9/11. So, the entire background, both before and after she gets confirmed, is going to emphasize her role in the torture, which will make for a pretty antagonistic debate about her nomination, I think rightly so. > > AARON MATÉ: Now, in terms of antagonism, the question for me is whether she'll face serious antagonism from Democrats in the Senate. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the powerful Democratic senator from California, has already indicated today that she will support Haspel's nomination. On this front, I'm wondering. We famously know that when President Obama took office, he talked about looking forward, not backwards, and essentially not prosecuting those who took part in torture. I'm wondering how much of a role Democratic inaction around torture has played in elevating someone like Gina Haspel to the top CIA post today. > > MARCY WHEELER: Well, I can't believe I'm going to defend Dianne Feinstein. I don't think she said that she will support Haspel's nomination. I think she has said she will give it a good listen, which probably means she's going to support it, but she also has a real primary challenge this year. And, I think that, again, this is the kind of thing that people can bring some political pressure on Feinstein about. She's no longer the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is the committee Haspel's nomination will go through. That puts her in less of a position to influence it. > > I mean, I expect that Wyden and Heinrich, and maybe Kamala Harris, will raise that as an issue in the confirmation process, but you're right. Feinstein is one of those people who's saying, "Well, she was just doing what she was ordered to do, and therefore, it's not that big of a deal." One of Feinstein's laudable actions in her time as a senator is making sure that the Senate report, the Senate torture report, actually got finished. Then to have what could be her last year in the Senate, have her rubber stamp this torturer to run the whole CIA, because even, I mean, Aaron, it's terrible enough that this torturer might run the whole CIA, but the other thing is the cover up, right? > > There were congressional inquiries into the torture program at the time those videos were destroyed. Carl Levin, for one, was asking for precisely that kind of data. Jay Rockefeller even was, Feinstein's predecessor as ranking member on the committee. And so, the notion that this woman who oversaw the obstruction of multiple investigations into CIA torture, including congressional investigations, the notion that she should become CIA Director, just invites CIA to continue to refuse all oversight from our democratically elected members of Congress. That, if you are a member of Congress, should be as important as the torture. They're both important, but the obstruction, as a member of Congress, as somebody who is supposed to oversee this agency, that really ought to be disqualifying, but apparently it's not for Feinstein. > > AARON MATÉ: Right. Speaking of congressional oversight of the CIA, there also was the fact that the CIA, after the initial cover up with the videotapes and so forth, back when the Senate was compiling its torture report, you had the CIA actually spying on the senators who were writing it. > > MARCY WHEELER: Under John Brennan, so yeah, that's under Barack Obama. Obama did not side with Dianne Feinstein in that battle. That's not the only obstruction. At one point, I made a long list, and it was a long list of all of the documents on the CIA torture program that disappeared into the ether. And it was a bipartisan effort from 2002 all the way to today, but yeah, this wasn't fixed under Barack Obama. Gina Haspel not only stayed in government, but continued to get promoted. And now, she's about to take over the agency. Again, for all the complaints about the deep state investigating Donald Trump and being out of control and what have you, confirming Gina Haspel as Director of CIA will further empower whatever uncontrollable power the deep state has. > > AARON MATÉ: All right. We're going to leave it there for part one. In part two, we'll talk about Mike Pompeo as a new Secretary of State. Marcy Wheeler of emptywheel.net, thank you. And thank you for joining us on The Real News. > _______________________________________________ > 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 davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Mar 15 13:12:30 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 08:12:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Ray McGovern-Intel Committee Rejects Basic Underpinning of Russiagate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004801d3bc5f$46b81320$d4283960$@comcast.net> Intel Committee Rejects Basic Underpinning of Russiagate March 14, 2018 https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/14/intel-committee-rejects-basic-underpin ning-of-russiagate/ Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career at CIA, he was Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily Brief under Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). The assumption underpinning Russiagate - that Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton - is not supported by the facts, according to "Initial Findings" of the House Intelligence Committee, as Ray McGovern reports. By Ray McGovern Let's try to make this simple: The basic rationale behind charges that Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered in the 2016 U.S. election to help candidate Donald Trump rests, of course, on the assumption that Moscow preferred Trump to Hillary Clinton. But that is wrong to assume, says the House Intelligence Committee, which has announced that it does not concur with "Putin's supposed preference for candidate Trump." Image removed by sender. Rep. Mike Conaway speaks to media after a meeting with House GOP members. Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images So, the House Intelligence Committee Republican majority, which has been pouring over the same evidence used by the "handpicked analysts" from just the CIA, FBI, and NSA to prepare the rump Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017, finds the major premise of the ICA unpersuasive. The committee's "Initial Findings" released on Monday specifically reject the assumption that Putin favored Trump. This puts the committee directly at odds with handpicked analysts from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who assessed that Putin favored Trump - using this as their major premise and then straining to prove it by cobbling together unconvincing facts and theories. Those of us with experience in intelligence analysis strongly criticized the evidence-impoverished ICA as soon as it was released, but it went on to achieve Gospel-like respect, with penance assigned to anyone who might claim it was not divinely inspired. Until now. Rep. K. Michael Conway (R-Texas), who led the House Committee investigation, has told the media that the committee is preparing a separate, in-depth analysis of the ICA itself. Good. The committee should also take names - not only of the handpicked analysts, but the hand-pickers. There is ample precedent for this. For example, those who shepherded the fraudulent National Intelligence Estimate on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq 15 years ago were named in the NIE. Without names, it is hard to know whom to hold accountable. Here's the key ICA judgment with which the House committee does not concur: "We assess Putin, his advisers, and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump over Secretary Clinton." Not to be picky, but if House investigators have been unable to find enough persuasive evidence to convince them that "Putin's supposed preference" was Trump, there is little reason to take seriously the ICA's adolescent observations - like Putin held a "grudge" against Clinton because she called him nasty names - and other tortured reasoning in an Intelligence Community Assessment that, frankly, is an embarrassment to the profession of intelligence analysis. I recall reading the ICA as soon as it was published. I concluded that no special expertise in intelligence analysis was needed to see how the assessment had been cobbled together around the "given" that Putin had a distinct preference for Trump. That was a premise with which I always had serious trouble, since it assumed that a Russian President would prefer to have an unpredictable, mercurial, lash-out-at-any-grievance-real-or-perceived President with his fingers on the nuclear codes. This - not name-calling - is precisely what Russian leaders fear the most. Be that as it may, the ICA's evidence adduced to demonstrate Russian "interference" to help Trump win the election never passed the smell test. Worse still, it was not difficult to see powerful political agendas in play. While those agendas, together with the media which shared them, conferred on the ICA the status of Holy Writ, it had clearly been "writ" to promote those agendas and, as such, amounted to rank corruption of intelligence by those analysts "handpicked" by National Intelligence Director James Clapper to come up with the "right" answer. Traces of the bizarre ideological - even racial - views of Intelligence Dean Clapper can also be discerned between the lines of the ICA. It is a safe bet that the handpicked authors of the ICA were well aware of - and perhaps even shared - the views Clapper later expressed to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28, 2017 about Russians: "[P]ut that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election," he said. "And just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So, we were concerned." Always Read the Fine Print What readers of the intelligence assessment might have taken more seriously was the CYA in the ICA, so to speak, the truth-in-advertising cautions wedged into its final page. The transition from the lead paragraph to the final page - from "high confidence" to the actual definition of "high confidence" is remarkable. As a reminder, here's how ICA starts: "Putin Ordered Campaign To Influence US Election: We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. ." But wait, the fair warning on page 13 explains: "High confidence . does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong. . Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that show something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents." Questionable Logic The "logic" referred to rests primarily on assumptions related to Trump's supposed friendliness with Putin, what Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta called in 2015 a "bromance." It assumes that Trump has been more than willing to do the Kremlin's bidding from the White House, whether due to financial relationships Trump has with the Russians, or because he "owes them" for helping him get elected, or whether he is being blackmailed by "the pee tape" that Christopher Steele alluded to in his "dodgy dossier." This is the crux of the whole "treason" aspect of the Russiagate conspiracy theory - the idea that Trump is a Manchurian (or as some clever wags among Russiagaters claim, a Siberian) candidate who is directly under the influence of the Kremlin. Even as U.S.-Russian relations drop to historic lows - with tensions approaching Cuban Missile Crisis levels - amazingly, there are still those promoting this theory, including some in the supposedly "progressive" alternative media like The Young Turks (TYT). Following Putin's announcement on developments in Russia's nuclear program earlier this month, TYT's Cenk Uygur slammed Trump for not being more forceful in denouncing Putin, complaining that Trump "never criticizes Putin." Uygur even speculated: "I'm not sure that Trump represents our interests above Putin's." This line of thinking ignores a preponderance of evidence that the U.S posture against Russian interests has only hardened over the past year-plus of the Trump administration - perhaps in part as a result of Trump's perceived need to demonstrate that he is not in "Putin's pocket." The U.S. has intensified its engagement in Syria, for one thing, reportedly killing several Russians in recent airstrikes - a dangerous escalation that could lead to all-out military confrontation with Moscow and hardly the stuff of an alleged "bromance" between Trump and Putin. Then there was the Trump administration's recent decision to provide new lethal weapons to the Ukrainian military - a major reversal of the Obama administration's more cautious approach and an intensification of U.S. involvement in a proxy war on Russia's border. The Russian foreign ministry angrily denounced this decision, saying the U.S. had "crossed the line" in the Ukraine conflict and accused Washington of fomenting bloodshed. On other major policy issues, the Trump administration has also been pushing a hard anti-Russian line, reiterating recently that it would never recognize Crimea as part of Russia, criticizing Russia for allegedly enabling chemical attacks in Syria, and identifying Moscow as one of the U.S.'s major adversaries in the global struggle for power and influence. "China and Russia," the administration stated in its recent National Security Strategy, "challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity." In the recently issued Nuclear Posture Review, the U.S. identifies Russia as a "contemporary threat," and has a chapter outlining "A Tailored Strategy for Russia." The document warns that Russia has "decided to return to Great Power competition." How does this in any way indicate that Trump is representing "Putin's interests" above "ours," as Uygur claims? In short, there is no evidence to back up the theory that Putin helped Trump become president in order to do the Kremlin's bidding, and no one pushing this idea should be taken seriously. In this respect, the Republicans' "Initial Findings" - particularly the rejection of "Putin's supposed preference for candidate Trump" have more credibility than most of the "analysis" put out so far, including the Jan. 6, 2017 ICA that has been held up as sacrosanct. Democrats Angry The irrepressible Congressman Adam Schiff, Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, and his fellow Democrats are in high dudgeon over the release of the Committee's "Initial Findings" after "only" one year of investigation. So, of course, is NBC's Rachel Maddow and other Russiagate aficionados. They may even feel a need to come up with real evidence - rather than Clapperisms like "But everyone knows about the Russians, and how, for example, they just really hated it when Mrs. Clinton called Putin Hitler." I had the opportunity to confront Schiff personally at a think tank in Washington, DC on January 25, 2017. President Obama, on his way out of office, had said something quite curious at his last press conference just one week earlier about inconclusive conclusions: "The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive" regarding WikiLeaks. In other words, the intelligence community had no idea how the DNC emails reached WikiLeaks. Schiff had just claimed as flat fact that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta emails and gave them to WikiLeaks to publish. So I asked him if he knew more than President Obama about how Russian hacking had managed to get to WikiLeaks. Schiff used the old, "I can't share the evidence with you; it's classified." OK, I'm no longer cleared for classified information, but Schiff is; and so are all his colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee. The Republican majority has taken issue with the cornerstone assumption of those who explain Russian "hacking" and other "meddling" as springing from the "obvious fact" that Putin favored Trump. The ball is in Schiff's court. Last but not least, the committee's Initial Finding that caught most of the media attention was that there is "no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians." This, of course, poured cold water on what everyone listening to mainstream media "knows" about Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election. But, in the lack of persuasive evidence that President Putin preferred candidate Trump, why should we expect Russian "collusion, coordination, conspiracy" with the Trump campaign? Ah, but the Russians want to "sow discord." Sounds to me like a Clapperism. Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career at CIA, he was Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily Brief under Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 959 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 15 13:14:10 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:14:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Vote in the Primary's Message-ID: A message from Debra Schrishun of the Progressive Democrats: If you take a Democratic ballot in the March 20th primary, please vote all the way to the end of the ballot and cast a vote for Pam Gronemeyer for IL-13 State Central Committeewoman. Speaker Madigan is pouring resources into the State Central Committee races to lock out progressives who would begin to change the IL Democratic Party. From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 15 13:16:21 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:16:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News discusses the newly appointed CIA Director In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh and I forgot to mention that Mikey Moore is also a Professor at the UIUC Center for Advanced Study in Torture and Drone Murders. Undoubtedly his CIA/Mossad affiliations qualified him for that appointment. fab 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 7:52 AM To: C G Estabrook ; Karen Aram Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Real News discusses the newly appointed CIA Director Criminal indeed. Just remember that our Marquis De Sade Professor of Law at our Trump Law School Michael Moore has publicly admitted he works with both the CIA and the Mossad on torture. Mikey and his Consort our Fired and Disgraced Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd have been stinking up this campus and this community ever since their arrival here advocating torture for the CIA and the Mossad and along the lines of the KGB. Two Thugs. Fab. 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 7:38 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Real News discusses the newly appointed CIA Director We should demand that our senators not vote to confirm this criminal. Durbin: Duckworth: > On Mar 15, 2018, at 7:03 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21363:The-CIA%27s-New-Torturer-in-Chief > > Log in and tell us why you support TRNN > > > biography > Marcy Wheeler is a national security reporter and author. Her website is Empty Wheel. > > transcript > AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. President Trump has had several major Cabinet shake ups since taking office, but his latest is his boldest yet. Earlier today, Trump announcing that Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State, replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo. And replacing Pompeo at CIA is his deputy, Gina Haspel. Trump spoke to reporters on the White House south lawn. > > DONALD TRUMP: I've worked with Mike Pompeo now for quite some time. Tremendous energy, tremendous intellect. We're always on the same wavelength. The relationship has been very good, and that's what I need as Secretary of State. I wish Rex Tillerson well. Gina, by the way, who I know very well, who I've worked very closely, will be the first woman Director of the CIA. She's an outstanding person who also I have gotten to know very well. So, I've gotten to know a lot of people very well over the last year, and I'm really at a point where we're getting very close to having the Cabinet and other things that I want. > > AARON MATÉ: In elevating Pompeo, Trump would have a Secretary of State even more in line with confronting Iran. In installing Gina Haspel as head of the CIA, Trump also has someone who would be in line with one of his other defining views, embracing torture. Haspel was in charge of the CIA's first secret overseas prison site in Thailand, and there she oversaw the torture of two prisoners and later ordered the destruction of video footage that caught their abuse on camera. > > Joining me is Marcy Wheeler, national security reporter whose website is emptywheel.net. Welcome Marcy. Lots to talk about. Let's start with the presumptive new CIA Director, Gina Haspel. Tell us about her record. > > MARCY WHEELER: As you said, she was the Chief of Station for the first black sites or for Thailand, where the first black site, where our torture program was. She oversaw the torture of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri in 2002, when really CIA was just experimenting with it. In that role, because people are already saying that she was just doing what she was told, she was just following orders, in that role, she was also particularly sadistic. She at times when other people said Abu Zubaydah's fully compliant, he's told us all he knows, would say, "You go back and keep torturing him until he tells us more." That's her role in torture. > > And then while she was still Chief of Station there in 2002, she said, "Let's get rid of all of the videos we took of this torture." CIA didn't permit her to do that in 2002 because there were ongoing investigations, but when, in 2005, she and Jose Rodriguez, who kind of instituted the torture program, when they were at a much more senior level at CIA, she said, "Hey, great idea. Let's get rid of those videos that we took back in 2002, even though there are court rulings that say we should not be able to get rid of them." So, she oversaw the destruction of them, so both the torture and the cover up of the torture. That's who we're getting to run the CIA. > > AARON MATÉ: And for one of those prisoners who was tortured, last year, this nonprofit group in Europe, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, issued a statement calling for an arrest warrant for her. Now, I'm wondering, do you think that as the CIA Director if she travels overseas, especially to Europe where there have been cases around torture and there have been extradition requests for people who committed rights abuses, that she could be vulnerable to arrest? > > MARCY WHEELER: I think people, activists in Europe, certainly will try and make that an issue because yes, she is on the record as having played a key role in our torture program. And Europe for years has used whatever leverage they can to try and at least shame us for the torture program we've had. By the way, both Abu Zubaydah, Abu Zubaydah has never been charged. He's still at Gitmo. He's one of those people in this kind of holding pattern. His lawyers every once in a while say, "Hey..." something about him. Then Nashiri's trial is very troubled right now. > > She will be undergoing confirmation process at the same time as daily crazy stuff happens in Gitmo as they try and move closer to finally try this guy. He was allegedly responsible for the USS Cole bombing in 2000, before 9/11. So, the entire background, both before and after she gets confirmed, is going to emphasize her role in the torture, which will make for a pretty antagonistic debate about her nomination, I think rightly so. > > AARON MATÉ: Now, in terms of antagonism, the question for me is whether she'll face serious antagonism from Democrats in the Senate. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the powerful Democratic senator from California, has already indicated today that she will support Haspel's nomination. On this front, I'm wondering. We famously know that when President Obama took office, he talked about looking forward, not backwards, and essentially not prosecuting those who took part in torture. I'm wondering how much of a role Democratic inaction around torture has played in elevating someone like Gina Haspel to the top CIA post today. > > MARCY WHEELER: Well, I can't believe I'm going to defend Dianne Feinstein. I don't think she said that she will support Haspel's nomination. I think she has said she will give it a good listen, which probably means she's going to support it, but she also has a real primary challenge this year. And, I think that, again, this is the kind of thing that people can bring some political pressure on Feinstein about. She's no longer the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is the committee Haspel's nomination will go through. That puts her in less of a position to influence it. > > I mean, I expect that Wyden and Heinrich, and maybe Kamala Harris, will raise that as an issue in the confirmation process, but you're right. Feinstein is one of those people who's saying, "Well, she was just doing what she was ordered to do, and therefore, it's not that big of a deal." One of Feinstein's laudable actions in her time as a senator is making sure that the Senate report, the Senate torture report, actually got finished. Then to have what could be her last year in the Senate, have her rubber stamp this torturer to run the whole CIA, because even, I mean, Aaron, it's terrible enough that this torturer might run the whole CIA, but the other thing is the cover up, right? > > There were congressional inquiries into the torture program at the time those videos were destroyed. Carl Levin, for one, was asking for precisely that kind of data. Jay Rockefeller even was, Feinstein's predecessor as ranking member on the committee. And so, the notion that this woman who oversaw the obstruction of multiple investigations into CIA torture, including congressional investigations, the notion that she should become CIA Director, just invites CIA to continue to refuse all oversight from our democratically elected members of Congress. That, if you are a member of Congress, should be as important as the torture. They're both important, but the obstruction, as a member of Congress, as somebody who is supposed to oversee this agency, that really ought to be disqualifying, but apparently it's not for Feinstein. > > AARON MATÉ: Right. Speaking of congressional oversight of the CIA, there also was the fact that the CIA, after the initial cover up with the videotapes and so forth, back when the Senate was compiling its torture report, you had the CIA actually spying on the senators who were writing it. > > MARCY WHEELER: Under John Brennan, so yeah, that's under Barack Obama. Obama did not side with Dianne Feinstein in that battle. That's not the only obstruction. At one point, I made a long list, and it was a long list of all of the documents on the CIA torture program that disappeared into the ether. And it was a bipartisan effort from 2002 all the way to today, but yeah, this wasn't fixed under Barack Obama. Gina Haspel not only stayed in government, but continued to get promoted. And now, she's about to take over the agency. Again, for all the complaints about the deep state investigating Donald Trump and being out of control and what have you, confirming Gina Haspel as Director of CIA will further empower whatever uncontrollable power the deep state has. > > AARON MATÉ: All right. We're going to leave it there for part one. In part two, we'll talk about Mike Pompeo as a new Secretary of State. Marcy Wheeler of emptywheel.net, thank you. And thank you for joining us on The Real News. > _______________________________________________ > 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 From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 15 13:25:53 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:25:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia In-Reply-To: References: <90008938-A588-4404-B038-0DAE49D21055@twf.org> Message-ID: Roger Even if your cover, as an “agent provocateur on social media” or rather “hired troll,” the preferred term these days, had not been blown by Counterpunch recently, It’s so obvious given your form of countering arguments is to personally attack the messenger. Always a sign that one lacks evidence to back up their argument. Your personal animosity towards Mr. Rokke, who is not on our Discuss List to defend himself, whoever, wherever he maybe, is a continuing nuisance, which leads me to question why we continue to have so many “war supporters” and “trolls” on this “Peace Discuss List?” On Mar 15, 2018, at 03:18, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: Kangaroo courts have zero jurisdiction anywhere. Malaysia has routinely had these sham trials. If you were a real lawyer, who dealt in evidence, you would pick their evidence and witnesses apart instead of pushing out their sham judgments. You have a law degree and even teach the stuff so you should occasionally dig out your basic evidence texts. I know that prior sham trials here had witnesses who were total frauds. Leuren K Moret was a witness. She's a pal of your buddy Douglas Lind Rokke (I use his full name deliberately because he is a criminal who should have been convicted for perjury years ago) so you probably would buy into her lies too. If you had your evidence hat on, though, you would know that she is totally pretend, just like Rokke. Roger W Helbig On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:26 PM, 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) From: The Wisdom Fund > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:16 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia [THE WISDOM FUND: News & Views] SUBSCRIBE to The Wisdom Fund — unsubscribe fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (add listserve at twf.org and staff at twf.org to your address book) JOIN TWF.ORG founder on Facebook JOIN TWF.ORG on Twitter May 12, 2012 Foreign Policy Journal Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia by Yvonne Ridley In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia. The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is also asking that the names of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington and Haynes be entered and included in the Commission's Register of War Criminals for public record. The tribunal is the initiative of Malaysia's retired Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. He sat through the entire hearing as it took personal statements and testimonies of three witnesses namely Abbas Abid, Moazzam Begg and Jameelah Hameedi. The tribunal also heard two other Statutory Declarations of Iraqi citizen Ali Shalal and Rahul Ahmed, another British citizen. After the guilty verdict reached by five senior judges was delivered, Mahathir Mohamad said: "Powerful countries are getting away with murder." War crimes expert and lawyer Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in America, was part of the prosecution team. After the case he said: "This is the first conviction of these people anywhere in the world." While the hearing is regarded by some as being purely symbolic, human rights activist Boyle said he was hopeful that Bush and Co could soon find themselves facing similar trials elsewhere in the world. "We tried three times to get Bush in Canada but were thwarted by the Canadian Government, then we scared Bush out of going to Switzerland. The Spanish attempt failed because of the government there and the same happened in Germany." Boyle then referenced the Nuremberg Charter which was used as the format for the tribunal when asked about the credibility of the initiative in Malaysia. He quoted: "Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of such a plan." The US is subject to customary international law and to the Principles of the Nuremberg Charter said Boyle who also believes the week-long trial was "almost certainly" being monitored closely by both Pentagon and White House officials. Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, who headed the prosecution said: "The tribunal was very careful to adhere scrupulously to the regulations drawn up by the Nuremberg courts and the International Criminal Courts". He added that he was optimistic the tribunal would be followed up elsewhere in the world where "countries have a duty to try war criminals" and he cited the case of the former Chilean dictator Augustine Pinochet who was arrested in Britain to be extradited to Spain on charges of war crimes. "Pinochet was only eight years out of his presidency when that happened." The Pinochet case was the first time that several European judges applied the principle of universal jurisdiction, declaring themselves competent to judge crimes committed by former heads of state, despite local amnesty laws. Throughout the week the tribunal was packed with legal experts and law students as witnesses gave testimony and then cross examination by the defence led by lawyer Jason Kay Kit Leon. The court heard how - Abbas Abid, a 48-year-old engineer from Fallujah in Iraq had his fingernails removed by pliers. - Ali Shalal was attached with bare electrical wires and electrocuted and hung from a wall. - Moazzam Begg was beaten, hooded and put in solitary confinement. - Jameelah was stripped and humiliated, and was used as a human shield whilst being transported by helicopter. The witnesses also detailed how they have residual injuries till today. Moazzam Begg, now working as a director for the London-based human rights group Cageprisoners said he was delighted with the verdict, but added: "When people talk about Nuremberg you have to remember those tried were all prosecuted after the war. "Right now Guantanamo is still open, people are still being held there and are still being tortured there." In response to questions about the difference between the Bush and Obama Administrations, he added: "If President Bush was the President of extra-judicial torture then US President Barak Obama is the President of extra judicial killing through drone strikes. Our work has only just begun." The prosecution case rested on proving how the decision-makers at the highest level President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld, aided and abetted by the lawyers and the other commanders and CIA officials – all acted in concert. Torture was systematically applied and became an accepted norm. According to the prosecution, the testimony of all the witnesses exposed a sustained perpetration of brutal, barbaric, cruel and dehumanising course of conduct against them. These acts of crimes were applied cumulatively to inflict the worst possible pain and suffering, said lawyers. The president of the tribunal Tan Sri Dato Lamin bin Haji Mohd Yunus Lamin, found that the prosecution had established beyond a "reasonable doubt that the accused persons, former President George Bush and his co-conspirators engaged in a web of instructions, memos, directives, legal advice and action that established a common plan and purpose, joint enterprise and/or conspiracy to commit the crimes of Torture and War Crimes, including and not limited to a common plan and purpose to commit the following crimes in relation to the "War on Terror" and the wars launched by the U.S. and others in Afghanistan and Iraq." President Lamin told a packed courtroom: "As a tribunal of conscience, the Tribunal is fully aware that its verdict is merely declaratory in nature. The tribunal has no power of enforcement, no power to impose any custodial sentence on any one or more of the 8 convicted persons. What we can do, under Article 31 of Chapter VI of Part 2 of the Charter is to recommend to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission to submit this finding of conviction by the Tribunal, together with a record of these proceedings, to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council. "The Tribunal also recommends to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission that the names of all the 8 convicted persons be entered and included in the Commission's Register of War Criminals and be publicised accordingly. "The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions if any of these Accused persons may enter their jurisdictions". [https://www.dmanalytics2.com/open?d=90Y8W678-5600-4W0W-8Y1Y-9016VYZX0Z6Z&e=fboyle at law.uiuc.edu&a=61U71383-5X8Y-4U5Z-YV00-5V4WY30ZUYX2] _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Mar 15 14:16:24 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:16:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: CIA Is an Organized Criminal Conspiracy like the SS & the Gestapo 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: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:16 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: CIA Is an Organized Criminal Conspiracy like the SS & the Gestapo That the CIA is a terrorist organization was upheld in the famous “CIA On Trial” case in Northampton, Mass., in 1987, when a jury acquitted 14 protestors who tried to stop CIA recruitment on campus, according to Francis Boyle, the University of Illinois international law authority who defended the group. The defense charged the CIA was “an organized criminal conspiracy like the SS and the Gestapo.” Boyle said, “You would not let the SS or the Gestapo recruit on campus at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, so you would not permit the CIA to recruit on campus either.” [home] Abolish the CIA, America. Sherwood Ross. CIA Torture Report. December 9, 2014 9:01 pm 2 Comments The CIA, the KKK and the USA By Sherwood Ross Global Research, October 15, 2010 15 October 2010 [The CIA, the KKK and the USA] By assigning covert action roles to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), it is as if the White House and Congress had legitimized the Ku Klux Klan to operate globally. That’s because the CIA today resembles nothing so much as the “Invisible Empire” of the KKK that once spread terror across the South and Midwest. Fiery crosses aside, this is what the CIA is doing globally. The CIA today is committing many of the same sort of gruesome crimes against foreigners that the KKK once inflicted on Americans of color. The principal difference is that the KKK consisted of self-appointed vigilantes who regarded themselves as both outside and above the law when they perpetrated their crimes. By contrast, the CIA acts as the agent of the American government, often at the highest levels, and at times at the direction of the White House. Its crimes typically are committed in contravention of the highest established international law such as the Charter of the United Nations as well as the U.S. Constitution. What’s more, the “Agency,” as it is known, derives its funding largely from an imperialist-minded Congress; additionally, it has no qualms about fattening its budget from drug money and other illegal sources. It is a mirror-image of the lawless entity the U.S. has become since achieving superpower status. And it is incredible that the White House grants license to this violent Agency to commit its crimes with no accountability. The Ku Klux Klan was founded shortly after the end of the U.S. Civil War. Klansman concealed their identities behind flowing white robes and white hoods as they terrorized the newly emancipated blacks to keep them from voting or to drive them from their property. Allowing it to operate in secret literally gives the CIA the mythical Ring of Gyges. In Plato’s Republic, the owner of the ring had the power to become invisible at will. As Wikipedia puts it, Plato “discusses whether a typical person would be moral if he did not have to fear the consequences of his actions.” The ancient Greeks made the argument, Wikipedia says, that “No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men.” The CIA, like Hitler’s Gestapo and Stalin’s NKVD before it, has provided modern man the answer to this question. Its actions illuminate why all criminal entities, from rapists and bank robbers, to Ponzi scheme swindlers and murderers, cloak themselves in secrecy. There are innumerable examples of how American presidents have authorized criminal acts without public discussion that the preponderant majority of Americans would find reprehensible. Example: it was President Lyndon Johnson who ordered the CIA to meddle in Chile’s election to help Eduardo Frei become president. If they had known, U.S. taxpayers might have objected to such a use of their hard-earned money to influence the outcome of another country’s elections. But the public is rarely let in on such illegal foreign policy decisions. Where the KKK after the Civil War terrorized blacks to keep them from voting, the CIA has worked to influence the outcome of elections all over the world through bribery and vote-buying, dirty tricks, and worse. According to investigative reporter William Blum in “Rogue State”(Common Courage Press), the CIA has perverted elections in Italy, Lebanon, Indonesia, The Philippines, Japan, Nepal, Laos, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Portugal, Australia, Jamaica, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, among other countries. If they had known, taxpayers might also object to the CIA’s numerous overthrows of foreign governments by force and violence—such as was done in Iran in 1953 by President Eisenhower and Chile in 1973 by President Nixon. Both overthrows precipitated bloodbaths that cost tens of thousands of innocent civilians their lives. Blum also lists the countries the CIA has attempted to overthrow or has actually overthrown. His list includes Greece, The Philippines, East Germany, Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iraq, Viet Nam, Laos, Ecuador, The Congo, France, Cuba, Ghana, Chile, South Africa, Bolivia, Portugal, and Nicaragua, to cite a few. As I write, today, October 11th, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina called on President Obama to revise U.S. (imperialist) policies toward Latin America. He questioned why the U.S. continues to plant its military bases across the region. That’s an excellent question. If the U.S. is a peace-loving nation, why does it need 800 bases the world over in addition to 1,000 on its own soil? Americans might recoil in disgust if they knew of the CIA’s numerous assassinations of the elected officials of other nations. Is it any wonder Americans so often ask the question, “Why do they hate us?” As historian Arnold Toynbee wrote in 1961, “America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defence of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for. Rome consistently supported the rich against the poor in all foreign communities that fell under her sway; and, since the poor, so far, have always and everywhere been more numerous than the rich, Rome’s policy made for inequality, for injustice, and for the least happiness of the greatest number.” The CIA’s protective secrecy resembles nothing so much as the KKK, which proudly proclaimed itself “the Invisible Empire” and whose thugs killed citizens having the courage to identify hooded Klansmen to law enforcement officials. Today, it is our highest public officials that protect this criminal force, said to number about 25,000 employees. It is actually a Federal offense to reveal the identity of a CIA undercover agent—unless, of course, you happen to be I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and are employed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame to punish her husband Joseph Wilson for publishing a report that undercut the White House lie that Saddam Hussein had purchased “yellowcake” from Niger to fuel WMD. Today, high public officials direct the CIA’s criminal policies and protect its agents’ identities the better to enable them to commit their crimes. According to journalist Fred Cook in his book “Ku Klux Klan: America’s Recurring Nightmare”(Messner), “The Klan was inherently a vigilante organization. It could commit the most atrocious acts under the guise of high principle andperpetrators of those acts would be hidden behind white masks and protected by Klan secrecy… (The Klan) set itself up as judge, jury and executioner”—a policy adopted by the CIA today. CIA spies have conducted their criminal operations masquerading as officials of U.S. aid programs, business executives, or journalists. Example: The San Diego-based Copley News Service’s staff of foreign correspondents allegedly was created to provide cover to CIA spies, compromising legitimate American journalists trying to do their jobs. While the murders committed by the KKK likely ran into the many thousands, the CIA has killed on a far grander scale and managed to keep its role largely secret. As Tim Weiner, who covered the CIA for the New York Times noted in his book “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA” (Anchor): “In Guatemala, 200,000 civilians had died during forty years of struggle following the agency’s(CIA) 1954 coup against an elected president.” Weiner adds, “the CIA’s officers in Guatemala still went to great lengths to conceal the nature of their close relations with the military and to suppress reports that Guatemalan officers on its payroll were murderers, torturers, and thieves.” When it comes to murder, the CIA makes the KKK look like Boy Scouts. Like the KKK, CIA terrorists operate above the law. KKK members committed thousands of lynchings yet rarely were its members punished for them. In 2009 at a speech at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, President Obama revealed he was not intent on punishing CIA agents for their crimes but would rather “look forward.” This seemingly charitable philosophy may be driven by the fact that Obama worked for Business International Corporation, a CIA front, at least in 1983 and perhaps longer, and allegedly is the son of a mother and father both of whom also worked for the CIA, as did Obama’s grandmother! I could find none of this in Obama’s biography when he ran for the presidency, when a gullible American public elected a CIA “mole” to the White House. Consider this, too: an agency President Truman feared would become “an American Gestapo” when he signed the enabling legislation into law in 1947 has become just that, and it casts a lengthy shadow over the White House. Ominously, it has in Barack Obama one of its own former employees sitting in the Oval Office—a man who, according to news reports, has vastly expanded the frequency of the CIA’s assassinations by drone aircraft in Pakistan and who illegally claims the “right” to assassinate any American citizen abroad as well. What’s more, from 1989 to 1993 George Bush Sr., the CIA’s own former Director, sat in the White House. Additionally, from 2001 to 2009, the CIA had that Director’s son, George W. Bush, in the Oval Office giving the CIA a blank check after the 9/11 massacre. Bush Jr., according to The New York Times, in the summer of 1974 worked for Alaska International Industries, which did contract work for the CIA. The Times noted that this job did not appear in his biography when he ran for the White House in 2000, terming it “The Missing Chapter in the Bush Bio.” Thus, two presidential candidates with CIA ties—Bush Jr. and Obama—both neglected to mention them. And in Bill Clinton, who presided from 1993 to 2001, the CIA had a go-along president who satisfied the Agency’s blood-lust when he authorized the first illegal “rendition,” a euphemism for what KKK thugs once knew as kidnapping and torture. Is there any question that the Agency has not played an influential, behind-the-scenes or even a direct role in the operations of the U.S. government at its highest level? It may indeed be a stretch to argue that the CIA is running the country but it is no stretch to say that year after year our presidents reflect the criminal philosophy of the Agency. Other parallels with the KKK are striking. As Richmond Flowers, the Attorney General of Alabama stated in 1966, “I’ve found the Klan more than just another secret society… It resembles a shadow government, making its own laws, manipulating local politics, burrowing into some of our local law-enforcement agencies…When a pitiable misfit puts on his $15 sheet, society can no longer ignore him.” Yet the descendants of those misfits have moved up today where they feel comfortable as operatives in the shadow government run by the White House. One of the CIA’s illicit duties has been to serve as a conduit for funneling U.S. taxpayer dollars to corrupt dictators and strongmen bent on suppressing the popular will of their citizenry. As Noam Chomsky wrote in “Failed States”(Metropolitan/Owl), in Honduras, “military officers in charge of the battalion (3-16) were on the CIA payroll.” This elite unit, he says, “organized and trained by the United States and Argentine neo-Nazis,” was “the most barbaric of the Latin American killers that Washington had been supporting.” Like the KKK, the CIA kidnaps many of its victims with no thought ever of legal procedure. It exhibits utter disdain for the rights of those individuals, the sovereignty of foreign nations, or respect for international law. At least hundreds of foreigners, mostly from the Middle East, have been the victims of “renditions” just as the KKK kidnapped and flogged and lynched blacks, labor leaders, Catholics, Jews, or wayward wives whom it felt to be morally lacking. In September, 1921, The New York World ran a series exposing the KKK. It pointed out that, among other things, the KKK was violating the Bill of Rights wholesale. This included the Fourth amendment against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” the Fifth and the Sixth amendments, guaranteeing that no one may be held without a grand jury indictment or punished without a fair trial. And these rights today are similarly trampled by the CIA against American citizens, not just foreigners. Apparently, only foreign courts care to rein in the CIA. The 23 CIA agents that it took to render one “suspect” in Italy are wanted there by the magistrates. (The spooks, by the way, ran up some fabulous bills in luxury hotels on taxpayers’ dollars in that escapade.) Former President Jimmy Carter wrote in his book “Our Endangered Values”(Simon & Schuster), the CIA transferred some of those it kidnapped to countries that included Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Morocco, Jordan, and Uzbekistan where “the techniques of torture are almost indescribably terrible, including, as a U.S. ambassador to one of the recipient countries reported, ‘partial boiling of a hand or an arm,’ with at least two prisoners boiled to death.” The KKK’s methods of punishment were often as ugly: the brutal flogging of blacks in front of vicious crowds, followed by castration and burning their victims alive, and then lynching of the corpses. As for the CIA, “Why?” asks investigative reporter William Blum, “are these men rendered in the first place if not to be tortured? Does the United States not have any speakers in foreign languages to conduct interrogations?” That the CIA is a terrorist organization was upheld in the famous “CIA On Trial” case in Northampton, Mass., in 1987, when a jury acquitted 14 protestors who tried to stop CIA recruitment on campus, according to Francis Boyle, the University of Illinois international law authority who defended the group. The defense charged the CIA was “an organized criminal conspiracy like the SS and the Gestapo.” Boyle said, “You would not let the SS or the Gestapo recruit on campus at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, so you would not permit the CIA to recruit on campus either.” Another shared characteristic of the KKK and CIA is greed, the desire to loot the hard-earned wealth of others. Often, Klansmen terrorized African-Americans who had amassed property to frighten them off their land. Law-abiding black citizens who had pulled themselves up by the proverbial bootstraps were cheated out of their homes and acreage by the night riders. Similarly, the CIA across Latin America has aligned itself with the well-to-do ruling class at every opportunity. It has cooperated with the elite to punish and murder labor leaders and clergy who espoused economic opportunity for the poor. The notion that allowing the poor to enrich themselves fairly will also create more wealth for an entire society generally, including the rich, has not permeated CIA thinking. I emphasize what historian Toynbee noted: “America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defence of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for.”(Italics added.) In sum, by adopting the terrorist philosophy of the KKK and elevating it to the operations of government at the highest level, the imperial Obama administration, like its predecessors, is showing the world the worst possible face of America. Foreigners do not see the goodness inherent in the American people—most of whom only want a good day’s pay for a good day’s work and to educate their children and live at peace with the world. Every adult American has a solemn obligation to demand that its government live up to international law, punish the CIA criminals in its midst, and become a respected citizen of the world. This will not come to pass until Congress abolishes the CIA, putting an end to its KKK-style terrorism which threatens Americans as well as humankind everywhere. Sherwood Ross is an American who has worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News, a columnist for wire services and as the News Director of a national civil rights organization. He currently operates the Anti-War News Service from Miami, Florida. To contribute to his work or reach him, email sherwoodross10 at gmail.com Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 15 14:22:03 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:22:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia In-Reply-To: References: <90008938-A588-4404-B038-0DAE49D21055@twf.org> Message-ID: For the record once again, Doug Rokke and I helped defend Phil Berrigan and the Depleted Uranium Plowshares from criminal prosecution. Starting out with 40 years, at the end of a Kangaroo Court Proceeding, Phil and the rest of them got 2. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:26 AM To: Roger Helbig Cc: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia Roger Even if your cover, as an “agent provocateur on social media” or rather “hired troll,” the preferred term these days, had not been blown by Counterpunch recently, It’s so obvious given your form of countering arguments is to personally attack the messenger. Always a sign that one lacks evidence to back up their argument. Your personal animosity towards Mr. Rokke, who is not on our Discuss List to defend himself, whoever, wherever he maybe, is a continuing nuisance, which leads me to question why we continue to have so many “war supporters” and “trolls” on this “Peace Discuss List?” On Mar 15, 2018, at 03:18, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: Kangaroo courts have zero jurisdiction anywhere. Malaysia has routinely had these sham trials. If you were a real lawyer, who dealt in evidence, you would pick their evidence and witnesses apart instead of pushing out their sham judgments. You have a law degree and even teach the stuff so you should occasionally dig out your basic evidence texts. I know that prior sham trials here had witnesses who were total frauds. Leuren K Moret was a witness. She's a pal of your buddy Douglas Lind Rokke (I use his full name deliberately because he is a criminal who should have been convicted for perjury years ago) so you probably would buy into her lies too. If you had your evidence hat on, though, you would know that she is totally pretend, just like Rokke. Roger W Helbig On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:26 PM, 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) From: The Wisdom Fund > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:16 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia [THE WISDOM FUND: News & Views] SUBSCRIBE to The Wisdom Fund — unsubscribe fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (add listserve at twf.org and staff at twf.org to your address book) JOIN TWF.ORG founder on Facebook JOIN TWF.ORG on Twitter May 12, 2012 Foreign Policy Journal Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia by Yvonne Ridley In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia. The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is also asking that the names of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington and Haynes be entered and included in the Commission's Register of War Criminals for public record. The tribunal is the initiative of Malaysia's retired Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. He sat through the entire hearing as it took personal statements and testimonies of three witnesses namely Abbas Abid, Moazzam Begg and Jameelah Hameedi. The tribunal also heard two other Statutory Declarations of Iraqi citizen Ali Shalal and Rahul Ahmed, another British citizen. After the guilty verdict reached by five senior judges was delivered, Mahathir Mohamad said: "Powerful countries are getting away with murder." War crimes expert and lawyer Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in America, was part of the prosecution team. After the case he said: "This is the first conviction of these people anywhere in the world." While the hearing is regarded by some as being purely symbolic, human rights activist Boyle said he was hopeful that Bush and Co could soon find themselves facing similar trials elsewhere in the world. "We tried three times to get Bush in Canada but were thwarted by the Canadian Government, then we scared Bush out of going to Switzerland. The Spanish attempt failed because of the government there and the same happened in Germany." Boyle then referenced the Nuremberg Charter which was used as the format for the tribunal when asked about the credibility of the initiative in Malaysia. He quoted: "Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of such a plan." The US is subject to customary international law and to the Principles of the Nuremberg Charter said Boyle who also believes the week-long trial was "almost certainly" being monitored closely by both Pentagon and White House officials. Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, who headed the prosecution said: "The tribunal was very careful to adhere scrupulously to the regulations drawn up by the Nuremberg courts and the International Criminal Courts". He added that he was optimistic the tribunal would be followed up elsewhere in the world where "countries have a duty to try war criminals" and he cited the case of the former Chilean dictator Augustine Pinochet who was arrested in Britain to be extradited to Spain on charges of war crimes. "Pinochet was only eight years out of his presidency when that happened." The Pinochet case was the first time that several European judges applied the principle of universal jurisdiction, declaring themselves competent to judge crimes committed by former heads of state, despite local amnesty laws. Throughout the week the tribunal was packed with legal experts and law students as witnesses gave testimony and then cross examination by the defence led by lawyer Jason Kay Kit Leon. The court heard how - Abbas Abid, a 48-year-old engineer from Fallujah in Iraq had his fingernails removed by pliers. - Ali Shalal was attached with bare electrical wires and electrocuted and hung from a wall. - Moazzam Begg was beaten, hooded and put in solitary confinement. - Jameelah was stripped and humiliated, and was used as a human shield whilst being transported by helicopter. The witnesses also detailed how they have residual injuries till today. Moazzam Begg, now working as a director for the London-based human rights group Cageprisoners said he was delighted with the verdict, but added: "When people talk about Nuremberg you have to remember those tried were all prosecuted after the war. "Right now Guantanamo is still open, people are still being held there and are still being tortured there." In response to questions about the difference between the Bush and Obama Administrations, he added: "If President Bush was the President of extra-judicial torture then US President Barak Obama is the President of extra judicial killing through drone strikes. Our work has only just begun." The prosecution case rested on proving how the decision-makers at the highest level President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld, aided and abetted by the lawyers and the other commanders and CIA officials – all acted in concert. Torture was systematically applied and became an accepted norm. According to the prosecution, the testimony of all the witnesses exposed a sustained perpetration of brutal, barbaric, cruel and dehumanising course of conduct against them. These acts of crimes were applied cumulatively to inflict the worst possible pain and suffering, said lawyers. The president of the tribunal Tan Sri Dato Lamin bin Haji Mohd Yunus Lamin, found that the prosecution had established beyond a "reasonable doubt that the accused persons, former President George Bush and his co-conspirators engaged in a web of instructions, memos, directives, legal advice and action that established a common plan and purpose, joint enterprise and/or conspiracy to commit the crimes of Torture and War Crimes, including and not limited to a common plan and purpose to commit the following crimes in relation to the "War on Terror" and the wars launched by the U.S. and others in Afghanistan and Iraq." President Lamin told a packed courtroom: "As a tribunal of conscience, the Tribunal is fully aware that its verdict is merely declaratory in nature. The tribunal has no power of enforcement, no power to impose any custodial sentence on any one or more of the 8 convicted persons. What we can do, under Article 31 of Chapter VI of Part 2 of the Charter is to recommend to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission to submit this finding of conviction by the Tribunal, together with a record of these proceedings, to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council. "The Tribunal also recommends to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission that the names of all the 8 convicted persons be entered and included in the Commission's Register of War Criminals and be publicised accordingly. "The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions if any of these Accused persons may enter their jurisdictions". [https://www.dmanalytics2.com/open?d=90Y8W678-5600-4W0W-8Y1Y-9016VYZX0Z6Z&e=fboyle at law.uiuc.edu&a=61U71383-5X8Y-4U5Z-YV00-5V4WY30ZUYX2] _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Mar 15 14:27:58 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:27:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News discusses the newly appointed CIA Director In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Finally, The Marquis De Sade Professor of Law and Philosophy and at the UIUC Center for Advanced Studies Mikey Moore fully supports the USG Drone Murder Extermination Campaign against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color--men, women and children. Fab. “…particularly to the drone assassinations, “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children.” Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} 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, March 15, 2018 8:16 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; C G Estabrook ; Karen Aram Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] The Real News discusses the newly appointed CIA Director Oh and I forgot to mention that Mikey Moore is also a Professor at the UIUC Center for Advanced Study in Torture and Drone Murders. Undoubtedly his CIA/Mossad affiliations qualified him for that appointment. fab 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 7:52 AM To: C G Estabrook ; Karen Aram Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Real News discusses the newly appointed CIA Director Criminal indeed. Just remember that our Marquis De Sade Professor of Law at our Trump Law School Michael Moore has publicly admitted he works with both the CIA and the Mossad on torture. Mikey and his Consort our Fired and Disgraced Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd have been stinking up this campus and this community ever since their arrival here advocating torture for the CIA and the Mossad and along the lines of the KGB. Two Thugs. Fab. 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 7:38 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Real News discusses the newly appointed CIA Director We should demand that our senators not vote to confirm this criminal. Durbin: Duckworth: > On Mar 15, 2018, at 7:03 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21363:The-CIA%27s-New-Torturer-in-Chief > > Log in and tell us why you support TRNN > > > biography > Marcy Wheeler is a national security reporter and author. Her website is Empty Wheel. > > transcript > AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. President Trump has had several major Cabinet shake ups since taking office, but his latest is his boldest yet. Earlier today, Trump announcing that Rex Tillerson is out as Secretary of State, replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo. And replacing Pompeo at CIA is his deputy, Gina Haspel. Trump spoke to reporters on the White House south lawn. > > DONALD TRUMP: I've worked with Mike Pompeo now for quite some time. Tremendous energy, tremendous intellect. We're always on the same wavelength. The relationship has been very good, and that's what I need as Secretary of State. I wish Rex Tillerson well. Gina, by the way, who I know very well, who I've worked very closely, will be the first woman Director of the CIA. She's an outstanding person who also I have gotten to know very well. So, I've gotten to know a lot of people very well over the last year, and I'm really at a point where we're getting very close to having the Cabinet and other things that I want. > > AARON MATÉ: In elevating Pompeo, Trump would have a Secretary of State even more in line with confronting Iran. In installing Gina Haspel as head of the CIA, Trump also has someone who would be in line with one of his other defining views, embracing torture. Haspel was in charge of the CIA's first secret overseas prison site in Thailand, and there she oversaw the torture of two prisoners and later ordered the destruction of video footage that caught their abuse on camera. > > Joining me is Marcy Wheeler, national security reporter whose website is emptywheel.net. Welcome Marcy. Lots to talk about. Let's start with the presumptive new CIA Director, Gina Haspel. Tell us about her record. > > MARCY WHEELER: As you said, she was the Chief of Station for the first black sites or for Thailand, where the first black site, where our torture program was. She oversaw the torture of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri in 2002, when really CIA was just experimenting with it. In that role, because people are already saying that she was just doing what she was told, she was just following orders, in that role, she was also particularly sadistic. She at times when other people said Abu Zubaydah's fully compliant, he's told us all he knows, would say, "You go back and keep torturing him until he tells us more." That's her role in torture. > > And then while she was still Chief of Station there in 2002, she said, "Let's get rid of all of the videos we took of this torture." CIA didn't permit her to do that in 2002 because there were ongoing investigations, but when, in 2005, she and Jose Rodriguez, who kind of instituted the torture program, when they were at a much more senior level at CIA, she said, "Hey, great idea. Let's get rid of those videos that we took back in 2002, even though there are court rulings that say we should not be able to get rid of them." So, she oversaw the destruction of them, so both the torture and the cover up of the torture. That's who we're getting to run the CIA. > > AARON MATÉ: And for one of those prisoners who was tortured, last year, this nonprofit group in Europe, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, issued a statement calling for an arrest warrant for her. Now, I'm wondering, do you think that as the CIA Director if she travels overseas, especially to Europe where there have been cases around torture and there have been extradition requests for people who committed rights abuses, that she could be vulnerable to arrest? > > MARCY WHEELER: I think people, activists in Europe, certainly will try and make that an issue because yes, she is on the record as having played a key role in our torture program. And Europe for years has used whatever leverage they can to try and at least shame us for the torture program we've had. By the way, both Abu Zubaydah, Abu Zubaydah has never been charged. He's still at Gitmo. He's one of those people in this kind of holding pattern. His lawyers every once in a while say, "Hey..." something about him. Then Nashiri's trial is very troubled right now. > > She will be undergoing confirmation process at the same time as daily crazy stuff happens in Gitmo as they try and move closer to finally try this guy. He was allegedly responsible for the USS Cole bombing in 2000, before 9/11. So, the entire background, both before and after she gets confirmed, is going to emphasize her role in the torture, which will make for a pretty antagonistic debate about her nomination, I think rightly so. > > AARON MATÉ: Now, in terms of antagonism, the question for me is whether she'll face serious antagonism from Democrats in the Senate. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the powerful Democratic senator from California, has already indicated today that she will support Haspel's nomination. On this front, I'm wondering. We famously know that when President Obama took office, he talked about looking forward, not backwards, and essentially not prosecuting those who took part in torture. I'm wondering how much of a role Democratic inaction around torture has played in elevating someone like Gina Haspel to the top CIA post today. > > MARCY WHEELER: Well, I can't believe I'm going to defend Dianne Feinstein. I don't think she said that she will support Haspel's nomination. I think she has said she will give it a good listen, which probably means she's going to support it, but she also has a real primary challenge this year. And, I think that, again, this is the kind of thing that people can bring some political pressure on Feinstein about. She's no longer the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is the committee Haspel's nomination will go through. That puts her in less of a position to influence it. > > I mean, I expect that Wyden and Heinrich, and maybe Kamala Harris, will raise that as an issue in the confirmation process, but you're right. Feinstein is one of those people who's saying, "Well, she was just doing what she was ordered to do, and therefore, it's not that big of a deal." One of Feinstein's laudable actions in her time as a senator is making sure that the Senate report, the Senate torture report, actually got finished. Then to have what could be her last year in the Senate, have her rubber stamp this torturer to run the whole CIA, because even, I mean, Aaron, it's terrible enough that this torturer might run the whole CIA, but the other thing is the cover up, right? > > There were congressional inquiries into the torture program at the time those videos were destroyed. Carl Levin, for one, was asking for precisely that kind of data. Jay Rockefeller even was, Feinstein's predecessor as ranking member on the committee. And so, the notion that this woman who oversaw the obstruction of multiple investigations into CIA torture, including congressional investigations, the notion that she should become CIA Director, just invites CIA to continue to refuse all oversight from our democratically elected members of Congress. That, if you are a member of Congress, should be as important as the torture. They're both important, but the obstruction, as a member of Congress, as somebody who is supposed to oversee this agency, that really ought to be disqualifying, but apparently it's not for Feinstein. > > AARON MATÉ: Right. Speaking of congressional oversight of the CIA, there also was the fact that the CIA, after the initial cover up with the videotapes and so forth, back when the Senate was compiling its torture report, you had the CIA actually spying on the senators who were writing it. > > MARCY WHEELER: Under John Brennan, so yeah, that's under Barack Obama. Obama did not side with Dianne Feinstein in that battle. That's not the only obstruction. At one point, I made a long list, and it was a long list of all of the documents on the CIA torture program that disappeared into the ether. And it was a bipartisan effort from 2002 all the way to today, but yeah, this wasn't fixed under Barack Obama. Gina Haspel not only stayed in government, but continued to get promoted. And now, she's about to take over the agency. Again, for all the complaints about the deep state investigating Donald Trump and being out of control and what have you, confirming Gina Haspel as Director of CIA will further empower whatever uncontrollable power the deep state has. > > AARON MATÉ: All right. We're going to leave it there for part one. In part two, we'll talk about Mike Pompeo as a new Secretary of State. Marcy Wheeler of emptywheel.net, thank you. And thank you for joining us on The Real News. > _______________________________________________ > 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 From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 15 16:06:17 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:06:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia References: <90008938-A588-4404-B038-0DAE49D21055@twf.org> Message-ID: RIP: Phil Berrigan. Fab. [Boylebookemail.JPG] Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 9:22 AM To: 'Karen Aram' ; Roger Helbig Cc: Peace-discuss Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia For the record once again, Doug Rokke and I helped defend Phil Berrigan and the Depleted Uranium Plowshares from criminal prosecution. Starting out with 40 years, at the end of a Kangaroo Court Proceeding, Phil and the rest of them got 2. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:26 AM To: Roger Helbig > Cc: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia Roger Even if your cover, as an “agent provocateur on social media” or rather “hired troll,” the preferred term these days, had not been blown by Counterpunch recently, It’s so obvious given your form of countering arguments is to personally attack the messenger. Always a sign that one lacks evidence to back up their argument. Your personal animosity towards Mr. Rokke, who is not on our Discuss List to defend himself, whoever, wherever he maybe, is a continuing nuisance, which leads me to question why we continue to have so many “war supporters” and “trolls” on this “Peace Discuss List?” On Mar 15, 2018, at 03:18, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss > wrote: Kangaroo courts have zero jurisdiction anywhere. Malaysia has routinely had these sham trials. If you were a real lawyer, who dealt in evidence, you would pick their evidence and witnesses apart instead of pushing out their sham judgments. You have a law degree and even teach the stuff so you should occasionally dig out your basic evidence texts. I know that prior sham trials here had witnesses who were total frauds. Leuren K Moret was a witness. She's a pal of your buddy Douglas Lind Rokke (I use his full name deliberately because he is a criminal who should have been convicted for perjury years ago) so you probably would buy into her lies too. If you had your evidence hat on, though, you would know that she is totally pretend, just like Rokke. Roger W Helbig On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:26 PM, 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) From: The Wisdom Fund > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:16 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia [THE WISDOM FUND: News & Views] SUBSCRIBE to The Wisdom Fund — unsubscribe fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (add listserve at twf.org and staff at twf.org to your address book) JOIN TWF.ORG founder on Facebook JOIN TWF.ORG on Twitter May 12, 2012 Foreign Policy Journal Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia by Yvonne Ridley In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia. The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is also asking that the names of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington and Haynes be entered and included in the Commission's Register of War Criminals for public record. The tribunal is the initiative of Malaysia's retired Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. He sat through the entire hearing as it took personal statements and testimonies of three witnesses namely Abbas Abid, Moazzam Begg and Jameelah Hameedi. The tribunal also heard two other Statutory Declarations of Iraqi citizen Ali Shalal and Rahul Ahmed, another British citizen. After the guilty verdict reached by five senior judges was delivered, Mahathir Mohamad said: "Powerful countries are getting away with murder." War crimes expert and lawyer Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in America, was part of the prosecution team. After the case he said: "This is the first conviction of these people anywhere in the world." While the hearing is regarded by some as being purely symbolic, human rights activist Boyle said he was hopeful that Bush and Co could soon find themselves facing similar trials elsewhere in the world. "We tried three times to get Bush in Canada but were thwarted by the Canadian Government, then we scared Bush out of going to Switzerland. The Spanish attempt failed because of the government there and the same happened in Germany." Boyle then referenced the Nuremberg Charter which was used as the format for the tribunal when asked about the credibility of the initiative in Malaysia. He quoted: "Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of such a plan." The US is subject to customary international law and to the Principles of the Nuremberg Charter said Boyle who also believes the week-long trial was "almost certainly" being monitored closely by both Pentagon and White House officials. Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, who headed the prosecution said: "The tribunal was very careful to adhere scrupulously to the regulations drawn up by the Nuremberg courts and the International Criminal Courts". He added that he was optimistic the tribunal would be followed up elsewhere in the world where "countries have a duty to try war criminals" and he cited the case of the former Chilean dictator Augustine Pinochet who was arrested in Britain to be extradited to Spain on charges of war crimes. "Pinochet was only eight years out of his presidency when that happened." The Pinochet case was the first time that several European judges applied the principle of universal jurisdiction, declaring themselves competent to judge crimes committed by former heads of state, despite local amnesty laws. Throughout the week the tribunal was packed with legal experts and law students as witnesses gave testimony and then cross examination by the defence led by lawyer Jason Kay Kit Leon. The court heard how - Abbas Abid, a 48-year-old engineer from Fallujah in Iraq had his fingernails removed by pliers. - Ali Shalal was attached with bare electrical wires and electrocuted and hung from a wall. - Moazzam Begg was beaten, hooded and put in solitary confinement. - Jameelah was stripped and humiliated, and was used as a human shield whilst being transported by helicopter. The witnesses also detailed how they have residual injuries till today. Moazzam Begg, now working as a director for the London-based human rights group Cageprisoners said he was delighted with the verdict, but added: "When people talk about Nuremberg you have to remember those tried were all prosecuted after the war. "Right now Guantanamo is still open, people are still being held there and are still being tortured there." In response to questions about the difference between the Bush and Obama Administrations, he added: "If President Bush was the President of extra-judicial torture then US President Barak Obama is the President of extra judicial killing through drone strikes. Our work has only just begun." The prosecution case rested on proving how the decision-makers at the highest level President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld, aided and abetted by the lawyers and the other commanders and CIA officials – all acted in concert. Torture was systematically applied and became an accepted norm. According to the prosecution, the testimony of all the witnesses exposed a sustained perpetration of brutal, barbaric, cruel and dehumanising course of conduct against them. These acts of crimes were applied cumulatively to inflict the worst possible pain and suffering, said lawyers. The president of the tribunal Tan Sri Dato Lamin bin Haji Mohd Yunus Lamin, found that the prosecution had established beyond a "reasonable doubt that the accused persons, former President George Bush and his co-conspirators engaged in a web of instructions, memos, directives, legal advice and action that established a common plan and purpose, joint enterprise and/or conspiracy to commit the crimes of Torture and War Crimes, including and not limited to a common plan and purpose to commit the following crimes in relation to the "War on Terror" and the wars launched by the U.S. and others in Afghanistan and Iraq." President Lamin told a packed courtroom: "As a tribunal of conscience, the Tribunal is fully aware that its verdict is merely declaratory in nature. The tribunal has no power of enforcement, no power to impose any custodial sentence on any one or more of the 8 convicted persons. What we can do, under Article 31 of Chapter VI of Part 2 of the Charter is to recommend to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission to submit this finding of conviction by the Tribunal, together with a record of these proceedings, to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council. "The Tribunal also recommends to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission that the names of all the 8 convicted persons be entered and included in the Commission's Register of War Criminals and be publicised accordingly. "The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions if any of these Accused persons may enter their jurisdictions". [https://www.dmanalytics2.com/open?d=90Y8W678-5600-4W0W-8Y1Y-9016VYZX0Z6Z&e=fboyle at law.uiuc.edu&a=61U71383-5X8Y-4U5Z-YV00-5V4WY30ZUYX2] _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20855 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 15 16:24:30 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:24:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois Message-ID: The trial related to the Nazi threat of marching in Skokie, Illinois took place in 1977. I left the US in 1977, thus the march that did take place to which I was referring, had to have happened in the “1960’s.” Please see below: Chicago’s Not-Too-Distant Nazi Past In the 1960s and ’70s, Nazis marched the streets of Chicago and its suburbs—to protest black residents moving in. We spoke with the lawyer that defended their First Amendment right. BY ALISON MARTIN PUBLISHED NOV. 30, 2016 * * * * * * 0 COMMENTS [Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1966] Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1966 SCREENSHOT: TRIBUNE ARCHIVE From the racist rhetoric of his campaign to the appointment of white supremacist Steve Bannon as his chief strategist, Donald Trump’s election has emboldened white nationalist groups that were once considered fringe. When his victory brought “Hail Trump” cheers and Nazi salutes from the crowd at the National Policy Institute’s Nov. 19 meeting in Washington. D.C., many of Trump’s detractors feared the worst—a return of Nazi ideology to mainstream America. In fact, it hasn’t been so long since that particular blend of anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny held sway even in deep-blue Chicago. Decades after Hitler was defeated in Europe, the National Socialist Party of America (an offshoot of the American Nazi Party) had a stronghold in Chicago’s Marquette Park in the 1970s, where it mostly focused on anti-black policies. The sentiment was not fringe at the time; we previously wrote about how, in the mid-20th century, especially in reaction to Martin Luther King Jr.’s campaign for fair housing, mobs of thousands of white people in Chicago violently tried to stop blacks from moving into majority-white neighborhoods. NSPA head Frank Collin was perhaps most famous for a landmark 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the group fought for the right to protest in front of Skokie’s city hall, a wildly unpopular move as the suburb had a large Jewish population, including many Holocaust survivors. David Goldberger, professor of law of Jewish heritage at Ohio State University, argued on Collin’s behalf while working for the American Civil Liberties Union. Here’s what Goldberger had to say about why the Nazis settled in Chicago, his First Amendment role, and his thoughts on Chicago’s future. What factors in Chicago led to this Nazi group taking shape in Chicago? Collin managed to buy a place in the Marquette Park area. His building was in a Lithuanian neighborhood. To the east of that neighborhood, [Englewood] had been a changing neighborhood and was becoming solidly black. The homes in the Marquette Park area were turning over. There was a sense that the transition from white to black was spreading, and that made, I think, the NSPA an increasingly appealing group. How did the Chicago Housing Authority indirectly help segregation in the city as the Nazis wanted? It was clear that public housing was needed, and Mayor [Richard M.] Daley located the housing developments in places where it was pretty clear that you could concentrate minorities. There would be natural barriers for the minorities then to spread, for example the Dan Ryan Expressway. I think if you look at the location of the housing projects that went up, they were all located in black communities so that would increase the concentration because they were very high density operations. How did Chicagoans initially react to the Nazis? That’s hard to say. It seemed to me in the Marquette Park area they were quite tolerant. I don’t want to say farther than that. The black community, needless to say, was hostile because the NSPA was focused on race as opposed to going after Jews, although Jews were on its agenda. The black neighborhoods in Englewood and the neighboring areas understood what was what. I think as you move north, there was indifference. [The Nazis] were regarded as a curiosity, an offensive curiosity, but a curiosity nonetheless. How did you get involved in the controversy with the NSPA? The Chicago Park district began to block [Collin’s] access [to public spaces]. He came to the ACLU, and we sued the Chicago Park District successfully to have that restriction invalidated. He then asked us to represent him in dealing with getting a permit to hold a parade. Our position at the ACLU was he has a First Amendment right, so we basically represented him in getting the permit. [After he was arrested for marching,] we represented him in criminal proceedings. He was acquitted because it was pretty clear to the judge—who had the guts to do it, I must say—that it was classic First Amendment activity. Following that, Collin was blocked out of all parks. We sued the Chicago Park District to get him back in Marquette Park. There was going to be a hearing because now the Park District wanted Collin to obtain insurance, and no insurance company in its right mind was going to write the insurance. As a consequence, Collin began to apply to park districts throughout the suburbs to hold assemblies. I went home [one day], and I got a phone call from Collin saying, “I’ve been planning to go hold an assembly in downtown Skokie because I’ve been refused a permit by the Skokie Park District, and I was just served with papers that I’m to appear in court tomorrow because they’re going to try enjoin my march.” How did you feel arguing that case? Well, to be perfectly honest, I was a pretty stubborn First Amendment lawyer. What Collin wanted was to engage in pristine First Amendment activity. At that point, I had no indication of any interest in violence or any desire to get arrested or anything like that. I wasn’t wild about it, but it seemed to me that if I had any respect for the First Amendment, it was a slam dunk and you did it. And if I didn’t want to do it, then it was time for me to look for a new occupation. Do you see any current issues in Chicago today that could pave the way to a resurgence of Nazi-like sentiments? Before the Trump election, I would’ve said there’s very little that will happen, but it’s conceivable. I don’t know at this point statistically what part of the reactive white community that’s left in Chicago as a proportion of the population, but I mean, we know that there’s a segment of the Chicago population that’s attracted to populism. It seems to me the Black Lives Matter movement has provoked a reaction. I think that really helped Trump. In spite of the fact, I hope the kids don’t give up on it. But that [backlash] could crystallize the reemergence of that kind of extremist movement. It’s got to be a reaction to something, such as the black shootings of white police officers. People get angry and hostile to start with and they’re looking for a reason to coalesce and feel like they’re part of a victimized community. And I’m not talking about blacks. I’m talking about a segment of the white community that feels victimized. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 15 16:42:36 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:42:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: When the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior—RIP—came to Chicago, he decided to directly confront the Headquarters for the American Nazi Party in Gage Park under their Fuhrer George Lincoln Rockwell. I decided to march with him. So in order to orient myself, on the night before his march, I drove down to 55th Street and found their bungalow with a large Nazi Flag flying in front of it. The next morning I drove over there to march with Doctor King. But there was so much pandemonium I could not get anywhere near him. Fab Native Chicagoan. Francis 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-discuss On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 11:25 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois The trial related to the Nazi threat of marching in Skokie, Illinois took place in 1977. I left the US in 1977, thus the march that did take place to which I was referring, had to have happened in the “1960’s.” Please see below: Chicago’s Not-Too-Distant Nazi Past In the 1960s and ’70s, Nazis marched the streets of Chicago and its suburbs—to protest black residents moving in. We spoke with the lawyer that defended their First Amendment right. BY ALISON MARTIN PUBLISHED NOV. 30, 2016 · · · · · · 0 COMMENTS [Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1966] Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1966 SCREENSHOT: TRIBUNE ARCHIVE From the racist rhetoric of his campaign to the appointment of white supremacist Steve Bannon as his chief strategist, Donald Trump’s election has emboldened white nationalist groups that were once considered fringe. When his victory brought “Hail Trump” cheers and Nazi salutes from the crowd at the National Policy Institute’s Nov. 19 meeting in Washington. D.C., many of Trump’s detractors feared the worst—a return of Nazi ideology to mainstream America. In fact, it hasn’t been so long since that particular blend of anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny held sway even in deep-blue Chicago. Decades after Hitler was defeated in Europe, the National Socialist Party of America (an offshoot of the American Nazi Party) had a stronghold in Chicago’s Marquette Park in the 1970s, where it mostly focused on anti-black policies. The sentiment was not fringe at the time; we previously wrote about how, in the mid-20th century, especially in reaction to Martin Luther King Jr.’s campaign for fair housing, mobs of thousands of white people in Chicago violently tried to stop blacks from moving into majority-white neighborhoods. NSPA head Frank Collin was perhaps most famous for a landmark 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the group fought for the right to protest in front of Skokie’s city hall, a wildly unpopular move as the suburb had a large Jewish population, including many Holocaust survivors. David Goldberger, professor of law of Jewish heritage at Ohio State University, argued on Collin’s behalf while working for the American Civil Liberties Union. Here’s what Goldberger had to say about why the Nazis settled in Chicago, his First Amendment role, and his thoughts on Chicago’s future. What factors in Chicago led to this Nazi group taking shape in Chicago? Collin managed to buy a place in the Marquette Park area. His building was in a Lithuanian neighborhood. To the east of that neighborhood, [Englewood] had been a changing neighborhood and was becoming solidly black. The homes in the Marquette Park area were turning over. There was a sense that the transition from white to black was spreading, and that made, I think, the NSPA an increasingly appealing group. How did the Chicago Housing Authority indirectly help segregation in the city as the Nazis wanted? It was clear that public housing was needed, and Mayor [Richard M.] Daley located the housing developments in places where it was pretty clear that you could concentrate minorities. There would be natural barriers for the minorities then to spread, for example the Dan Ryan Expressway. I think if you look at the location of the housing projects that went up, they were all located in black communities so that would increase the concentration because they were very high density operations. How did Chicagoans initially react to the Nazis? That’s hard to say. It seemed to me in the Marquette Park area they were quite tolerant. I don’t want to say farther than that. The black community, needless to say, was hostile because the NSPA was focused on race as opposed to going after Jews, although Jews were on its agenda. The black neighborhoods in Englewood and the neighboring areas understood what was what. I think as you move north, there was indifference. [The Nazis] were regarded as a curiosity, an offensive curiosity, but a curiosity nonetheless. How did you get involved in the controversy with the NSPA? The Chicago Park district began to block [Collin’s] access [to public spaces]. He came to the ACLU, and we sued the Chicago Park District successfully to have that restriction invalidated. He then asked us to represent him in dealing with getting a permit to hold a parade. Our position at the ACLU was he has a First Amendment right, so we basically represented him in getting the permit. [After he was arrested for marching,] we represented him in criminal proceedings. He was acquitted because it was pretty clear to the judge—who had the guts to do it, I must say—that it was classic First Amendment activity. Following that, Collin was blocked out of all parks. We sued the Chicago Park District to get him back in Marquette Park. There was going to be a hearing because now the Park District wanted Collin to obtain insurance, and no insurance company in its right mind was going to write the insurance. As a consequence, Collin began to apply to park districts throughout the suburbs to hold assemblies. I went home [one day], and I got a phone call from Collin saying, “I’ve been planning to go hold an assembly in downtown Skokie because I’ve been refused a permit by the Skokie Park District, and I was just served with papers that I’m to appear in court tomorrow because they’re going to try enjoin my march.” How did you feel arguing that case? Well, to be perfectly honest, I was a pretty stubborn First Amendment lawyer. What Collin wanted was to engage in pristine First Amendment activity. At that point, I had no indication of any interest in violence or any desire to get arrested or anything like that. I wasn’t wild about it, but it seemed to me that if I had any respect for the First Amendment, it was a slam dunk and you did it. And if I didn’t want to do it, then it was time for me to look for a new occupation. Do you see any current issues in Chicago today that could pave the way to a resurgence of Nazi-like sentiments? Before the Trump election, I would’ve said there’s very little that will happen, but it’s conceivable. I don’t know at this point statistically what part of the reactive white community that’s left in Chicago as a proportion of the population, but I mean, we know that there’s a segment of the Chicago population that’s attracted to populism. It seems to me the Black Lives Matter movement has provoked a reaction. I think that really helped Trump. In spite of the fact, I hope the kids don’t give up on it. But that [backlash] could crystallize the reemergence of that kind of extremist movement. It’s got to be a reaction to something, such as the black shootings of white police officers. People get angry and hostile to start with and they’re looking for a reason to coalesce and feel like they’re part of a victimized community. And I’m not talking about blacks. I’m talking about a segment of the white community that feels victimized. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 18:14:55 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:14:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0C795D48-F3E9-4825-AD7D-ED2FCD874A2E@gmail.com> George Lincoln Rockwell (1918-67), from Bloomington, was the founder of the American Nazi Party; his headquarters ca. 1960 was a suburban house across the street from my secondary school. (My classmate Joel Rutenberg - I seem to recall his parents were WWII refugees - used to like to go the hq and talk at length with Rockwell.) Rockwell’s parents were vaudeville comedians and actors; his father's acquaintances included Fred Allen, Benny Goodman, Walter Winchell, Jack Benny, and Groucho Marx. In July 1958, Rockwell demonstrated in front of the White House in an anti-war protest against President Eisenhower's decision to send troops to the Middle East. (That as I recall was when I first became of aware of hm.) Rockwell and a few supporters had uniforms. They armed themselves with rifles and revolvers, and paraded about his home in Arlington, Virginia. The window to his home was left open, so that others could see his swastika flag. In 1959, Rockwell founded the World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists (WUFENS), a name selected to denote opposition to state ownership of property. In December, the organization was renamed the American Nazi Party, and its headquarters was relocated to 928 North Randolph Street in Arlington, Virginia. In the summer of 1966, Rockwell led a counter-demonstration against Martin Luther King's attempt to bring an end to de facto segregation in the Chicago suburb of Cicero, Illinois. (Perhaps this is what Karen remembers.) After hearing the slogan "Black Power" during a debate in 1966 with Black Panther Stokely Carmichael, Rockwell altered the phrase and started a call for "White Power". ‘White Power’ later became the name of the party's newspaper and the title of a book authored by Rockwell. The party produced and distributed a number of pamphlets and books, including writings by Rockwell, the periodical Stormtrooper Magazine (originally National Socialist Bulletin), and a propaganda comic book, ‘Here Comes Whiteman!’, where the title superhero character battles enemies modeled after racist stereotypes. The two-story farm house Rockwell established as his "Stormtrooper Barracks" was located at 6150 Wilson Boulevard in the Dominion Hills district of Arlington (near our community swimming pool). It was there that the interview with Alex Haley occurred. Situated on the tallest hill in Arlington County, the house has been razed, and the property has been incorporated into the Upton Hill Regional Park. A small pavilion with picnic tables marks the house's former location. The site of the party headquarters, 928 North Randolph Street (near my high school), is now a hotel and office complex. After Rockwell's death, his successor, Matt Koehl, relocated the headquarters to 2507 North Franklin Road in the Clarendon area. It became the last physical address of the party before Koehl moved it to New Berlin, Wisconsin in the mid-1980s. The small building, often misidentified today as Rockwell's former headquarters, is now a coffee shop called The Java Shack… George Lincoln Rockwell got along well with Elijah Muhammad… “I have talked to the Muslim leaders and am certain that a workable plan for separation of the races could be effected to the satisfaction of all concerned—except the communist-Jew agitators." He also said of Elijah Muhammad "I am fully in concert with their program, and I have the highest respect for Elijah Muhammad." Inspired by black Muslims' use of religion to mobilize people, Rockwell sought collaboration with Christian Identity groups. In June 1964, he formed an alliance with Identity minister Wesley A. Swift and began to promote his ideas within the Identity movement. On August 25, 1967, Rockwell was shot and killed while leaving a laundromat in Arlington. John Patler, a recently expelled member of Rockwell's group, was convicted of the murder in December 1967, and sentenced to 20 years in prison. He served an initial eight years in prison, and later a further six years following a parole violation. Matt Koehl, the second in command at NSWPP, moved to establish control over Rockwell's body and the assets of the NSWPP, which at the time had some 300 active members and 3,000 financial supporters. Rockwell's parents wanted a private burial in Maine, but declined to fight with the Nazis over the question. On August 27, an NSWPP spokesman reported that federal officials had approved a military burial at Culpeper National Cemetery, Rockwell being an honorably discharged veteran. The cemetery specified that no Nazi insignia could be displayed, and when the 50 mourners violated these conditions, the entrance to the cemetery was blocked in a five-hour standoff, during which the hearse (which had been stopped on railroad tracks near the cemetery) was nearly struck by an approaching train. The next day, Rockwell's body was cremated. In the mid-1960s, Rockwell tried to develop his Nazi political philosophy within the Christian Identity religious movement. The Christian Identity group Aryan Nations started to use various Nazi flags in its services, and its security personnel started wearing uniforms similar to those worn by Rockwell's stormtroopers. Two of Rockwell's associates, Matt Koehl and William Luther Pierce, formed their own organizations. Koehl, who was Rockwell's successor, renamed the NSWPP the New Order in 1983 and relocated it to Wisconsin shortly thereafter. Pierce founded the National Alliance. Rockwell is mentioned in the lyrics to the Bob Dylan song "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues". In the lyrics to the song, the narrator parodies Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson as being Communists, and claims that the only "true American" is George Lincoln Rockwell. Quoting the lyrics, "I know for a fact that he hates Commies, 'cause he picketed the movie Exodus." For their 1972 album ‘Not Insane or Anything You Want To’, the comedy troupe Firesign Theatre created a fictional presidential candidate, George Papoon, running on the equally fictional ticket, the Natural Surrealist Light Peoples Party, the name taken as an apparent parody of Rockwell's own group, the National Socialist White Peoples Party. In the television miniseries Roots: The Next Generations, Marlon Brando portrayed Rockwell and won a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Miniseries or a Movie for his performance. On the post-World War II alternative history TV show ‘The Man in the High Castle’, Nazi-occupied New York City's main airport is named Lincoln Rockwell Airport… —CGE > On Mar 15, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > When the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior—RIP—came to Chicago, he decided to directly confront the Headquarters for the American Nazi Party in Gage Park under their Fuhrer George Lincoln Rockwell. I decided to march with him. So in order to orient myself, on the night before his march, I drove down to 55th Street and found their bungalow with a large Nazi Flag flying in front of it. The next morning I drove over there to march with Doctor King. But there was so much pandemonium I could not get anywhere near him. > Fab > Native Chicagoan. > […] > > From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 11:25 AM > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois > > The trial related to the Nazi threat of marching in Skokie, Illinois took place in 1977. I left the US in 1977, thus the march that did take place to which I was referring, had to have happened in the “1960’s.” > > Please see below: > Chicago’s Not-Too-Distant Nazi Past > In the 1960s and ’70s, Nazis marched the streets of Chicago and its suburbs—to protest black residents moving in. We spoke with the lawyer that defended their First Amendment right. > BY ALISON MARTIN > PUBLISHED NOV. 30, 2016 > > Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1966 SCREENSHOT: TRIBUNE ARCHIVE > From the racist rhetoric of his campaign to the appointment of white supremacist Steve Bannon as his chief strategist, Donald Trump’s election has emboldened white nationalist groups that were once considered fringe. When his victory brought “Hail Trump” cheers and Nazi salutes from the crowd at the National Policy Institute’s Nov. 19 meeting in Washington. D.C., many of Trump’s detractors feared the worst—a return of Nazi ideology to mainstream America. > > In fact, it hasn’t been so long since that particular blend of anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny held sway even in deep-blue Chicago. Decades after Hitler was defeated in Europe, the National Socialist Party of America (an offshoot of the American Nazi Party) had a stronghold in Chicago’s Marquette Park in the 1970s, where it mostly focused on anti-black policies. The sentiment was not fringe at the time; we previously wrote about how, in the mid-20th century, especially in reaction to Martin Luther King Jr.’s campaign for fair housing, mobs of thousands of white people in Chicago violently tried to stop blacks from moving into majority-white neighborhoods. > NSPA head Frank Collin was perhaps most famous for a landmark 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the group fought for the right to protest in front of Skokie’s city hall, a wildly unpopular move as the suburb had a large Jewish population, including many Holocaust survivors. > David Goldberger, professor of law of Jewish heritage at Ohio State University, argued on Collin’s behalf while working for the American Civil Liberties Union. Here’s what Goldberger had to say about why the Nazis settled in Chicago, his First Amendment role, and his thoughts on Chicago’s future. > > What factors in Chicago led to this Nazi group taking shape in Chicago? > Collin managed to buy a place in the Marquette Park area. His building was in a Lithuanian neighborhood. To the east of that neighborhood, [Englewood] had been a changing neighborhood and was becoming solidly black. The homes in the Marquette Park area were turning over. There was a sense that the transition from white to black was spreading, and that made, I think, the NSPA an increasingly appealing group. > > How did the Chicago Housing Authority indirectly help segregation in the city as the Nazis wanted? > It was clear that public housing was needed, and Mayor [Richard M.] Daley located the housing developments in places where it was pretty clear that you could concentrate minorities. There would be natural barriers for the minorities then to spread, for example the Dan Ryan Expressway. I think if you look at the location of the housing projects that went up, they were all located in black communities so that would increase the concentration because they were very high density operations. > > How did Chicagoans initially react to the Nazis? > That’s hard to say. It seemed to me in the Marquette Park area they were quite tolerant. I don’t want to say farther than that. The black community, needless to say, was hostile because the NSPA was focused on race as opposed to going after Jews, although Jews were on its agenda. The black neighborhoods in Englewood and the neighboring areas understood what was what. I think as you move north, there was indifference. [The Nazis] were regarded as a curiosity, an offensive curiosity, but a curiosity nonetheless. > > How did you get involved in the controversy with the NSPA? > The Chicago Park district began to block [Collin’s] access [to public spaces]. He came to the ACLU, and we sued the Chicago Park District successfully to have that restriction invalidated. He then asked us to represent him in dealing with getting a permit to hold a parade. Our position at the ACLU was he has a First Amendment right, so we basically represented him in getting the permit. [After he was arrested for marching,] we represented him in criminal proceedings. He was acquitted because it was pretty clear to the judge—who had the guts to do it, I must say—that it was classic First Amendment activity. > > Following that, Collin was blocked out of all parks. We sued the Chicago Park District to get him back in Marquette Park. There was going to be a hearing because now the Park District wanted Collin to obtain insurance, and no insurance company in its right mind was going to write the insurance. As a consequence, Collin began to apply to park districts throughout the suburbs to hold assemblies. > > I went home [one day], and I got a phone call from Collin saying, “I’ve been planning to go hold an assembly in downtown Skokie because I’ve been refused a permit by the Skokie Park District, and I was just served with papers that I’m to appear in court tomorrow because they’re going to try enjoin my march.” > > How did you feel arguing that case? > Well, to be perfectly honest, I was a pretty stubborn First Amendment lawyer. What Collin wanted was to engage in pristine First Amendment activity. At that point, I had no indication of any interest in violence or any desire to get arrested or anything like that. I wasn’t wild about it, but it seemed to me that if I had any respect for the First Amendment, it was a slam dunk and you did it. And if I didn’t want to do it, then it was time for me to look for a new occupation. > > Do you see any current issues in Chicago today that could pave the way to a resurgence of Nazi-like sentiments? > Before the Trump election, I would’ve said there’s very little that will happen, but it’s conceivable. I don’t know at this point statistically what part of the reactive white community that’s left in Chicago as a proportion of the population, but I mean, we know that there’s a segment of the Chicago population that’s attracted to populism. It seems to me the Black Lives Matter movement has provoked a reaction. I think that really helped Trump. In spite of the fact, I hope the kids don’t give up on it. But that [backlash] could crystallize the reemergence of that kind of extremist movement. It’s got to be a reaction to something, such as the black shootings of white police officers. People get angry and hostile to start with and they’re looking for a reason to coalesce and feel like they’re part of a victimized community. And I’m not talking about blacks. I’m talking about a segment of the white community that feels victimized. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 15 18:26:08 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:26:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois In-Reply-To: <0C795D48-F3E9-4825-AD7D-ED2FCD874A2E@gmail.com> References: <0C795D48-F3E9-4825-AD7D-ED2FCD874A2E@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yeah well I recalled my attempt to march with Doctor King in Chicago against the Nazis the night I walked from Jumer's Hotel through the parking lot over to the Urbana City Council to argue the case for turning Urbana into a Sanctuary City in mid-February 1986. The American Nazi Party had just publicly threatened to kill me if I did so. I defiantly walked in the front door by myself and spent the entire evening arguing that case, then walked out by myself to my car--and won. You have to resist Nazis and Fascists whenever and wherever they rear their ugly heads. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 1:15 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois George Lincoln Rockwell (1918-67), from Bloomington, was the founder of the American Nazi Party; his headquarters ca. 1960 was a suburban house across the street from my secondary school. (My classmate Joel Rutenberg - I seem to recall his parents were WWII refugees - used to like to go the hq and talk at length with Rockwell.) Rockwell’s parents were vaudeville comedians and actors; his father's acquaintances included Fred Allen, Benny Goodman, Walter Winchell, Jack Benny, and Groucho Marx. In July 1958, Rockwell demonstrated in front of the White House in an anti-war protest against President Eisenhower's decision to send troops to the Middle East. (That as I recall was when I first became of aware of hm.) Rockwell and a few supporters had uniforms. They armed themselves with rifles and revolvers, and paraded about his home in Arlington, Virginia. The window to his home was left open, so that others could see his swastika flag. In 1959, Rockwell founded the World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists (WUFENS), a name selected to denote opposition to state ownership of property. In December, the organization was renamed the American Nazi Party, and its headquarters was relocated to 928 North Randolph Street in Arlington, Virginia. In the summer of 1966, Rockwell led a counter-demonstration against Martin Luther King's attempt to bring an end to de facto segregation in the Chicago suburb of Cicero, Illinois. (Perhaps this is what Karen remembers.) After hearing the slogan "Black Power" during a debate in 1966 with Black Panther Stokely Carmichael, Rockwell altered the phrase and started a call for "White Power". ‘White Power’ later became the name of the party's newspaper and the title of a book authored by Rockwell. The party produced and distributed a number of pamphlets and books, including writings by Rockwell, the periodical Stormtrooper Magazine (originally National Socialist Bulletin), and a propaganda comic book, ‘Here Comes Whiteman!’, where the title superhero character battles enemies modeled after racist stereotypes. The two-story farm house Rockwell established as his "Stormtrooper Barracks" was located at 6150 Wilson Boulevard in the Dominion Hills district of Arlington (near our community swimming pool). It was there that the interview with Alex Haley occurred. Situated on the tallest hill in Arlington County, the house has been razed, and the property has been incorporated into the Upton Hill Regional Park. A small pavilion with picnic tables marks the house's former location. The site of the party headquarters, 928 North Randolph Street (near my high school), is now a hotel and office complex. After Rockwell's death, his successor, Matt Koehl, relocated the headquarters to 2507 North Franklin Road in the Clarendon area. It became the last physical address of the party before Koehl moved it to New Berlin, Wisconsin in the mid-1980s. The small building, often misidentified today as Rockwell's former headquarters, is now a coffee shop called The Java Shack… George Lincoln Rockwell got along well with Elijah Muhammad… “I have talked to the Muslim leaders and am certain that a workable plan for separation of the races could be effected to the satisfaction of all concerned—except the communist-Jew agitators." He also said of Elijah Muhammad "I am fully in concert with their program, and I have the highest respect for Elijah Muhammad." Inspired by black Muslims' use of religion to mobilize people, Rockwell sought collaboration with Christian Identity groups. In June 1964, he formed an alliance with Identity minister Wesley A. Swift and began to promote his ideas within the Identity movement. On August 25, 1967, Rockwell was shot and killed while leaving a laundromat in Arlington. John Patler, a recently expelled member of Rockwell's group, was convicted of the murder in December 1967, and sentenced to 20 years in prison. He served an initial eight years in prison, and later a further six years following a parole violation. Matt Koehl, the second in command at NSWPP, moved to establish control over Rockwell's body and the assets of the NSWPP, which at the time had some 300 active members and 3,000 financial supporters. Rockwell's parents wanted a private burial in Maine, but declined to fight with the Nazis over the question. On August 27, an NSWPP spokesman reported that federal officials had approved a military burial at Culpeper National Cemetery, Rockwell being an honorably discharged veteran. The cemetery specified that no Nazi insignia could be displayed, and when the 50 mourners violated these conditions, the entrance to the cemetery was blocked in a five-hour standoff, during which the hearse (which had been stopped on railroad tracks near the cemetery) was nearly struck by an approaching train. The next day, Rockwell's body was cremated. In the mid-1960s, Rockwell tried to develop his Nazi political philosophy within the Christian Identity religious movement. The Christian Identity group Aryan Nations started to use various Nazi flags in its services, and its security personnel started wearing uniforms similar to those worn by Rockwell's stormtroopers. Two of Rockwell's associates, Matt Koehl and William Luther Pierce, formed their own organizations. Koehl, who was Rockwell's successor, renamed the NSWPP the New Order in 1983 and relocated it to Wisconsin shortly thereafter. Pierce founded the National Alliance. Rockwell is mentioned in the lyrics to the Bob Dylan song "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues". In the lyrics to the song, the narrator parodies Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson as being Communists, and claims that the only "true American" is George Lincoln Rockwell. Quoting the lyrics, "I know for a fact that he hates Commies, 'cause he picketed the movie Exodus." For their 1972 album ‘Not Insane or Anything You Want To’, the comedy troupe Firesign Theatre created a fictional presidential candidate, George Papoon, running on the equally fictional ticket, the Natural Surrealist Light Peoples Party, the name taken as an apparent parody of Rockwell's own group, the National Socialist White Peoples Party. In the television miniseries Roots: The Next Generations, Marlon Brando portrayed Rockwell and won a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Miniseries or a Movie for his performance. On the post-World War II alternative history TV show ‘The Man in the High Castle’, Nazi-occupied New York City's main airport is named Lincoln Rockwell Airport… —CGE > On Mar 15, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > When the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior—RIP—came to Chicago, he decided to directly confront the Headquarters for the American Nazi Party in Gage Park under their Fuhrer George Lincoln Rockwell. I decided to march with him. So in order to orient myself, on the night before his march, I drove down to 55th Street and found their bungalow with a large Nazi Flag flying in front of it. The next morning I drove over there to march with Doctor King. But there was so much pandemonium I could not get anywhere near him. > Fab > Native Chicagoan. > […] > > From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 11:25 AM > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois > > The trial related to the Nazi threat of marching in Skokie, Illinois took place in 1977. I left the US in 1977, thus the march that did take place to which I was referring, had to have happened in the “1960’s.” > > Please see below: > Chicago’s Not-Too-Distant Nazi Past > In the 1960s and ’70s, Nazis marched the streets of Chicago and its suburbs—to protest black residents moving in. We spoke with the lawyer that defended their First Amendment right. > BY ALISON MARTIN > PUBLISHED NOV. 30, 2016 > > Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1966 SCREENSHOT: TRIBUNE ARCHIVE > From the racist rhetoric of his campaign to the appointment of white supremacist Steve Bannon as his chief strategist, Donald Trump’s election has emboldened white nationalist groups that were once considered fringe. When his victory brought “Hail Trump” cheers and Nazi salutes from the crowd at the National Policy Institute’s Nov. 19 meeting in Washington. D.C., many of Trump’s detractors feared the worst—a return of Nazi ideology to mainstream America. > > In fact, it hasn’t been so long since that particular blend of anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny held sway even in deep-blue Chicago. Decades after Hitler was defeated in Europe, the National Socialist Party of America (an offshoot of the American Nazi Party) had a stronghold in Chicago’s Marquette Park in the 1970s, where it mostly focused on anti-black policies. The sentiment was not fringe at the time; we previously wrote about how, in the mid-20th century, especially in reaction to Martin Luther King Jr.’s campaign for fair housing, mobs of thousands of white people in Chicago violently tried to stop blacks from moving into majority-white neighborhoods. > NSPA head Frank Collin was perhaps most famous for a landmark 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the group fought for the right to protest in front of Skokie’s city hall, a wildly unpopular move as the suburb had a large Jewish population, including many Holocaust survivors. > David Goldberger, professor of law of Jewish heritage at Ohio State University, argued on Collin’s behalf while working for the American Civil Liberties Union. Here’s what Goldberger had to say about why the Nazis settled in Chicago, his First Amendment role, and his thoughts on Chicago’s future. > > What factors in Chicago led to this Nazi group taking shape in Chicago? > Collin managed to buy a place in the Marquette Park area. His building was in a Lithuanian neighborhood. To the east of that neighborhood, [Englewood] had been a changing neighborhood and was becoming solidly black. The homes in the Marquette Park area were turning over. There was a sense that the transition from white to black was spreading, and that made, I think, the NSPA an increasingly appealing group. > > How did the Chicago Housing Authority indirectly help segregation in the city as the Nazis wanted? > It was clear that public housing was needed, and Mayor [Richard M.] Daley located the housing developments in places where it was pretty clear that you could concentrate minorities. There would be natural barriers for the minorities then to spread, for example the Dan Ryan Expressway. I think if you look at the location of the housing projects that went up, they were all located in black communities so that would increase the concentration because they were very high density operations. > > How did Chicagoans initially react to the Nazis? > That’s hard to say. It seemed to me in the Marquette Park area they were quite tolerant. I don’t want to say farther than that. The black community, needless to say, was hostile because the NSPA was focused on race as opposed to going after Jews, although Jews were on its agenda. The black neighborhoods in Englewood and the neighboring areas understood what was what. I think as you move north, there was indifference. [The Nazis] were regarded as a curiosity, an offensive curiosity, but a curiosity nonetheless. > > How did you get involved in the controversy with the NSPA? > The Chicago Park district began to block [Collin’s] access [to public spaces]. He came to the ACLU, and we sued the Chicago Park District successfully to have that restriction invalidated. He then asked us to represent him in dealing with getting a permit to hold a parade. Our position at the ACLU was he has a First Amendment right, so we basically represented him in getting the permit. [After he was arrested for marching,] we represented him in criminal proceedings. He was acquitted because it was pretty clear to the judge—who had the guts to do it, I must say—that it was classic First Amendment activity. > > Following that, Collin was blocked out of all parks. We sued the Chicago Park District to get him back in Marquette Park. There was going to be a hearing because now the Park District wanted Collin to obtain insurance, and no insurance company in its right mind was going to write the insurance. As a consequence, Collin began to apply to park districts throughout the suburbs to hold assemblies. > > I went home [one day], and I got a phone call from Collin saying, “I’ve been planning to go hold an assembly in downtown Skokie because I’ve been refused a permit by the Skokie Park District, and I was just served with papers that I’m to appear in court tomorrow because they’re going to try enjoin my march.” > > How did you feel arguing that case? > Well, to be perfectly honest, I was a pretty stubborn First Amendment lawyer. What Collin wanted was to engage in pristine First Amendment activity. At that point, I had no indication of any interest in violence or any desire to get arrested or anything like that. I wasn’t wild about it, but it seemed to me that if I had any respect for the First Amendment, it was a slam dunk and you did it. And if I didn’t want to do it, then it was time for me to look for a new occupation. > > Do you see any current issues in Chicago today that could pave the way to a resurgence of Nazi-like sentiments? > Before the Trump election, I would’ve said there’s very little that will happen, but it’s conceivable. I don’t know at this point statistically what part of the reactive white community that’s left in Chicago as a proportion of the population, but I mean, we know that there’s a segment of the Chicago population that’s attracted to populism. It seems to me the Black Lives Matter movement has provoked a reaction. I think that really helped Trump. In spite of the fact, I hope the kids don’t give up on it. But that [backlash] could crystallize the reemergence of that kind of extremist movement. It’s got to be a reaction to something, such as the black shootings of white police officers. People get angry and hostile to start with and they’re looking for a reason to coalesce and feel like they’re part of a victimized community. And I’m not talking about blacks. I’m talking about a segment of the white community that feels victimized. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Mar 15 18:32:11 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:32:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WORLD LABOR HOUR - SATURDAY MARCH 17th References: <00ca01d3bc85$10dbf840$3293e8c0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <001b01d3bc8b$efe47840$cfad68c0$@comcast.net> WORLD LABOR HOUR SATURDAY MARCH 17th 11 AM - 1 PM U.S. Central Time 104.5 FM and webcast LIVE worldwide at ; www.wrfu.net SEAN O'TORAIN a.k.a. JOHN THRONE, author of the bestselling book " THE DONEGAL WOMAN " and participant at the Battle of the Bogside in Derry Northern Ireland in 1969, will call in to the program to talk about his new forthcoming book " CHANGE GONNA COME ". Also - GRANT NEAL and NICK GODELL, Hosts of the " PEOPLES HISTORY HOUR " radio program on radio station WRFU, will be live in the studio to talk about their recent trips to Berlin and Ireland to conduct two research projects ; "The effects and strategy of the IRA's Long War campaign" and "The experience of the working-class in the German Revolution of 1918-19". WRFU - Radio Free Urbana - Listener supported corporate free community radio. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu Mar 15 19:38:48 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:38:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reddit a breached/ censored site now Message-ID: Perusing Reddit the other evening, I was dismayed to discover its fundamental freewheeling humour and worldwide participation have been overcome by algorithms and trollbots pushing the Russian war line.  Long-time Reddit-ers were discussing how the algorithms (Sometimes they referred to them as bots- I am unclear on their distinctions.)  would have to multiply upvotes and downvotes in order to keep the political Russian discussion alive and on the "New" front page.  It was obvious enough to true Reddit users those stories did not contain normal Reddit comments, style, poster accounts, or opinions to investigate their own posts and previous upvotes/downvotes They observed the site treating their posts far differently mathematically than 1. i says it will; 2. it has in the past; and 3. than it was treating the propaganda "Russia needs sanctions/Russia is the evil one/ Russia is stealing Ukraine" posts. You all have undoubtably heard this already. I had seen a fragment of an article last week. Perhaps I can find it. Reddit ers  probably will not believe that garbage - the audience is too global. Losing the platform may annoy them terribly- perhaps not the outcome for which the propagandists were looking. Odes and laments to the idea of our lost and free social media. The 5 stages of grief have been helpful to me! Maybe time to start paying for encrypted -  one yet?  Happy St. Pat'sSent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Thu, Mar 15, 2018 7:24 AMTo: David Green;Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] SPLC “Publish and be damned!” seems to me right in such matters. I don’t think legal suppression is right even for scurrilous political views.  But it seems worthwhile to demand an apology like this.  Why, who could imagine that the wretched SPLC had "any intention to suggest that any of them* are white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, that they hold such views, or that they are engaged in a conspiracy with the Russian government to promote such views or otherwise”?! —CGE_____________________*  Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Tim Pool, Rania Khalek, and Brian Becker On Mar 15, 2018, at 12:42 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: In spite of SPLC's deserved bad reputation per Cockburn etc., those being slandered by it (Blumenthal, Khalek etc.) are deferring to its more common liberal reputation as a civil rights organization. That may be a tactical move on their part. Alexander Reid Ross, the culprit, has published on Counterpunch and been interviewed by Eric Draitser on their podcast. Similarly, Louis Proyect has attacked Blumenthal etc. on Counterpunch last weekend, and continues to do so during this week on his blog. So continues the scare campaign against "red-brown" alliances as an aspect of the antiwar movement, promoted by those supporting intensified U.S. intervention in Syria, including the fellow who debated Khalek on TRNN earlier this week, as shown also on AoTA. It can also be questioned whether legal suppression is an appropriate tactic in this case. DG DG DG On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:03 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/09/update-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment splcenter.org Explanation and apology: The multipolar spin: how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment March 14, 2018 Facebook Twitter On March 9, 2018, we posted an article on our Hatewatch blog entitled “The multipolar spin: how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment.” Shortly after its publication, we received complaints registered by or on behalf of several journalists mentioned in the article that it falsely described one or another of them as white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, and falsely accused them of engaging in a conspiracy with the Putin regime to promote such views. Because neither we nor the article’s author intended to make any such accusations, we took it down while we re-examined its contents. That re-examination has caused us to conclude that, while the intent of the article, which we thought was clear at the time of publication, was to show only that individuals on the left share some policy views with respect to multipolarism that are also held by the far right and/or appear on far-right media and conferences advocating them, the article did not make that point as clearly as it could or should have. Accordingly, we have decided not to re-post it. In addition, we extend a sincere apology to those who believe they have been falsely described in it, including Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Tim Pool, Rania Khalek, and Brian Becker, and disclaim, as clearly as we can, any intention to suggest that any of them are white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, that they hold such views, or that they are engaged in a conspiracy with the Russian government to promote such views or otherwise. ### _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Mar 15 21:14:04 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:14:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois References: <0C795D48-F3E9-4825-AD7D-ED2FCD874A2E@gmail.com> Message-ID: Back in 1986 going door to door against our Sanctuary Resolution in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly's Eagle Forum, and the Republican Party of Champaign County. For these reasons, Champaign has never become a Sanctuary City. But thanks to Governor Rauner, the entire State of Illinois is now a Sanctuary State. The Champaign County Republicans can stick it where the sun don't shine! Ditto for the Nazis, the KKK, and Eagle Forum. Schaffly has gone on to her "reward"--whatever that might be. In the meantime, I want to thank Karen for all the fine work she did helping get Urbana to adopt the revised and updated Sanctuary Resolution in 2016. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 1:26 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois Yeah well I recalled my attempt to march with Doctor King in Chicago against the Nazis the night I walked from Jumer's Hotel through the parking lot over to the Urbana City Council to argue the case for turning Urbana into a Sanctuary City in mid-February 1986. The American Nazi Party had just publicly threatened to kill me if I did so. I defiantly walked in the front door by myself and spent the entire evening arguing that case, then walked out by myself to my car--and won. You have to resist Nazis and Fascists whenever and wherever they rear their ugly heads. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 1:15 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois George Lincoln Rockwell (1918-67), from Bloomington, was the founder of the American Nazi Party; his headquarters ca. 1960 was a suburban house across the street from my secondary school. (My classmate Joel Rutenberg - I seem to recall his parents were WWII refugees - used to like to go the hq and talk at length with Rockwell.) Rockwell’s parents were vaudeville comedians and actors; his father's acquaintances included Fred Allen, Benny Goodman, Walter Winchell, Jack Benny, and Groucho Marx. In July 1958, Rockwell demonstrated in front of the White House in an anti-war protest against President Eisenhower's decision to send troops to the Middle East. (That as I recall was when I first became of aware of hm.) Rockwell and a few supporters had uniforms. They armed themselves with rifles and revolvers, and paraded about his home in Arlington, Virginia. The window to his home was left open, so that others could see his swastika flag. In 1959, Rockwell founded the World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists (WUFENS), a name selected to denote opposition to state ownership of property. In December, the organization was renamed the American Nazi Party, and its headquarters was relocated to 928 North Randolph Street in Arlington, Virginia. In the summer of 1966, Rockwell led a counter-demonstration against Martin Luther King's attempt to bring an end to de facto segregation in the Chicago suburb of Cicero, Illinois. (Perhaps this is what Karen remembers.) After hearing the slogan "Black Power" during a debate in 1966 with Black Panther Stokely Carmichael, Rockwell altered the phrase and started a call for "White Power". ‘White Power’ later became the name of the party's newspaper and the title of a book authored by Rockwell. The party produced and distributed a number of pamphlets and books, including writings by Rockwell, the periodical Stormtrooper Magazine (originally National Socialist Bulletin), and a propaganda comic book, ‘Here Comes Whiteman!’, where the title superhero character battles enemies modeled after racist stereotypes. The two-story farm house Rockwell established as his "Stormtrooper Barracks" was located at 6150 Wilson Boulevard in the Dominion Hills district of Arlington (near our community swimming pool). It was there that the interview with Alex Haley occurred. Situated on the tallest hill in Arlington County, the house has been razed, and the property has been incorporated into the Upton Hill Regional Park. A small pavilion with picnic tables marks the house's former location. The site of the party headquarters, 928 North Randolph Street (near my high school), is now a hotel and office complex. After Rockwell's death, his successor, Matt Koehl, relocated the headquarters to 2507 North Franklin Road in the Clarendon area. It became the last physical address of the party before Koehl moved it to New Berlin, Wisconsin in the mid-1980s. The small building, often misidentified today as Rockwell's former headquarters, is now a coffee shop called The Java Shack… George Lincoln Rockwell got along well with Elijah Muhammad… “I have talked to the Muslim leaders and am certain that a workable plan for separation of the races could be effected to the satisfaction of all concerned—except the communist-Jew agitators." He also said of Elijah Muhammad "I am fully in concert with their program, and I have the highest respect for Elijah Muhammad." Inspired by black Muslims' use of religion to mobilize people, Rockwell sought collaboration with Christian Identity groups. In June 1964, he formed an alliance with Identity minister Wesley A. Swift and began to promote his ideas within the Identity movement. On August 25, 1967, Rockwell was shot and killed while leaving a laundromat in Arlington. John Patler, a recently expelled member of Rockwell's group, was convicted of the murder in December 1967, and sentenced to 20 years in prison. He served an initial eight years in prison, and later a further six years following a parole violation. Matt Koehl, the second in command at NSWPP, moved to establish control over Rockwell's body and the assets of the NSWPP, which at the time had some 300 active members and 3,000 financial supporters. Rockwell's parents wanted a private burial in Maine, but declined to fight with the Nazis over the question. On August 27, an NSWPP spokesman reported that federal officials had approved a military burial at Culpeper National Cemetery, Rockwell being an honorably discharged veteran. The cemetery specified that no Nazi insignia could be displayed, and when the 50 mourners violated these conditions, the entrance to the cemetery was blocked in a five-hour standoff, during which the hearse (which had been stopped on railroad tracks near the cemetery) was nearly struck by an approaching train. The next day, Rockwell's body was cremated. In the mid-1960s, Rockwell tried to develop his Nazi political philosophy within the Christian Identity religious movement. The Christian Identity group Aryan Nations started to use various Nazi flags in its services, and its security personnel started wearing uniforms similar to those worn by Rockwell's stormtroopers. Two of Rockwell's associates, Matt Koehl and William Luther Pierce, formed their own organizations. Koehl, who was Rockwell's successor, renamed the NSWPP the New Order in 1983 and relocated it to Wisconsin shortly thereafter. Pierce founded the National Alliance. Rockwell is mentioned in the lyrics to the Bob Dylan song "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues". In the lyrics to the song, the narrator parodies Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson as being Communists, and claims that the only "true American" is George Lincoln Rockwell. Quoting the lyrics, "I know for a fact that he hates Commies, 'cause he picketed the movie Exodus." For their 1972 album ‘Not Insane or Anything You Want To’, the comedy troupe Firesign Theatre created a fictional presidential candidate, George Papoon, running on the equally fictional ticket, the Natural Surrealist Light Peoples Party, the name taken as an apparent parody of Rockwell's own group, the National Socialist White Peoples Party. In the television miniseries Roots: The Next Generations, Marlon Brando portrayed Rockwell and won a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Miniseries or a Movie for his performance. On the post-World War II alternative history TV show ‘The Man in the High Castle’, Nazi-occupied New York City's main airport is named Lincoln Rockwell Airport… —CGE > On Mar 15, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > When the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior—RIP—came to Chicago, he decided to directly confront the Headquarters for the American Nazi Party in Gage Park under their Fuhrer George Lincoln Rockwell. I decided to march with him. So in order to orient myself, on the night before his march, I drove down to 55th Street and found their bungalow with a large Nazi Flag flying in front of it. The next morning I drove over there to march with Doctor King. But there was so much pandemonium I could not get anywhere near him. > Fab > Native Chicagoan. > […] > > From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 11:25 AM > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois > > The trial related to the Nazi threat of marching in Skokie, Illinois took place in 1977. I left the US in 1977, thus the march that did take place to which I was referring, had to have happened in the “1960’s.” > > Please see below: > Chicago’s Not-Too-Distant Nazi Past > In the 1960s and ’70s, Nazis marched the streets of Chicago and its suburbs—to protest black residents moving in. We spoke with the lawyer that defended their First Amendment right. > BY ALISON MARTIN > PUBLISHED NOV. 30, 2016 > > Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1966 SCREENSHOT: TRIBUNE ARCHIVE > From the racist rhetoric of his campaign to the appointment of white supremacist Steve Bannon as his chief strategist, Donald Trump’s election has emboldened white nationalist groups that were once considered fringe. When his victory brought “Hail Trump” cheers and Nazi salutes from the crowd at the National Policy Institute’s Nov. 19 meeting in Washington. D.C., many of Trump’s detractors feared the worst—a return of Nazi ideology to mainstream America. > > In fact, it hasn’t been so long since that particular blend of anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny held sway even in deep-blue Chicago. Decades after Hitler was defeated in Europe, the National Socialist Party of America (an offshoot of the American Nazi Party) had a stronghold in Chicago’s Marquette Park in the 1970s, where it mostly focused on anti-black policies. The sentiment was not fringe at the time; we previously wrote about how, in the mid-20th century, especially in reaction to Martin Luther King Jr.’s campaign for fair housing, mobs of thousands of white people in Chicago violently tried to stop blacks from moving into majority-white neighborhoods. > NSPA head Frank Collin was perhaps most famous for a landmark 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the group fought for the right to protest in front of Skokie’s city hall, a wildly unpopular move as the suburb had a large Jewish population, including many Holocaust survivors. > David Goldberger, professor of law of Jewish heritage at Ohio State University, argued on Collin’s behalf while working for the American Civil Liberties Union. Here’s what Goldberger had to say about why the Nazis settled in Chicago, his First Amendment role, and his thoughts on Chicago’s future. > > What factors in Chicago led to this Nazi group taking shape in Chicago? > Collin managed to buy a place in the Marquette Park area. His building was in a Lithuanian neighborhood. To the east of that neighborhood, [Englewood] had been a changing neighborhood and was becoming solidly black. The homes in the Marquette Park area were turning over. There was a sense that the transition from white to black was spreading, and that made, I think, the NSPA an increasingly appealing group. > > How did the Chicago Housing Authority indirectly help segregation in the city as the Nazis wanted? > It was clear that public housing was needed, and Mayor [Richard M.] Daley located the housing developments in places where it was pretty clear that you could concentrate minorities. There would be natural barriers for the minorities then to spread, for example the Dan Ryan Expressway. I think if you look at the location of the housing projects that went up, they were all located in black communities so that would increase the concentration because they were very high density operations. > > How did Chicagoans initially react to the Nazis? > That’s hard to say. It seemed to me in the Marquette Park area they were quite tolerant. I don’t want to say farther than that. The black community, needless to say, was hostile because the NSPA was focused on race as opposed to going after Jews, although Jews were on its agenda. The black neighborhoods in Englewood and the neighboring areas understood what was what. I think as you move north, there was indifference. [The Nazis] were regarded as a curiosity, an offensive curiosity, but a curiosity nonetheless. > > How did you get involved in the controversy with the NSPA? > The Chicago Park district began to block [Collin’s] access [to public spaces]. He came to the ACLU, and we sued the Chicago Park District successfully to have that restriction invalidated. He then asked us to represent him in dealing with getting a permit to hold a parade. Our position at the ACLU was he has a First Amendment right, so we basically represented him in getting the permit. [After he was arrested for marching,] we represented him in criminal proceedings. He was acquitted because it was pretty clear to the judge—who had the guts to do it, I must say—that it was classic First Amendment activity. > > Following that, Collin was blocked out of all parks. We sued the Chicago Park District to get him back in Marquette Park. There was going to be a hearing because now the Park District wanted Collin to obtain insurance, and no insurance company in its right mind was going to write the insurance. As a consequence, Collin began to apply to park districts throughout the suburbs to hold assemblies. > > I went home [one day], and I got a phone call from Collin saying, “I’ve been planning to go hold an assembly in downtown Skokie because I’ve been refused a permit by the Skokie Park District, and I was just served with papers that I’m to appear in court tomorrow because they’re going to try enjoin my march.” > > How did you feel arguing that case? > Well, to be perfectly honest, I was a pretty stubborn First Amendment lawyer. What Collin wanted was to engage in pristine First Amendment activity. At that point, I had no indication of any interest in violence or any desire to get arrested or anything like that. I wasn’t wild about it, but it seemed to me that if I had any respect for the First Amendment, it was a slam dunk and you did it. And if I didn’t want to do it, then it was time for me to look for a new occupation. > > Do you see any current issues in Chicago today that could pave the way to a resurgence of Nazi-like sentiments? > Before the Trump election, I would’ve said there’s very little that will happen, but it’s conceivable. I don’t know at this point statistically what part of the reactive white community that’s left in Chicago as a proportion of the population, but I mean, we know that there’s a segment of the Chicago population that’s attracted to populism. It seems to me the Black Lives Matter movement has provoked a reaction. I think that really helped Trump. In spite of the fact, I hope the kids don’t give up on it. But that [backlash] could crystallize the reemergence of that kind of extremist movement. It’s got to be a reaction to something, such as the black shootings of white police officers. People get angry and hostile to start with and they’re looking for a reason to coalesce and feel like they’re part of a victimized community. And I’m not talking about blacks. I’m talking about a segment of the white community that feels victimized. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 15 21:17:27 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:17:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois In-Reply-To: References: <0C795D48-F3E9-4825-AD7D-ED2FCD874A2E@gmail.com> Message-ID: In the meantime, I want to thank Karen for all the fine work she did helping get Urbana to adopt the revised and updated Sanctuary Resolution in 2016. Fab. ----------------------------------------------------------- And we did this because we knew the Fascist Trump was getting inaugurated in January 2017. Fab 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-discuss On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 4:14 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois Back in 1986 going door to door against our Sanctuary Resolution in Urbana were the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, Phyllis Schaffly's Eagle Forum, and the Republican Party of Champaign County. For these reasons, Champaign has never become a Sanctuary City. But thanks to Governor Rauner, the entire State of Illinois is now a Sanctuary State. The Champaign County Republicans can stick it where the sun don't shine! Ditto for the Nazis, the KKK, and Eagle Forum. Schaffly has gone on to her "reward"--whatever that might be. In the meantime, I want to thank Karen for all the fine work she did helping get Urbana to adopt the revised and updated Sanctuary Resolution in 2016. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 1:26 PM To: 'C G Estabrook' Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois Yeah well I recalled my attempt to march with Doctor King in Chicago against the Nazis the night I walked from Jumer's Hotel through the parking lot over to the Urbana City Council to argue the case for turning Urbana into a Sanctuary City in mid-February 1986. The American Nazi Party had just publicly threatened to kill me if I did so. I defiantly walked in the front door by myself and spent the entire evening arguing that case, then walked out by myself to my car--and won. You have to resist Nazis and Fascists whenever and wherever they rear their ugly heads. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 1:15 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois George Lincoln Rockwell (1918-67), from Bloomington, was the founder of the American Nazi Party; his headquarters ca. 1960 was a suburban house across the street from my secondary school. (My classmate Joel Rutenberg - I seem to recall his parents were WWII refugees - used to like to go the hq and talk at length with Rockwell.) Rockwell’s parents were vaudeville comedians and actors; his father's acquaintances included Fred Allen, Benny Goodman, Walter Winchell, Jack Benny, and Groucho Marx. In July 1958, Rockwell demonstrated in front of the White House in an anti-war protest against President Eisenhower's decision to send troops to the Middle East. (That as I recall was when I first became of aware of hm.) Rockwell and a few supporters had uniforms. They armed themselves with rifles and revolvers, and paraded about his home in Arlington, Virginia. The window to his home was left open, so that others could see his swastika flag. In 1959, Rockwell founded the World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists (WUFENS), a name selected to denote opposition to state ownership of property. In December, the organization was renamed the American Nazi Party, and its headquarters was relocated to 928 North Randolph Street in Arlington, Virginia. In the summer of 1966, Rockwell led a counter-demonstration against Martin Luther King's attempt to bring an end to de facto segregation in the Chicago suburb of Cicero, Illinois. (Perhaps this is what Karen remembers.) After hearing the slogan "Black Power" during a debate in 1966 with Black Panther Stokely Carmichael, Rockwell altered the phrase and started a call for "White Power". ‘White Power’ later became the name of the party's newspaper and the title of a book authored by Rockwell. The party produced and distributed a number of pamphlets and books, including writings by Rockwell, the periodical Stormtrooper Magazine (originally National Socialist Bulletin), and a propaganda comic book, ‘Here Comes Whiteman!’, where the title superhero character battles enemies modeled after racist stereotypes. The two-story farm house Rockwell established as his "Stormtrooper Barracks" was located at 6150 Wilson Boulevard in the Dominion Hills district of Arlington (near our community swimming pool). It was there that the interview with Alex Haley occurred. Situated on the tallest hill in Arlington County, the house has been razed, and the property has been incorporated into the Upton Hill Regional Park. A small pavilion with picnic tables marks the house's former location. The site of the party headquarters, 928 North Randolph Street (near my high school), is now a hotel and office complex. After Rockwell's death, his successor, Matt Koehl, relocated the headquarters to 2507 North Franklin Road in the Clarendon area. It became the last physical address of the party before Koehl moved it to New Berlin, Wisconsin in the mid-1980s. The small building, often misidentified today as Rockwell's former headquarters, is now a coffee shop called The Java Shack… George Lincoln Rockwell got along well with Elijah Muhammad… “I have talked to the Muslim leaders and am certain that a workable plan for separation of the races could be effected to the satisfaction of all concerned—except the communist-Jew agitators." He also said of Elijah Muhammad "I am fully in concert with their program, and I have the highest respect for Elijah Muhammad." Inspired by black Muslims' use of religion to mobilize people, Rockwell sought collaboration with Christian Identity groups. In June 1964, he formed an alliance with Identity minister Wesley A. Swift and began to promote his ideas within the Identity movement. On August 25, 1967, Rockwell was shot and killed while leaving a laundromat in Arlington. John Patler, a recently expelled member of Rockwell's group, was convicted of the murder in December 1967, and sentenced to 20 years in prison. He served an initial eight years in prison, and later a further six years following a parole violation. Matt Koehl, the second in command at NSWPP, moved to establish control over Rockwell's body and the assets of the NSWPP, which at the time had some 300 active members and 3,000 financial supporters. Rockwell's parents wanted a private burial in Maine, but declined to fight with the Nazis over the question. On August 27, an NSWPP spokesman reported that federal officials had approved a military burial at Culpeper National Cemetery, Rockwell being an honorably discharged veteran. The cemetery specified that no Nazi insignia could be displayed, and when the 50 mourners violated these conditions, the entrance to the cemetery was blocked in a five-hour standoff, during which the hearse (which had been stopped on railroad tracks near the cemetery) was nearly struck by an approaching train. The next day, Rockwell's body was cremated. In the mid-1960s, Rockwell tried to develop his Nazi political philosophy within the Christian Identity religious movement. The Christian Identity group Aryan Nations started to use various Nazi flags in its services, and its security personnel started wearing uniforms similar to those worn by Rockwell's stormtroopers. Two of Rockwell's associates, Matt Koehl and William Luther Pierce, formed their own organizations. Koehl, who was Rockwell's successor, renamed the NSWPP the New Order in 1983 and relocated it to Wisconsin shortly thereafter. Pierce founded the National Alliance. Rockwell is mentioned in the lyrics to the Bob Dylan song "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues". In the lyrics to the song, the narrator parodies Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson as being Communists, and claims that the only "true American" is George Lincoln Rockwell. Quoting the lyrics, "I know for a fact that he hates Commies, 'cause he picketed the movie Exodus." For their 1972 album ‘Not Insane or Anything You Want To’, the comedy troupe Firesign Theatre created a fictional presidential candidate, George Papoon, running on the equally fictional ticket, the Natural Surrealist Light Peoples Party, the name taken as an apparent parody of Rockwell's own group, the National Socialist White Peoples Party. In the television miniseries Roots: The Next Generations, Marlon Brando portrayed Rockwell and won a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Miniseries or a Movie for his performance. On the post-World War II alternative history TV show ‘The Man in the High Castle’, Nazi-occupied New York City's main airport is named Lincoln Rockwell Airport… —CGE > On Mar 15, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > When the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior—RIP—came to Chicago, he decided to directly confront the Headquarters for the American Nazi Party in Gage Park under their Fuhrer George Lincoln Rockwell. I decided to march with him. So in order to orient myself, on the night before his march, I drove down to 55th Street and found their bungalow with a large Nazi Flag flying in front of it. The next morning I drove over there to march with Doctor King. But there was so much pandemonium I could not get anywhere near him. > Fab > Native Chicagoan. > […] > > From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 11:25 AM > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois > > The trial related to the Nazi threat of marching in Skokie, Illinois took place in 1977. I left the US in 1977, thus the march that did take place to which I was referring, had to have happened in the “1960’s.” > > Please see below: > Chicago’s Not-Too-Distant Nazi Past > In the 1960s and ’70s, Nazis marched the streets of Chicago and its suburbs—to protest black residents moving in. We spoke with the lawyer that defended their First Amendment right. > BY ALISON MARTIN > PUBLISHED NOV. 30, 2016 > > Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1966 SCREENSHOT: TRIBUNE ARCHIVE > From the racist rhetoric of his campaign to the appointment of white supremacist Steve Bannon as his chief strategist, Donald Trump’s election has emboldened white nationalist groups that were once considered fringe. When his victory brought “Hail Trump” cheers and Nazi salutes from the crowd at the National Policy Institute’s Nov. 19 meeting in Washington. D.C., many of Trump’s detractors feared the worst—a return of Nazi ideology to mainstream America. > > In fact, it hasn’t been so long since that particular blend of anti-Semitism, racism, and misogyny held sway even in deep-blue Chicago. Decades after Hitler was defeated in Europe, the National Socialist Party of America (an offshoot of the American Nazi Party) had a stronghold in Chicago’s Marquette Park in the 1970s, where it mostly focused on anti-black policies. The sentiment was not fringe at the time; we previously wrote about how, in the mid-20th century, especially in reaction to Martin Luther King Jr.’s campaign for fair housing, mobs of thousands of white people in Chicago violently tried to stop blacks from moving into majority-white neighborhoods. > NSPA head Frank Collin was perhaps most famous for a landmark 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the group fought for the right to protest in front of Skokie’s city hall, a wildly unpopular move as the suburb had a large Jewish population, including many Holocaust survivors. > David Goldberger, professor of law of Jewish heritage at Ohio State University, argued on Collin’s behalf while working for the American Civil Liberties Union. Here’s what Goldberger had to say about why the Nazis settled in Chicago, his First Amendment role, and his thoughts on Chicago’s future. > > What factors in Chicago led to this Nazi group taking shape in Chicago? > Collin managed to buy a place in the Marquette Park area. His building was in a Lithuanian neighborhood. To the east of that neighborhood, [Englewood] had been a changing neighborhood and was becoming solidly black. The homes in the Marquette Park area were turning over. There was a sense that the transition from white to black was spreading, and that made, I think, the NSPA an increasingly appealing group. > > How did the Chicago Housing Authority indirectly help segregation in the city as the Nazis wanted? > It was clear that public housing was needed, and Mayor [Richard M.] Daley located the housing developments in places where it was pretty clear that you could concentrate minorities. There would be natural barriers for the minorities then to spread, for example the Dan Ryan Expressway. I think if you look at the location of the housing projects that went up, they were all located in black communities so that would increase the concentration because they were very high density operations. > > How did Chicagoans initially react to the Nazis? > That’s hard to say. It seemed to me in the Marquette Park area they were quite tolerant. I don’t want to say farther than that. The black community, needless to say, was hostile because the NSPA was focused on race as opposed to going after Jews, although Jews were on its agenda. The black neighborhoods in Englewood and the neighboring areas understood what was what. I think as you move north, there was indifference. [The Nazis] were regarded as a curiosity, an offensive curiosity, but a curiosity nonetheless. > > How did you get involved in the controversy with the NSPA? > The Chicago Park district began to block [Collin’s] access [to public spaces]. He came to the ACLU, and we sued the Chicago Park District successfully to have that restriction invalidated. He then asked us to represent him in dealing with getting a permit to hold a parade. Our position at the ACLU was he has a First Amendment right, so we basically represented him in getting the permit. [After he was arrested for marching,] we represented him in criminal proceedings. He was acquitted because it was pretty clear to the judge—who had the guts to do it, I must say—that it was classic First Amendment activity. > > Following that, Collin was blocked out of all parks. We sued the Chicago Park District to get him back in Marquette Park. There was going to be a hearing because now the Park District wanted Collin to obtain insurance, and no insurance company in its right mind was going to write the insurance. As a consequence, Collin began to apply to park districts throughout the suburbs to hold assemblies. > > I went home [one day], and I got a phone call from Collin saying, “I’ve been planning to go hold an assembly in downtown Skokie because I’ve been refused a permit by the Skokie Park District, and I was just served with papers that I’m to appear in court tomorrow because they’re going to try enjoin my march.” > > How did you feel arguing that case? > Well, to be perfectly honest, I was a pretty stubborn First Amendment lawyer. What Collin wanted was to engage in pristine First Amendment activity. At that point, I had no indication of any interest in violence or any desire to get arrested or anything like that. I wasn’t wild about it, but it seemed to me that if I had any respect for the First Amendment, it was a slam dunk and you did it. And if I didn’t want to do it, then it was time for me to look for a new occupation. > > Do you see any current issues in Chicago today that could pave the way to a resurgence of Nazi-like sentiments? > Before the Trump election, I would’ve said there’s very little that will happen, but it’s conceivable. I don’t know at this point statistically what part of the reactive white community that’s left in Chicago as a proportion of the population, but I mean, we know that there’s a segment of the Chicago population that’s attracted to populism. It seems to me the Black Lives Matter movement has provoked a reaction. I think that really helped Trump. In spite of the fact, I hope the kids don’t give up on it. But that [backlash] could crystallize the reemergence of that kind of extremist movement. It’s got to be a reaction to something, such as the black shootings of white police officers. People get angry and hostile to start with and they’re looking for a reason to coalesce and feel like they’re part of a victimized community. And I’m not talking about blacks. I’m talking about a segment of the white community that feels victimized. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 galliher at illinois.edu Fri Mar 16 00:38:05 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:38:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Washington Eyeing Long-Term, Even Permanent Foothold in Syria: Lavrov In-Reply-To: References: <90008938-A588-4404-B038-0DAE49D21055@twf.org> Message-ID: <03181CF5-019B-4EE1-8175-4C7C8C06400D@illinois.edu> Washington Eyeing Long-Term, Even Permanent Foothold in Syria: Lavrov Created on Wednesday, 14 March 2018 MOSCOW- Russia has no reasons to doubt Washington’s pursuit for a firm foothold in Syria for the long term, if not perpetually, and to press for dismembering that Arab republic, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said after talks with his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Chavusoglu in Moscow on Wednesday, according to Itar Tass. "Today, we discussed many aspects of the topic of Syria, including the United States’ actions, particularly on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River and in eastern Syria, where the Americans have been indeed setting up military bases. I am sure that there is no reason to doubt that at least some people in the US ruling elite seek to ensure their presence there for the long term, if not perpetually, and to contribute to the collapse of the Syrian state," the Russian top diplomat pointed out, adding that "various methods have been put to use to achieve this goal." "Yesterday, our Foreign and Defense Ministries publicly announced that preparations are being made for new provocations involving chemical weapons, in particular, such incidents are planned to be staged in Eastern Ghouta in order to attract the global community’s attention. As always, they will be wailing about civilian suffering and civilian victims, and the US-led coalition may use it as a pretext to use force, particularly attacking the Syrian capital," Lavrov said. Moscow has used all conduits to firmly warn Washington against attacking Damascus, Lavrov added. "Yesterday, we sternly warned the United States through all channels. I hope that these irresponsible plans won’t be implemented," he added. "But in any case, these tactics show that the United States still seeks to create pretexts for ousting the [regime]. They [the Americans] have been saying for a reason that all the options are still on the table," the Russian foreign minister noted. According to Lavrov, such a step would be "a violation of all international laws, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254 and Washington’s promises to refrain from undermining Syria’s territorial integrity." "They will have to prove it with actions rather than with words. But too many of their actions don’t follow their rhetoric," Lavrov added. On Tuesday, Chief of Russia’s General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov stated that the Russian Defense Ministry would be ready to take retaliatory measures against a possible US attack on Damascus if Russian military servicemen in the Syrian capital were put in danger. ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 16 00:57:37 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:57:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "...the antiwar left and anti-interventionist right often find themselves on the same side of the debate on issues like Syria..." In-Reply-To: <03181CF5-019B-4EE1-8175-4C7C8C06400D@illinois.edu> References: <90008938-A588-4404-B038-0DAE49D21055@twf.org> <03181CF5-019B-4EE1-8175-4C7C8C06400D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: 'The “Alt-Right” Label: What’s Real, What’s Fake, And Why It Matters:  <> The Southern Poverty Law Center has issued a full retraction and apology for a bizarre screed it published last week lumping anti-war leftists in with fascists…' https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/03/16/the-alt-right-label-whats-real-whats-fake-and-why-it-matters/ —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 16 01:08:49 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:08:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] SPLC In-Reply-To: References: <90008938-A588-4404-B038-0DAE49D21055@twf.org> Message-ID: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/03/16/the-alt-right-label-whats-real-whats-fake-and-why-it-matters/ > On Mar 15, 2018, at 12:42 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > In spite of SPLC's deserved bad reputation per Cockburn etc., those being slandered by it (Blumenthal, Khalek etc.) are deferring to its more common liberal reputation as a civil rights organization. That may be a tactical move on their part. > > Alexander Reid Ross, the culprit, has published on Counterpunch and been interviewed by Eric Draitser on their podcast. Similarly, Louis Proyect has attacked Blumenthal etc. on Counterpunch last weekend, and continues to do so during this week on his blog. > > So continues the scare campaign against "red-brown" alliances as an aspect of the antiwar movement, promoted by those supporting intensified U.S. intervention in Syria, including the fellow who debated Khalek on TRNN earlier this week, as shown also on AoTA. > > It can also be questioned whether legal suppression is an appropriate tactic in this case. > > DG > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:03 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/09/update-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment > > splcenter.org > Explanation and apology: The multipolar spin: how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment > > March 14, 2018 Facebook Twitter > > On March 9, 2018, we posted an article on our Hatewatch blog entitled “The multipolar spin: how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment.” > > Shortly after its publication, we received complaints registered by or on behalf of several journalists mentioned in the article that it falsely described one or another of them as white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, and falsely accused them of engaging in a conspiracy with the Putin regime to promote such views. Because neither we nor the article’s author intended to make any such accusations, we took it down while we re-examined its contents. > > That re-examination has caused us to conclude that, while the intent of the article, which we thought was clear at the time of publication, was to show only that individuals on the left share some policy views with respect to multipolarism that are also held by the far right and/or appear on far-right media and conferences advocating them, the article did not make that point as clearly as it could or should have. > > Accordingly, we have decided not to re-post it. In addition, we extend a sincere apology to those who believe they have been falsely described in it, including Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Tim Pool, Rania Khalek, and Brian Becker, and disclaim, as clearly as we can, any intention to suggest that any of them are white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, that they hold such views, or that they are engaged in a conspiracy with the Russian government to promote such views or otherwise. > > ### > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Fri Mar 16 01:53:38 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:53:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reddit a breached/ censored site now Message-ID: <0sv5o3vukjcqo3r4b0dtoulk.1521164593394@email.lge.com> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43255285 Attached above  - I hope- 03/02 BBC article which is a cornucopia of disinformation. The BBC quoting the Daily Beast about Russia's IRA - the sinister Internet Research Agency- "Russia's most prominent troll factory" - infiltrating Reddit- gasp!  CBS news caught up 3 days ago with stories that "Russian propaganda" was still on Reddit. Which makes the head hurt with the doublespeak, since the propaganda on Reddit is of course that the Russian oligarch/spy was poisoned by Russians and "we" need to go to war.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: bjornsona at ameritech.netDate: Thu, Mar 15, 2018 2:38 PMTo: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Cc: bjornsona at ameritech.net;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Reddit a breached/ censored site now Perusing Reddit the other evening, I was dismayed to discover its fundamental freewheeling humour and worldwide participation have been overcome by algorithms and trollbots pushing the Russian war line.  Long-time Reddit-ers were discussing how the algorithms (Sometimes they referred to them as bots- I am unclear on their distinctions.)  would have to multiply upvotes and downvotes in order to keep the political Russian discussion alive and on the "New" front page.  It was obvious enough to true Reddit users those stories did not contain normal Reddit comments, style, poster accounts, or opinions to investigate their own posts and previous upvotes/downvotes They observed the site treating their posts far differently mathematically than 1. i says it will; 2. it has in the past; and 3. than it was treating the propaganda "Russia needs sanctions/Russia is the evil one/ Russia is stealing Ukraine" posts. You all have undoubtably heard this already. I had seen a fragment of an article last week. Perhaps I can find it. Reddit ers  probably will not believe that garbage - the audience is too global. Losing the platform may annoy them terribly- perhaps not the outcome for which the propagandists were looking. Odes and laments to the idea of our lost and free social media. The 5 stages of grief have been helpful to me! Maybe time to start paying for encrypted -  one yet?  Happy St. Pat'sSent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message-! -----From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Thu, Mar 15, 2018 7:24 AMTo: David Green;Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] SPLC “Publish and be damned!” seems to me right in such matters. I don’t think legal suppression is right even for scurrilous political views.  But it seems worthwhile to demand an apology like this.  Why, who could imagine that the wretched SPLC had "any intention to suggest that any of them* are white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, that they hold such views, or that they are engaged in a conspiracy with the Russian government to promote such views or otherwise”?! —CGE_____________________*  Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Tim Pool, Rania Khalek, and Brian Becker On Mar 15, 2018, at 12:42 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: In spite of SPLC's deserved bad reputation per Cockburn etc., those being slandered by it (Blumenthal, Khalek etc.) are deferring to its more common liberal reputation as a civil rights organization. That may be a tactical move on their part. Alexander Reid Ross, the culprit, has published on Counterpunch and been i! nterviewed by Eric Draitser on their podcast. Similarly, Louis Proyect has attacked Blumenthal etc. on Counterpunch last weekend, and continues to do so during this week on his blog. So continues the scare campaign against "red-brown" alliances as an aspect of the antiwar movement, promoted by those supporting intensified U.S. intervention in Syria, including the fellow who debated Khalek on TRNN earlier this week, as shown also on AoTA. It can also be questioned whether legal suppression is an appropriate tactic in this case. DG DG DG On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:03 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/09/update-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment splcenter.org Explanation and apology: The multipolar spin: how fascists operationalize left-wing resentment March 14, 2018 Facebook Twitter On March 9, 2018, we posted an article on our Hatewatch blog entitled “The multipolar spin: how fascists oper! ationalize left-wing resentment.” Shortly after its publication, we received complaints registered by or on behalf of several journalists mentioned in the article that it falsely described one or another of them as white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, and falsely accused them of engaging in a conspiracy with the Putin regime to promote such views. Because neither we nor the article’s author intended to make any such accusations, we took it down while we re-examined its contents. That re-examination has caused us to conclude that, while the intent of the article, which we thought was clear at the time of publication, was to show only that individuals on the left share some policy views with respect to multipolarism that are also held by the far right and/or appear on far-right media and conferences advocating them, the article did not make that point as clearly as it could or should have. Accordingly, we have decided not to re-post it. In addition, we extend a sincere apology to those who believe they have been falsely described in it, including Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Tim Pool, Rania Khalek, and Brian Becker, and disclaim, as clearly as we can, any intention to suggest that any of them are white supremacists, fascists, and/or anti-Semites, that they hold such views, or that they are engaged in a conspiracy with the Russian government to promote such views or otherwise. ### _______________________________________________ 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 Mar 16 12:12:06 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:12:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Student Walk Outs Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » The significance of the mass student protests against gun violence in America 16 March 2018 Nearly one million students walked out of their classrooms to protest gun violence and mass shootings in America Wednesday, the one-month anniversary of the massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida. Walkouts, rallies and demonstrations took place in every state as well as the US territory of Puerto Rico. Protests were also held internationally, including by students in Japan, Tanzania, Israel, Iceland, Mexico, Colombia, Australia, Germany and many other countries throughout Europe. Wednesday’s protests are a prelude to a demonstration organized by the Parkland student survivors for Saturday, March 24. At least half a million people are expected to march on Washington, DC, and nearly 800 demonstrations are planned in every US state and in dozens of countries around the world. The immediate focus of the demonstrations, heavily promoted by the Democratic Party and mainstream media, is on gun control. Within the political establishment, the “solutions” on offer are confined to either greater militarization and policing of schools or restrictions on the purchase of firearms, which will inevitably be used to increase the powers of the state. The Republicans and Democrats alike ignore the underlying causes of school violence—unprecedented social inequality, unending war, the consequences of the militarization of society and the defunding of education and social programs—because a serious examination of the roots of this social phenomenon would expose their own role in creating the social crisis out of which it has developed. Just as there are more fundamental causes behind the epidemic of school shootings, there are more fundamental causes to the eruption of large-scale protests among young people. There is a widespread sense among these young people that the ease and frequency with which they are massacred in American schools is symptomatic of the indifference and contempt with which the country’s ruling oligarchy regards their lives. In conversations with students throughout the country, the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) found that students participating in the demonstrations were concerned by far broader questions than gun control. In New York, students explained that they attended the event over the issue of access to healthcare, specifically mental health. In Washington, DC, students condemned the military budget and the war drive. In San Diego, students denounced the entire political establishment, saying that they believe “the government is run by corporations.” Kenton, a student in Flint, Michigan, spoke about how social conditions have shaped the outlook of his generation: “Somewhere deep inside, people know they’ve been dealt a bad hand, and they want to give it back. When my parents and grandparents came here from England, you could get a good job working at a factory. But now, unless you have a college education working in a specific field, you’re probably going to end up working at Walmart or a gas station.” Consider the life experience of working-class high school seniors across the US. Born at the turn of the century, they would have turned one year old as the Bush administration declared an open-ended “war on terror,” encompassing the entire globe. When they were eight, the financial crash ushered in a tidal wave of social distress as the newly elected Democratic President Barack Obama funneled trillions of dollars into Wall Street to bail out the banks. Their parents may have been among the millions who lost their homes through foreclosure, were forced into bankruptcy or were thrown out of work. At 14, they would have heard the news of the murder of Michael Brown, who was killed in the street by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. They would have watched on television as SWAT teams in combat fatigues, deployed in armored vehicles and bearing loaded assault rifles, shot rubber bullets and pepper spray canisters at demonstrators protesting police violence. They would see similar graphic murders caught on video again and again in the next few years of their high school career. Police killed more than 15,000 people over the span of their lifetime. Now, 18 years old, these young people face a world beset by unemployment, unending wars, skyrocketing inequality and immense poverty. If they make the decision to go to college, they will be crippled by tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars in student loan debt. Their generation, for the first time in modern history, will live shorter lives and make less money than their parents’ generation. These experiences have shaped the lives of the new generation of working-class youth all over the country. Polls show that more young people in the United States support socialism than support capitalism. There is a healthy hatred of the current president, Donald Trump, whom they recognize as the oligarchic right-wing face of the American political establishment. Millions are equally disillusioned with the Democratic Party, which is widely regarded as a pro-corporate party of Wall Street and the military-intelligence agencies. What does the Democratic Party offer young people? If the Democrats are successful in realizing the main component of their opposition to Trump—a more aggressive policy toward Russia—it will likely mean the initiation of a war that will see many of the youth protesting on Wednesday sent to kill or be killed in the interests of the geopolitical domination of the American ruling class. It is worth noting that while the Democratic Party has focused their entire electoral strategy on issues of race, gender, ethnicity and other identities, the school violence protests have brought together largely working-class youth of every racial and ethnic background. The politically limited form of these protests is bound up with the long-term suppression of working-class struggle by the unions. But when the class struggle develops, as in the recent West Virginia teachers strike, where educators temporarily broke free of the control of the unions, workers and youth responded powerfully, including with a mass demonstration of high school students in Charleston, the state capital. The IYSSE welcomes the politicization of young people in the United States and internationally, which is an indication of things to come. What is lacking, however, are a political strategy, program and perspective to resolve the crisis facing working-class youth and the working class as a whole. The root cause of the unending string of mass violence in America and all the social problems facing youth lies in the capitalist system and the nightmarish world it has created. The basic needs and demands of youth and students cannot be realized outside of the struggle of the working class for political power, and the establishment of a socialist society that will put an end to inequality and war. Genevieve Leigh WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 16 13:34:53 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 13:34:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Killeen against BDS Message-ID: Yeah, sure. I still remember when Chancellor Mort Weir called a Press Conference to proclaim that Chief Illiniwak is here to stay. Does anyone know Mort is these days? Fab 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 Mar 16 16:08:56 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:08:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Killeen against BDS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Killeen parrots the same bull-twaddle Larry Summers did. Fab. The Cowardice of Harvard's Larry Summers by Prof. Francis Boyle (U of Illinois School of Law, Urbana-Champaign) I'm not going to go through the subsequent history of the divestment/disinvestment movement, except to say that in the late summer of 2002 the President of Harvard, Larry Summers accused those of us Harvard alumni involved in the Harvard divestment campaign of being anti-Semitic. After he made these charges, WBUR Radio Station in Boston, which is a National Public Radio affiliate, called me up and said: "We would like you to debate Summers for one hour on these charges, live." And I said, "I'd be happy to do so." They then called up Summers and he refused to debate me. Summers did not have the courage, the integrity, or the principles to back up his scurrilous charges. Eventually Harvard fired Summers because of his attempt to impose his Neo-Conservative agenda on Harvard, and in particular his other scurrilous charge that women are dumber then men when it comes to math and science. Well as a triple Harvard alumnus I say: Good riddance to Larry Summers! (laughter). Debating Dershowitz WBUR then called me back and said, "Well, since Summers won't debate you, would you debate Alan Dershowitz?" And I said, "Sure." So we had a debate for one hour, live on the radio. And there is a link that you can hear this debate if you want to. I still think it's the best debate out there on this whole issue of Israeli apartheid. Again that would be WBUR Radio Station, Boston, 25 September 2002. The problem with the debate, of course, is that Dershowitz knows nothing about international law and human rights. So he immediately started out by saying "well, there's nothing similar to the apartheid regime in South Africa and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians." Well the problem with that is that Dershowitz did not know anything at all about even the existence of the Apartheid Convention. That is our second Handout for tonight. [See Handout 2 reprinted below.] The definition of apartheid is set out in the Apartheid Convention of 1973. And this is taken from my book Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law, Trial Materials on South Africa, published in 1987, that we used successfully to defend anti-apartheid resistors in the United States. If you take a look at the definition of apartheid here found in Article 2, you will see that Israel has inflicted each and every act of apartheid set out in Article 2 on the Palestinians, except an outright ban on marriages between Israelis and Palestinians. But even there they have barred Palestinians living in occupied Palestine who marry Israeli citizens from moving into Israel, and thus defeat the right of family reunification that of course the world supported when Jews were emigrating from the Soviet Union. Israel: An Apartheid State Again you don't have to take my word for it. There's an excellent essay today on Counterpunch.org by the leading Israeli human rights advocate Shulamit Aloni saying basically: "Yes we have an apartheid state in Israel." Indeed, there are roads in the West Bank for Jews only.Palestinians can't ride there and now they're introducing new legislation that Jews cannot even ride Palestinians in their cars. This lead my colleague and friend Professor John Dugard who is the U.N. Special rapporteur for human rights in Palestine to write an essay earlier this fall that you can get on Google, saying that in fact Israeli apartheid against the Palestinians is worse than the apartheid that the Afrikaners inflicted on the Blacks in South Africa. Professor Dugard should know. He was one of a handful of courageous, white, international lawyers living in South Africa at the time who publicly and internationally condemned apartheid against Blacks at risk to his own life. Indeed, when I was litigating anti-apartheid cases on South Africa, we used Professor Dugard's book on Human Rights and the South African Legal Order as the definitive work explaining what apartheid is all about. So Professor Dugard has recently made this statement. Of course President Carter has recently made this statement in his book that Israel is an apartheid state. And certainly if you look at that definition of the Apartheid Convention, right there in front of you, it's clear - there are objective criteria. Indeed if you read my Palestinian book I have a Bibliography at the end with the facts right there based on reputable human rights reports, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. Many of them were also compiled and discussed by my friend Professor Norman Finklestein in his book Beyond Chutzpah, which I'd encourage you to read. Francis A. Boyle Francis 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, March 16, 2018 8:35 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: News Gazoo: Killeen against BDS Yeah, sure. I still remember when Chancellor Mort Weir called a Press Conference to proclaim that Chief Illiniwak is here to stay. Does anyone know Mort is these days? Fab 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Fri Mar 16 18:43:17 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 13:43:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Student Walk Outs Message-ID: <1f9a1ck8i30vib6mmb15j7o7.1521225392733@email.lge.com> Yes. The   tiny snowballs and pebbles rolling down the mountain have become an avalanche!! Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Date: Fri, Mar 16, 2018 7:12 AMTo: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] Student Walk Outs   PrintLeafletFeedbackShare » The significance of the mass student protests against gun violence in America 16 March 2018 Nearly one million students walked out of their classrooms to protest gun violence and mass shootings in America Wednesday, the one-month anniversary of the massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida. Walkouts, rallies and demonstrations took place in every state as well as the US territory of Puerto Rico. Protests were also held internationally, including by students in Japan, Tanzania, Israel, Iceland, Mexico, Colombia, Australia, Germany and many other countries throughout Europe. Wednesday’s protests are a prelude to a demonstration organized by the Parkland student survivors for Saturday, March 24. At least half a million people are expected to march on Washington, DC, and nearly 800 demonstrations are planned in every US state and in dozens of countries around the world. The immediate focus of the demonstrations, heavily promoted by the Democratic Party and mainstream media, is on gun control. Within the political establishment, the “solutions” on offer are confined to either greater militarization and policing of schools or restrictions on the purchase of firearms, which will inevitably be used to increase the powers of the state. The Republicans and Democrats alike ignore the underlying causes of school violence—unprecedented social inequality, unending war, the consequences of the militarization of society and the defunding of education and social programs—because a serious examination of the roots of this social phenomenon would expose their own role in creating the social crisis out of which it has developed. Just as there are more fundamental causes behind the epidemic of school shootings, there are more fundamental causes to the eruption of large-scale protests among young people. There is a widespread sense among these young people that the ease and frequency with which they are massacred in American schools is symptomatic of the indifference and contempt with which the country’s ruling oligarchy regards their lives. In conversations with students throughout the country, the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) found that students participating in the demonstrations were concerned by far broader questions than gun control. In New York, students explained that they attended the event over the issue of access to healthcare, specifically mental health. In Washington, DC, students condemned the military budget and the war drive. In San Diego, students denounced the entire political establishment, saying that they believe “the government is run by corporations.” Kenton, a student in Flint, Michigan, spoke about how social conditions have shaped the outlook of his generation: “Somewhere deep inside, people know they’ve been dealt a bad hand, and they want to give it back. When my parents and grandparents came here from England, you could get a good job working at a factory. But now, unless you have a college education working in a specific field, you’re probably going to end up working at Walmart or a gas station.” Consider the life experience of working-class high school seniors across the US. Born at the turn of the century, they would have turned one year old as the Bush administration declared an open-ended “war on terror,” encompassing the entire globe. When they were eight, the financial crash ushered in a tidal wave of social distress as the newly elected Democratic President Barack Obama funneled trillions of dollars into Wall Street to bail out the banks. Their parents may have been among the millions who lost their homes through foreclosure, were forced into bankruptcy or were thrown out of work. At 14, they would have heard the news of the murder of Michael Brown, who was killed in the street by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. They would have watched on television as SWAT teams in combat fatigues, deployed in armored vehicles and bearing loaded assault rifles, shot rubber bullets and pepper spray canisters at demonstrators protesting police violence. They would see similar graphic murders caught on video again and again in the next few years of their high school career. Police killed more than 15,000 people over the span of their lifetime. Now, 18 years old, these young people face a world beset by unemployment, unending wars, skyrocketing inequality and immense poverty. If they make the decision to go to college, they will be crippled by tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars in student loan debt. Their generation, for the first time in modern history, will live shorter lives and make less money than their parents’ generation. These experiences have shaped the lives of the new generation of working-class youth all over the country. Polls show that more young people in the United States support socialism than support capitalism. There is a healthy hatred of the current president, Donald Trump, whom they recognize as the oligarchic right-wing face of the American political establishment. Millions are equally disillusioned with the Democratic Party, which is widely regarded as a pro-corporate party of Wall Street and the military-intelligence agencies. What does the Democratic Party offer young people? If the Democrats are successful in realizing the main component of their opposition to Trump—a more aggressive policy toward Russia—it will likely mean the initiation of a war that will see many of the youth protesting on Wednesday sent to kill or be killed in the interests of the geopolitical domination of the American ruling class. It is worth noting that while the Democratic Party has focused their entire electoral strategy on issues of race, gender, ethnicity and other identities, the school violence protests have brought together largely working-class youth of every racial and ethnic background. The politically limited form of these protests is bound up with the long-term suppression of working-class struggle by the unions. But when the class struggle develops, as in the recent West Virginia teachers strike, where educators temporarily broke free of the control of the unions, workers and youth responded powerfully, including with a mass demonstration of high school students in Charleston, the state capital. The IYSSE welcomes the politicization of young people in the United States and internationally, which is an indication of things to come. What is lacking, however, are a political strategy, program and perspective to resolve the crisis facing working-class youth and the working class as a whole. The root cause of the unending string of mass violence in America and all the social problems facing youth lies in the capitalist system and the nightmarish world it has created. The basic needs and demands of youth and students cannot be realized outside of the struggle of the working class for political power, and the establishment of a socialist society that will put an end to inequality and war. Genevieve Leigh WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Mar 16 22:28:55 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 22:28:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] CIA Democrats: Part 2 Message-ID: Yes, and local Democrat Party candidate Jonathan Ebel is mentioned here also * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » The CIA Democrats: Part two Agents and war commanders By Patrick Martin 8 March 2018 PART ONE | PART TWO | PART THREE This is the second part of a three-part article. The first part was posted on March 7. There are 57 candidates for the Democratic nomination in 44 congressional districts who boast as their major credential their years of service in intelligence, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the State Department, or some combination of all three. They make up the largest single occupational group running in the Democratic primaries that began March 6 in Texas and extend through mid-September, selecting the candidates who will appear on the general election ballot on November 6. Aside from their sheer number, and the fact that more than 40 percent, 24 of the 57, are women, there are other aspects worth considering. Agents, but no longer secret First: The number of candidates who openly proclaim their role in the CIA or military intelligence. In years past, such activities would be considered confidential, if not scandalous for a figure seeking public office. Not only would the candidates want to disguise their connections to the spy apparatus, the CIA itself would insist on it, particularly for those who worked in operations rather than analysis, since exposure, even long after leaving the agency, could be portrayed as compromising “sources and methods.” This is no longer the case. The 2018 candidates drawn from this shadow world of espionage, drone murders and other forms of assassination positively glory in their records. And the CIA and Pentagon have clearly placed no obstacles in the way. We’ve already reviewed the cases of Elissa Slotkin, running in Michigan’s 8th District, who served three tours with the CIA in Baghdad, and Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, running for the Democratic nomination in the 23rd District of Texas. There are many others. Abigail Spanberger, seeking the Democratic nomination in a district in the suburbs of Richmond, Virginia, has the following declaration at the top of her campaign website: “After nearly a decade serving in the CIA, I’m running for Congress in Virginia’s 7th District to fight for opportunity, equality and security for all Americans. My previous service as a law enforcement officer, a CIA officer, and a community volunteer has taught me the value of listening.” Indeed! [http://www.wsws.org/asset/54a46fd4-3a64-4cac-bccf-b1e65037d1cG/image.jpg?rendition=image480]Abigail Spanberger's campaign website Spanberger worked for the CIA as an operations officer, in which capacity, “She traveled and lived abroad collecting intelligence, managing assets, and overseeing high-profile programs in service to the United States.” Her opponent for the Democratic nomination is a career Marine Corps pilot, Dan Ward, in one of nearly a dozen contests involving multiple military-intelligence candidates. Jesse Colvin, running in the 1st District of Maryland, spent six years in Army intelligence, including four combat deployments to Afghanistan and a year near the Demilitarized Zone between North Korea and South Korea. According to his campaign biography, “I am a proud graduate of the US Army’s Ranger Course, the premier leadership school in the military. I am even more honored to have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment—the Army Rangers. Rangers lead in many key roles throughout the Special Operations Forces’ (SOF) community, and I am lucky to have served and led with men and women of this caliber.” His biography continues: “As a Ranger, my four combat deployments in Afghanistan took place within a Joint Special Operations Task Force. I led intelligence teams whose work facilitated capture/kill missions of Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terrorist leaders. I managed a lethal drone program. I ran human intelligence sources. Every day, my team and I made dozens of decisions whose outcomes carried life and death consequences for my fellow Rangers, our Afghan partners, and Afghan civilians.” [http://www.wsws.org/asset/0e58bcbf-c143-4b83-b900-19e669c5dfcJ/image.jpg?rendition=image480]Jesse Colvin (front right) with his unit in Afghanistan Jeffrey Beals, seeking the Democratic nomination in the 19th District of New York, is now a school teacher, but writes on his website, “After beginning my career as a CIA intelligence officer, I joined the State Department … I answered the call to help our country in Iraq in 2004 and became one of the longest serving US diplomats of the Iraq War. Fluent in Arabic, I faced down insurgents to set up the first diplomatic talks between our ambassador, our generals and the insurgency. I helped bring warring factions together to create a constitution for Iraq and was decorated by both the US Army and the State Department.” Unfortunately for Beals, his fundraising, $174,000 by December 31, 2017, is dwarfed by that of another military-intelligence rival for the nomination, Patrick Ryan, a West Point graduate with two tours of duty in Iraq, “including a tour as the lead intelligence officer for an infantry battalion of 1,000 soldiers and officers responsible for ground operations in Mosul,” according to his campaign website. Ryan had raised $906,000 by December 31, and two other candidates in that district, a politically connected lawyer and a medical device manufacturer, had raised more than one million dollars each, all seeking to challenge two-term Republican incumbent John Faso in the Hudson Valley district. Jonathan Ebel, running in the 13th District of Illinois, served four years as a naval intelligence officer, including on the staff of the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He now teaches religion at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Then there is Shelly Chauncey, seeking the Democratic nomination in the 5th District of Pennsylvania, in the Philadelphia suburbs. Her website strikes a feminist note: “Shelly served her nation for more than a decade with the Central Intelligence Agency. She began her career as a secretary and worked her way up to become a counter-intelligence officer. Shelly served as an undercover officer with the CIA in Latin America, East Asia and throughout the United States, providing logistical and counter-intelligence support to operatives abroad.” The reference to undercover operations “throughout the United States” underscores the role of the intelligence apparatus in spying on the American people, although the CIA is, by law, prohibited from such activity. Another campaign website touches on the domestic operations of the US spy machine. Omar Siddiqui, running in California’s 48th District, describes his background as follows: “On the front lines of national defense, Mr. Siddiqui serves as a private advisor and consultant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on issues of national security and counter-terrorism and was formerly an advisor and community partner with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Mr. Siddiqui is presently director of special projects of the FBI National Citizens Academy Alumni Association…” Commanders and planners of the Iraq War Barack Obama won the Democratic presidential nomination and the 2008 election in large measure by presenting himself as an opponent of the war in Iraq launched under George W. Bush. Once in office, however, he retained Bush’s defense secretary, former CIA Director Robert Gates, and continued the war for another three years, as well as escalating the long-running US war in Afghanistan. It is noteworthy in this context that so many of the military-intelligence candidates for Democratic congressional nominations boast of their roles in the war in Iraq and even, in some cases, present it as the high point of their professional and even personal lives. Thus Elissa Slotkin, already referred to above, met her future husband, the pilot of an Apache helicopter gunship, while working as a CIA agent in Baghdad. Dan McCready, a Marine Corps veteran turned “clean energy” multi-millionaire, backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the Democratic nomination in the 9th District of North Carolina, even claims to have found Jesus in Iraq, where he was baptized in water from the Euphrates River. The Iraq War veterans are either officers, giving them command responsibility in one of the great crimes of the 21st century, or served in special forces units like the Army Rangers and the Navy SEALs, engaging in covert operations that were among the bloodiest and most brutal of the war, or had high-level responsibility at the Pentagon or the National Security Council. Daniel Helmer, running in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District against five other well-financed candidates—including former State Department official Alison Friedman, who has already topped the $1 million mark—says remarkably little about what he did in Afghanistan and Iraq, although his photograph in military fatigues is on the front page of his website. But Helmer boasts perhaps the most extensive list of endorsements by retired national security officials of any candidate in the country, including eight generals and admirals, two former deputy directors of the CIA, Avril Haines and David Cohen, and Michele Flournoy, former under secretary of defense for policy. What he did to earn their support is left to the imagination. Richard Ojeda, elected as a West Virginia state senator in 2016, is now seeking the Democratic nomination in the 3rd Congressional District, covering the southern third of the state. As the WSWS has reported, Ojeda has based his political career on more than two decades in the US Army Airborne, including repeated tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he reached the rank of major. His last post was as executive director of Army recruiting in Beckley, seeking to convince youth in West Virginia and Virginia to become cannon fodder for the Pentagon. Josh Butner, running in the 50th District of California against Republican Duncan Hunter, Jr., “served for 23 years in the United States Navy where he saw multiple combat deployments, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The career Navy SEAL says almost nothing about what he actually did in the top military assassination unit, but that is to be expected. His campaign website features the slogan “Service, Country, Leadership,” alongside a photograph of Butner in desert fatigues. Dan Feehan is running to succeed incumbent Democrat Tim Walz in the 1st Congressional District of Minnesota, after Walz announced his candidacy for governor of that state. From 2005 to 2009, according to his campaign biography, Feehan “served as an active duty soldier and completed two combat tours of duty as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.” He then joined the Obama administration, first as a White House aide, then as an acting assistant secretary of defense in the Pentagon. Andy Kim, running in the 3rd District of New Jersey, has actually raised more money than the incumbent Republican, Tom MacArthur. Kim worked at the Pentagon and as a strategic adviser to generals David Petraeus and John Allen while they were in command of US forces in Afghanistan. He then moved to the National Security Council, where he was Obama’s director for Iraq for two years. Maura Sullivan, seeking the Democratic nomination in New Hampshire’s 2nd District, where incumbent Democrat Carol Shea-Porter is retiring, was a Marine Corps officer, rising to the rank of captain and deploying to Fallujah, Iraq, scene of some of the bloodiest battles and most horrific US war crimes of that war. She too joined the Obama administration as a civilian administrator at both the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Pentagon. Jason Crow is running in Colorado’s 6th Congressional District against incumbent Republican Mike Coffman, where he was selected by the DCCC as one of its top candidates in the “Red-to-Blue” program. He is a veteran of the 82nd Airborne Division, leading a paratrooper platoon during the invasion of Iraq. He then joined the Army Rangers and served two tours in Afghanistan “as part of the Joint Special Operations Task Force,” where he rose to the rank of captain. Matthew Morgan had a 20-year career in the Marine Corps “where I would deploy routinely overseas, culminating in several senior staff roles where I’d provide counsel to numerous military leaders, including the secretary of defense.” He did two tours in Iraq and also worked in counterterrorism on the Horn of Africa. Now he is the unopposed candidate for the Democratic nomination in Michigan’s 1st Congressional District, which has switched back and forth between the two big business parties and is currently held by first-term Republican Jack Bergman. To be continued -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Mar 17 11:20:46 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 06:20:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?iso-8859-1?q?HuffPo_Yanks_Article_On_Russiagate?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_Hysteria_By_Award_Winning_Journalist_Joe_Lauria_-_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?So_Here_It_Is?= Message-ID: <002e01d3bde1$ff84f070$fe8ed150$@comcast.net> HuffPo Yanks Article On Russiagate Hysteria By Award Winning Journalist Joe Lauria – So Here It Is Profile picture for user ZeroPointNow by ZeroPointNow Tue, 11/07/2017 - 20:56 50 SHARES Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print Award winning journalist and UN correspondent of 25 years, Joe Lauria, penned an outstanding article on the origins of “Russiagate” which he published to the liberal Huffington Post this week. 24 hours later, HuffPo yanked the article – leaving a dead link and a sad message in its place. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/byed.png Perhaps the insights offered in the article didn’t quite conform to HuffPo’s approved narratives, or maybe it has something to do with Lauria’s new book “How I Lost By Hillary Clinton,” with a forward written by Julian Assange. Considering Joe Lauria’s tenure as the Wall St. Journal’s UN correspondent of nearly seven years, as well as the Boston Globe’s for six – covering just about every major world crisis over the past quarter century, his unique perspective on the matter merits a read. Reproduced below for your edification: The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate As Russia-gate continues to buffet the Trump administration, we now know that the “scandal” started with Democrats funding the original dubious allegations of Russian interference, notes Joe Lauria. By Joe Lauria The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016 election — without providing convincing evidence — were both paid for by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by the Clinton campaign: the Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers. Think about that for a minute. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/portrait-clinton-300x226.jpg Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We have long known that the DNC did not allow the FBI to examine its computer server for clues about who may have hacked it – or even if it was hacked – and instead turned to CrowdStrike, a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian. Within a day, CrowdStrike blamed Russia on dubious evidence. And, it has now been disclosed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for opposition research memos written by former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele using hearsay accusations from anonymous Russian sources to claim that the Russian government was blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump in a scheme that presupposed that Russian President Vladimir Putin foresaw Trump’s presidency years ago when no one else did. Since then, the U.S. intelligence community has struggled to corroborate Steele’s allegations, but those suspicions still colored the thinking of President Obama’s intelligence chiefs who, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “hand-picked” the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 “assessment” claiming that Russia interfered in the U.S. election. In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats. If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many people feel toward Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been cooked up by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama’s intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims. Absent new evidence based on forensic or documentary proof, we could be looking at a partisan concoction devised in the midst of a bitter general election campaign, a manufactured “scandal” that also has fueled a dangerous New Cold War against Russia; a case of a dirty political “oppo” serving American ruling interests in reestablishing the dominance over Russia that they enjoyed in the 1990s, as well as feeding the voracious budgetary appetite of the Military-Industrial Complex. Though lacking independent evidence of the core Russia-gate allegations, the “scandal” continues to expand into wild exaggerations about the impact of a tiny number of social media pages suspected of having links to Russia but that apparently carried very few specific campaign messages. ( Some pages reportedly were devoted to photos of puppies.) ‘Cash for Trash’ Based on what is now known, Wall Street buccaneer Paul Singer paid for GPS Fusion, a Washington-based research firm, to do opposition research on Trump during the Republican primaries, but dropped the effort in May 2016 when it became clear Trump would be the GOP nominee. GPS Fusion has strongly denied that it hired Steele for this work or that the research had anything to do with Russia. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/hpop-228x300.pngCouple walking along the Kremlin, Dec. 7, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry) Then, in April 2016 the DNC and the Clinton campaign paid its Washington lawyer Marc Elias to hire Fusion GPS to unearth dirt connecting Trump to Russia. This was three months before the DNC blamed Russia for hacking its computers and supposedly giving its stolen emails to WikiLeaks to help Trump win the election. “The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee retained Fusion GPS to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, his campaign team and Russia, court filings revealed this week,” The New York Times reported on Friday night. So, linking Trump to Moscow as a way to bring Russia into the election story was the Democrats’ aim from the start. Fusion GPS then hired ex-MI6 intelligence agent Steele, it says for the first time, to dig up that dirt in Russia for the Democrats. Steele produced classic opposition research, not an intelligence assessment or conclusion, although it was written in a style and formatted to look like one. It’s important to realize that Steele was no longer working for an official intelligence agency, which would have imposed strict standards on his work and possibly disciplined him for injecting false information into the government’s decision-making. Instead, he was working for a political party and a presidential candidate looking for dirt that would hurt their opponent, what the Clintons used to call “cash for trash” when they were the targets. Had Steele been doing legitimate intelligence work for his government, he would have taken a far different approach. Intelligence professionals are not supposed to just give their bosses what their bosses want to hear. So, Steele would have verified his information. And it would have gone through a process of further verification by other intelligence analysts in his and perhaps other intelligence agencies. For instance, in the U.S., a National Intelligence Estimate requires vetting by all 17 intelligence agencies and incorporates dissenting opinions. Instead Steele was producing a piece of purely political research and had different motivations. The first might well have been money, as he was being paid specifically for this project, not as part of his work on a government salary presumably serving all of society. Secondly, to continue being paid for each subsequent memo that he produced he would have been incentivized to please his clients or at least give them enough so they would come back for more. Dubious Stuff Opposition research is about getting dirt to be used in a mud-slinging political campaign, in which wild charges against candidates are the norm. This “oppo” is full of unvetted rumor and innuendo with enough facts mixed in to make it seem credible. There was so much dubious stuff in Steele’s memos that the FBI was unable to confirm its most salacious allegations and apparently refuted several key points. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/clapper-obama-oval-office-30 0x200-300x200.jpgDirector of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence) Perhaps more significantly, the corporate news media, which was largely partial to Clinton, did not report the fantastic allegations after people close to the Clinton campaign began circulating the lurid stories before the election with the hope that the material would pop up in the news. To their credit, established media outlets recognized this as ammunition against a political opponent, not a serious document. Despite this circumspection, the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump’s campaign. More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence “assessment” by those “hand-picked” analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies – the CIA, the FBI and the NSA – not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved. (Obama’s intelligence chiefs, DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan, publicly admitted that only three agencies took part and The New York Times printed a correction saying so.) If in fact the Steele memos were a primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against Trump, then there may be no credible evidence at all. It could be that because the three agencies knew the dossier was dodgy that there was no substantive proof in the Jan. 6 “assessment.” Even so, a summary of the Steele allegations were included in a secret appendix that then-FBI Director James Comey described to then-President-elect Trump just two weeks before his inauguration. Five days later, after the fact of Comey’s briefing was leaked to the press, the Steele dossier was published in fullby the sensationalist website BuzzFeed behind the excuse that the allegations’ inclusion in the classified annex of a U.S. intelligence report justified the dossier’s publication regardless of doubts about its accuracy. Russian Fingerprints The other source of blame about Russian meddling came from the private company CrowdStrike because the DNC blocked the FBI from examining its server after a suspected hack. Within a day, CrowdStrike claimed to find Russian “fingerprints” in the metadata of a DNC opposition research document, which had been revealed by an Internet site called DCLeaks, showing Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief. That supposedly implicated Russia. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/dmitri-300x300.jpgDmitri Alperovitch, the Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer of CrowdStrike Inc., leading its Intelligence, Technology and CrowdStrike Labs teams. CrowdStrike also claimed that the alleged Russian intelligence operation was extremely sophisticated and skilled in concealing its external penetration of the server. But CrowdStrike’s conclusion about Russian “fingerprints” resulted from clues that would have been left behind by extremely sloppy hackers or inserted intentionally to implicate the Russians. CrowdStrike’s credibility was further undermined when Voice of America reported on March 23, 2017, that the same software the company says it used to blame Russia for the hack wrongly concluded that Moscow also had hacked Ukrainian government howitzers on the battlefield in eastern Ukraine. “An influential British think tank and Ukraine’s military are disputing a report that the U.S. cyber-security firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election,” VOA reported. Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is also a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank in Washington. More speculation about the alleged election hack was raised with WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 release, which revealed that the CIA is not beyond covering up its own hacks by leaving clues implicating others. Plus, there’s the fact that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has declared again and again that WikiLeaks did not get the Democratic emails from the Russians. Buttressing Assange’s denials of a Russian role, WikiLeaks associate Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, said he met a person connected to the leak during a trip to Washington last year. And, William Binney, maybe the best mathematician to ever work at the National Security Agency, and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern have published a technical analysis of one set of Democratic email metadata showing that a transatlantic “hack” would have been impossible and that the evidence points to a likely leak by a disgruntled Democratic insider. Binney has further stated that if it were a “hack,” the NSA would have been able to detect it and make the evidence known. Fueling Neo-McCarthyism Despite these doubts, which the U.S. mainstream media has largely ignored, Russia-gate has grown into something much more than an election story. It has unleashed a neo-McCarthyite attack on Americans who are accused of being dupes of Russia if they dare question the evidence of the Kremlin’s guilt. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/twp26p1-300x188.jpgThe Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post) Just weeks after last November’s election, The Washington Post published a front-page story touting a blacklist from an anonymous group, called PropOrNot, that alleged that 200 news sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other leading independent news sources, were either willful Russian propagandists or “useful idiots.” Last week, a new list emerged with the names of over 2,000 people, mostly Westerners, who have appeared on RT, the Russian government-financed English-language news channel. The list was part of a report entitled, “The Kremlin’s Platform for ‘Useful Idiots’ in the West,” put out by an outfit called European Values, with a long list of European funders. Included on the list of “useful idiots” absurdly are CIA-friendly Washington Post columnist David Ignatius; David Brock, Hillary Clinton’s opposition research chief; and U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres. The report stated: “Many people in Europe and the US, including politicians and other persons of influence, continue to exhibit troubling naïveté about RT’s political agenda, buying into the network’s marketing ploy that it is simply an outlet for independent voices marginalised by the mainstream Western press. These ‘useful idiots’ remain oblivious to RT’s intentions and boost its legitimacy by granting interviews on its shows and newscasts.” The intent of these lists is clear: to shut down dissenting voices who question Western foreign policy and who are usually excluded from Western corporate media. RT is often willing to provide a platform for a wider range of viewpoints, both from the left and right. American ruling interests fend off critical viewpoints by first suppressing them in corporate media and now condemning them as propaganda when they emerge on RT. Geopolitical Risks More ominously, the anti-Russia mania has increased chances of direct conflict between the two nuclear superpowers. The Russia-bashing rhetoric not only served the Clinton campaign, though ultimately to ill effect, but it has pushed a longstanding U.S.-led geopolitical agenda to regain control over Russia, an advantage that the U.S. enjoyed during the Yeltsin years in the 1990s. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/Time-Yeltsin-227x300.jpgTime magazine cover recounting how the U.S. enabled Boris Yeltsin’s reelection as Russian president in 1996. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Wall Street rushed in behind Boris Yeltsin and Russian oligarchs to asset strip virtually the entire country, impoverishing the population. Amid widespread accounts of this grotesque corruption, Washington intervened in Russian politics to help get Yeltsin re-elected in 1996. The political rise of Vladimir Putin after Yeltsin resigned on New Year’s Eve 1999 reversed this course, restoring Russian sovereignty over its economy and politics. That inflamed Hillary Clinton and other American hawks whose desire was to install another Yeltsin-like figure and resume U.S. exploitation of Russia’s vast natural and financial resources. To advance that cause, U.S. presidents have supported the eastward expansion of NATO and have deployed 30,000 troops on Russia’s border. In 2014, the Obama administration helped orchestrate a coup that toppled the elected government of Ukraine and installed a fiercely anti-Russian regime. The U.S. also undertook the risky policy of aiding jihadists to overthrow a secular Russian ally in Syria. The consequences have brought the world closer to nuclear annihilation than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. In this context, the Democratic Party-led Russia-gate offensive was intended not only to explain away Clinton’s defeat but to stop Trump — possibly via impeachment or by inflicting severe political damage — because he had talked, insincerely it is turning out, about detente with Russia. That did not fit in well with the plan at all. Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist. He has written for the Boston Globe, the Sunday Times of London and the Wall Street Journal among other newspapers. He is the author of How I Lost By Hillary Clinton published by OR Books in June 2017. He can be reached at joelauria at gmail.com and followed on Twitter at @unjoe. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1120 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 21464 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 11673 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 91149 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17758 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 10986 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12763 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20333 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Sat Mar 17 13:42:52 2018 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 06:42:52 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] HuffPo Yanks Article On Russiagate Hysteria By Award Winning Journalist Joe Lauria - So Here It Is In-Reply-To: <002e01d3bde1$ff84f070$fe8ed150$@comcast.net> References: <002e01d3bde1$ff84f070$fe8ed150$@comcast.net> Message-ID: interesting, but clearly he is selling something and not really acting as a reporter - but then you folks did not like Hillary Clinton so you must love the current Liar-in-Chief and his stripping Andrew McCabe of his well deserved retirement and pension - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/16/1749674/-Just-Read-Andrew-McCabe-s-Statement-Regarding-His-Firing-By-Donald-Trump-Just-Read-it?detail=emaildkbn On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 4:20 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > *HuffPo Yanks Article On Russiagate Hysteria By Award Winning Journalist > Joe Lauria – So Here It Is * > > [image: Profile picture for user ZeroPointNow] > > > by ZeroPointNow > > Tue, 11/07/2017 - 20:56 > > 50 > > SHARES > > Twitter Facebook > Reddit > Email > Print > > > Award winning journalist and UN correspondent of 25 years, Joe Lauria, > penned an outstanding article on the origins of “Russiagate” which he > published to the liberal *Huffington Post* this week. > > 24 hours later, HuffPo yanked the article > > – leaving a dead link and a sad message in its place. > > [image: http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/byed.png] > > > Perhaps the insights offered in the article didn’t quite conform to > HuffPo’s approved narratives, or maybe it has something to do with Lauria’s > new book “*How I Lost By > Hillary Clinton*,” with a forward written by Julian Assange. > > Considering Joe Lauria’s tenure as the Wall St. Journal’s UN correspondent > of nearly seven years, as well as the Boston Globe’s for six – covering > just about every major world crisis over the past quarter century, his > unique perspective on the matter merits a read. > > Reproduced below for your edification: > > The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate > > As Russia-gate continues to buffet the Trump administration, we now know > that the “scandal” started with Democrats funding the original dubious > allegations of Russian interference, notes Joe Lauria. > > By Joe Lauria > > The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia > meddled in the 2016 election — without providing convincing evidence — were > both *paid for* by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance > also by the Clinton campaign: the Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike > analysis of the DNC servers. Think about that for a minute. > > [image: > http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/portrait-clinton-300x226.jpg] > Former > Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. > > We have long known that the DNC did not allow the FBI to examine its > computer server for clues about who may have hacked it – or even if it was > hacked – and instead turned to CrowdStrike, a private company co-founded by > a virulently anti-Putin Russian. Within a day, CrowdStrike blamed Russia on > dubious evidence. > > And, it has now been disclosed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid > for > opposition > research memos written by former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher > Steele using hearsay accusations from anonymous Russian sources to claim > that the Russian government was blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump in a > scheme that presupposed that Russian President Vladimir Putin foresaw > Trump’s presidency years ago when no one else did. > > Since then, the U.S. intelligence community has struggled to corroborate > Steele’s allegations, but those suspicions still colored the thinking of > President Obama’s intelligence chiefs who, according to Director of > National Intelligence James Clapper, “hand-picked” the analysts who > produced the Jan. 6 “assessment” claiming that Russia interfered in the > U.S. election. > > In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have > been taken on faith by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump > Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats. > > If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many > people feel toward Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression > that the scandal may have been cooked up by the DNC and the Clinton camp in > league with Obama’s intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical > aims. > > Absent new evidence based on forensic or documentary proof, we could be > looking at a partisan concoction devised in the midst of a bitter general > election campaign, a manufactured “scandal” that also has fueled a > dangerous New Cold War against Russia; a case of a dirty political “oppo” > serving American ruling interests in reestablishing the dominance over > Russia that they enjoyed in the 1990s, as well as feeding the voracious > budgetary appetite of the Military-Industrial Complex. > > Though lacking independent evidence of the core Russia-gate allegations, > the “scandal” continues to expand into wild exaggerations about the > impact of a tiny number of social media pages > suspected > of having links to Russia but that apparently carried very few specific > campaign messages. (Some pages reportedly were devoted to photos of > puppies. > > ) > > *‘Cash for Trash’* > > Based on what is now known, Wall Street buccaneer Paul Singer paid for GPS > Fusion, a Washington-based research firm, to do opposition research on > Trump during the Republican primaries, but dropped the effort in May 2016 > when it became clear Trump would be the GOP nominee. GPS Fusion has > strongly denied > that > it hired Steele for this work or that the research had anything to do with > Russia. > > [image: http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/hpop-228x300.png] > Couple walking > along the Kremlin, Dec. 7, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry) > > Then, in April 2016 the DNC and the Clinton campaign paid > its > Washington lawyer Marc Elias to hire Fusion GPS to unearth dirt connecting > Trump to Russia. This was three months before the DNC blamed Russia for > hacking its computers and supposedly giving its stolen emails to WikiLeaks > to help Trump win the election. > > “The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee retained > Fusion GPS > to > research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, his > campaign team and Russia, court filings revealed this week,” The New York > Times reported > on > Friday night. > > So, linking Trump to Moscow as a way to bring Russia into the election > story was the Democrats’ aim from the start. > > Fusion GPS then hired ex-MI6 intelligence agent Steele, it says for the > first time, to dig up that dirt in Russia for the Democrats. Steele > produced classic opposition research, not an intelligence assessment or > conclusion, although it was written in a style and formatted to look like > > one. > > It’s important to realize that Steele was no longer working for an > official intelligence agency, which would have imposed strict standards on > his work and possibly disciplined him for injecting false information into > the government’s decision-making. Instead, he was working for a political > party and a presidential candidate looking for dirt that would hurt their > opponent, what the Clintons used to call “cash for trash” when they were > the targets. > > Had Steele been doing legitimate intelligence work for his government, he > would have taken a far different approach. Intelligence professionals are > not supposed to just give their bosses what their bosses want to hear. So, > Steele would have verified his information. And it would have gone through > a process of further verification by other intelligence analysts in his and > perhaps other intelligence agencies. For instance, in the U.S., a National > Intelligence Estimate requires vetting by all 17 intelligence agencies and > incorporates dissenting opinions. > > Instead Steele was producing a piece of purely political research and had > different motivations. The first might well have been money, as he was > being paid specifically for this project, not as part of his work on a > government salary presumably serving all of society. Secondly, to continue > being paid for each subsequent memo that he produced he would have been > incentivized to please his clients or at least give them enough so they > would come back for more. > > *Dubious Stuff* > > Opposition research is about getting dirt to be used in a mud-slinging > political campaign, in which wild charges against candidates are the > norm. This “oppo” is full of unvetted rumor and innuendo with enough facts > mixed in to make it seem credible. There was so much dubious stuff in > Steele’s memos > that > the FBI was unable to confirm its most salacious allegations and apparently > refuted several key points. > > [image: > http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/clapper-obama-oval-office-300x200-300x200.jpg] > Director > of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack > Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security > aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence) > > Perhaps more significantly, the corporate news media, which was largely > partial to Clinton, did not report the fantastic allegations after people > close to the Clinton campaign began circulating the lurid stories before > the election with the hope that the material would pop up in the news. To > their credit, established media outlets recognized this as ammunition > against a political opponent, not a serious document. > > Despite this circumspection, the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at > some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently became > the > basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants > against members of Trump’s campaign. More alarmingly, it may have formed > the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence “assessment” > by those > “hand-picked” analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies – the CIA, the > FBI and the NSA – not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to > insist were involved. (Obama’s intelligence chiefs, DNI Clapper and CIA > Director John Brennan, publicly admitted that only three agencies took part > and The New York Times printed a correction > saying > so.) > > If in fact the Steele memos were a primary basis for the Russia collusion > allegations against Trump, then there may be no credible evidence at all. > It could be that because the three agencies knew the dossier was dodgy that > there was no substantive proof in the Jan. 6 “assessment.” Even so, a > summary of the Steele allegations were included in a secret appendix that > then-FBI Director James Comey described to then-President-elect Trump just > two weeks before his inauguration. > > Five days later, after the fact of Comey’s briefing was leaked to the > press, the Steele dossier was published in full > by > the sensationalist website BuzzFeed behind the excuse that the allegations’ > inclusion in the classified annex of a U.S. intelligence report justified > the dossier’s publication regardless of doubts about its accuracy. > > *Russian Fingerprints* > > The other source of blame about Russian meddling came from the private > company CrowdStrike because the DNC blocked the FBI from examining its > server after a suspected hack. Within a day, CrowdStrike claimed to find > Russian “fingerprints” in the metadata of a DNC opposition research > document, which had been revealed by an Internet site called DCLeaks, > showing Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet intelligence > chief. That supposedly implicated Russia. > > [image: http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/dmitri-300x300.jpg] > Dmitri > Alperovitch, the Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer of CrowdStrike > Inc., leading its Intelligence, Technology and CrowdStrike Labs teams. > > CrowdStrike also claimed that the alleged Russian intelligence operation > was extremely sophisticated and skilled in concealing its external > penetration of the server. But CrowdStrike’s conclusion about Russian > “fingerprints” resulted from clues that would have been left behind by > extremely sloppy hackers or inserted intentionally to implicate the > Russians. > > CrowdStrike’s credibility was further undermined when *Voice of > America reported > * on > March 23, 2017, that the same software the company says it used to blame > Russia for the hack wrongly concluded that Moscow also had hacked Ukrainian > government howitzers on the battlefield in eastern Ukraine. > > “An influential British think tank and Ukraine’s military are disputing a > report that the U.S. cyber-security firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress > its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election,” *VOA *reported. > Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is also a senior fellow at > the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank in Washington. > > More speculation about the alleged election hack was raised with > WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 release, which revealed that the CIA is not beyond > covering up its own hacks by leaving clues implicating others. Plus, > there’s the fact that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has declared again > and again that WikiLeaks did not get the Democratic emails from the > Russians. Buttressing Assange’s denials of a Russian role, WikiLeaks > associate Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, said he > met a person connected to the leak during a trip to Washington last year. > > And, William Binney, maybe the best mathematician to ever work at the > National Security Agency, and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern have published > a technical analysis > of > one set of Democratic email metadata showing that a transatlantic “hack” > would have been impossible and that the evidence points to a likely leak by > a disgruntled Democratic insider. Binney has further stated that if it were > a “hack,” the NSA would have been able to detect it and make the evidence > known. > > *Fueling Neo-McCarthyism* > > Despite these doubts, which the U.S. mainstream media has largely ignored, > Russia-gate has grown into something much more than an election story. It > has unleashed a neo-McCarthyite attack on Americans who are accused of > being dupes of Russia if they dare question the evidence of the Kremlin’s > guilt. > > [image: > http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/twp26p1-300x188.jpg] > The > Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: > Washington Post) > > Just weeks after last November’s election, The Washington Post published > a front-page story > touting > a blacklist from an anonymous group, called PropOrNot, that alleged that > 200 news sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other leading independent > news sources, were either willful Russian propagandists or “useful idiots.” > > Last week, a new list emerged with > the names of over 2,000 people, mostly Westerners, who have appeared on RT, > the Russian government-financed English-language news channel. The list was > part of a report entitled, “The Kremlin’s Platform for ‘Useful Idiots’ in > the West,” put out by an outfit called European Values, with a long list > of > European funders. > > Included on the list of “useful idiots” absurdly are CIA-friendly > Washington Post columnist David Ignatius; David Brock, Hillary Clinton’s > opposition research chief; and U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres. > > The report stated: “Many people in Europe and the US, including > politicians and other persons of influence, continue to exhibit troubling > naïveté about RT’s political agenda, buying into the network’s > marketing ploy that it is simply an outlet for independent voices > marginalised by the mainstream Western press. These ‘useful idiots’ remain > oblivious to RT’s intentions and boost its legitimacy by granting > interviews on its shows and newscasts.” > > The intent of these lists is clear: to shut down dissenting voices who > question Western foreign policy and who are usually excluded from Western > corporate media. RT is often willing to provide a platform for a wider > range of viewpoints, both from the left and right. American ruling > interests fend off critical viewpoints by first suppressing them in > corporate media and now condemning them as propaganda when they emerge on > RT. > > *Geopolitical Risks* > > More ominously, the anti-Russia mania has increased chances of direct > conflict between the two nuclear superpowers. The Russia-bashing rhetoric > not only served the Clinton campaign, though ultimately to ill effect, but > it has pushed a longstanding U.S.-led geopolitical agenda to regain > control > over > Russia, an advantage that the U.S. enjoyed during the Yeltsin years in the > 1990s. > > [image: > http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/Time-Yeltsin-227x300.jpg] > Time > magazine cover recounting how the U.S. enabled Boris Yeltsin’s reelection > as Russian president in 1996. > > After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Wall Street rushed in > behind Boris Yeltsin and Russian oligarchs to asset strip virtually the > entire country, impoverishing the population. Amid widespread accounts of > this grotesque corruption, Washington intervened > in > Russian politics to help get Yeltsin re-elected in 1996. The political rise > of Vladimir Putin after Yeltsin resigned on New Year’s Eve 1999 reversed > this course, restoring Russian sovereignty over its economy and politics. > > That inflamed Hillary Clinton and other American hawks whose desire was to > install another Yeltsin-like figure and resume U.S. exploitation of > Russia’s vast natural and financial resources. To advance that cause, U.S. > presidents have supported the eastward expansion of NATO and have deployed > 30,000 troops on Russia’s border. > > In 2014, the Obama administration helped orchestrate > a > coup that toppled the elected government of Ukraine and installed a > fiercely anti-Russian regime. The U.S. also undertook the risky policy of > aiding jihadists to overthrow a secular Russian ally in Syria. The > consequences have brought the world closer to nuclear annihilation than at any > time since > the > Cuban missile crisis in 1962. > > In this context, the Democratic Party-led Russia-gate offensive was > intended not only to explain away Clinton’s defeat but to stop Trump — > possibly via impeachment or by inflicting severe political damage — because > he had talked, insincerely it is turning out, about detente with Russia. > That did not fit in well with the plan at all. > > *Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist. He has written for > the Boston Globe, the Sunday Times of London and the Wall Street Journal > among other newspapers. He is the author of How I Lost By Hillary Clinton > published by OR Books in June > 2017. He can be reached at joelauria at gmail.com and > followed on Twitter at @unjoe .* > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 10986 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1120 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 11673 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12763 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 21464 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17758 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 91149 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20333 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sat Mar 17 15:55:54 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:55:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Proyect publication of SPLC article re Blumenthal etc. Message-ID: https://louisproyect.org/2018/03/15/the-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment/#comments In case anyone has missed the original source of this brouhaha. DG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 17 16:22:35 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 16:22:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Proyect publication of SPLC article re Blumenthal etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Promoting Louis Proyect? The Left is confused enough with this being one of the guys responsible. On Mar 17, 2018, at 08:55, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://louisproyect.org/2018/03/15/the-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment/#comments In case anyone has missed the original source of this brouhaha. DG _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sat Mar 17 16:38:38 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:38:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Proyect publication of SPLC article re Blumenthal etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not at all promoting Proyect; his little conspiratorial corner of the internet is appalling. On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > David > > Promoting Louis Proyect? The Left is confused enough with this being one > of the guys responsible. > > > On Mar 17, 2018, at 08:55, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > https://louisproyect.org/2018/03/15/the-multipolar-spin-how- > fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment/#comments > > In case anyone has missed the original source of this brouhaha. > > DG > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sat Mar 17 16:40:40 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:40:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Interesting AP article published in N-G Message-ID: OKLAHOMA’S GOVERNMENT GOP confronts another failed tax experiment By SEAN MURPHY Associated Press OKLAHOMA CITY — When the GOP took full control of Oklahoma government after the 2010 election, lawmakers set out to make it a model of Republican principles, with lower taxes, lighter regulation and a raft of business-friendly reforms. Conservatives passed all of it, setting in motion a grand experiment. Now it’s time for another big election, but instead of campaigning on eight years of achievements, Republicans are confronting chaos and crisis. Agency budgets that were cut during the Great Recession have been slashed even deeper. Rural hospitals are closing, and teachers are considering a statewide strike over low wages. “I’m not scared to say it, because I love Oklahoma, and we are dying,” said Republican state Rep. Leslie Osborn. “I truly believe the situation is dire.” Oklahoma’s woes offer the ultimate cautionary tale for other states considering trickle-down economic reforms. The outlook is so grim that some Republicans are willing to consider the ultimate heresy: raising taxes to fund education and health care, an idea that was once the exclusive province of Democrats. “Without new recurring revenue, we can’t fix these problems,” said Osborn, who was ousted as chairwoman of the powerful House Appropriations and Budget committee for her outspoken support of tax increases. The crisis has also placed the oil and gas industry, a sacred cow in Oklahoma, in an awkward spot since it sought the huge tax cut that is one of the biggest factors in the budget mess. Gov. Mary Fallin and GOP leaders have been unable to reverse course because of a constitutional quirk that says any tax increase needs a threefourth’s majority vote of the Legislature. Despite broad GOP support for tax hikes, a small number of fiercely anti-tax Republicans have joined with the minority Democrats to derail attempts to raise revenue. Democrats complain that most of the tax plans unfairly target the poor. While state leaders bicker over how it went wrong and what to do about it, a half-dozen Republicans are jockeying to succeed Fallin, who cannot seek reelection because of term limits. Although the candidates represent different wings of the party, all of them agree about the depth of the problem. And while none of them want to use the word “tax,” several talk about replacing some of the revenue that has been cut in recent years. That replacement money could scarcely come from any other source except taxes. The only GOP candidate for governor who openly advocates for a tax hike is Auditor and Inspector Gary Jones, an accountant and former chairman of the state Republican Party. He’s been particularly critical of the Legislature’s decision to make permanent a generous tax incentive on new oil and gas production. Fallin signed that bill just before the price of oil plummeted in 2014. The price drop dealt another major blow to the energy-dependent economy. The drilling industry now pays an effective tax rate in Oklahoma that is far lower than in any other state, a factor cited by the teachers threatening a strike. “We’ve got to face the truth,” Jones said. “We need somebody who’s willing to tell the truth about how we got here, where we’re at and has a plan to get out.” Since 2009, more than two dozen state agencies have seen their budgets slashed by more than 30 percent. The cuts have been especially painful in public schools, where funding has dipped since 2015, even though enrollment has climbed by about 10,000 students statewide. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 17 18:07:04 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 18:07:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Proyect publication of SPLC article re Blumenthal etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David, I know, I was joking :) sorry if I didn’t express myself well. I really dislike this guy. Though on one topic he is correct. Thailand, he has made the statement that Giles Unpakorn is the go to guy for anything related to Thailand, I certainly agree with that statement. On Mar 17, 2018, at 09:38, David Green > wrote: Not at all promoting Proyect; his little conspiratorial corner of the internet is appalling. On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: David Promoting Louis Proyect? The Left is confused enough with this being one of the guys responsible. On Mar 17, 2018, at 08:55, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://louisproyect.org/2018/03/15/the-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment/#comments In case anyone has missed the original source of this brouhaha. DG _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 17 18:38:48 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 18:38:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Will Senate Put Torturer in Charge of CIA? References: <3794721996.537482163@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/RA_Header.jpg] Tell Senate to Block Pompeo and Haspel. [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/pompeohaspel2EMAIL.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 [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/donate3bucks200b.png] Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State used the State Department as a marketing firm for weapons dealers1 and openly proposed to conquer one-third of Syria and to overthrow the government of Venezuela.2 But Tillerson occasionally dragged his feet, on weapons deals3, on antagonizing North Korea4, and on shredding the nuclear agreement with Iran5. These are issues on which the fate of millions, or billions, of lives depend. Trump has nominated current CIA Director Mike Pompeo to replace Tillerson, and current CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel to replace Pompeo. Click here to email your Senators to urge them to refuse confirmation of both of these nominees. Pompeo has overseen drone killings, torture, and the whole array of unaccountable CIA activities. He has openly advocated for the bombing, and overthrowing the government, of Iran.6 Pompeo is clearly eager to head off the threat of peace in Korea.7 Haspel is best known for directly overseeing brutal torture, and making sadistic comments to her victims.8 Last month a federal judge finally ruled that a private contractor can be sued for assisting in U.S. torture.9 But what about government officials who led the way? Shouldn't they be prosecuted for their crimes, rather than promoted to positions of extreme power? Email your Senators to help the urgent effort to block these disastrous nominations. The warmongers are grabbing yet more power and pushing the Doomsday clock even closer to midnight. We have to make a stand for giving diplomacy the barest sliver of a chance. Say no to Pompeo and no to Haspel now! After doing this action, please use the tools on the next webpage to share it with your friends. This work is only possible with your financial support. Please chip in $3 now. -- The RootsAction.org Team P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others. Background: > Common Dreams: 'Recipe for War': Experts Warn Pick of Pompeo Intensifies Risk of US Attack on Iran > Common Dreams: Trump Picks 'Actual Torturer' Gina Haspel as Next CIA Director Footnotes: 1. Cato: Risky Business: The Role of Arms Sales in U.S. Foreign Policy 2. Zero Hedge: Tillerson Fired As North Korea Talks Approach, Differences Over Iran 3. Washington Post: White House angry with Tillerson over Gulf arms-sales delays 4. Washington Post: Tillerson vs. Pompeo: Two very different views of North Korea 5. CNN: Tillerson's dramatic plan to save Iran deal, keep up pressure 6. HuffPost: Trump CIA Pick Hyped Facts On Iran, Downplayed Costs Of War 7. Daily News: CIA director Mike Pompeo says U.S. making 'no concessions' before North Korea talks 8. Common Dreams: Trump Picks 'Actual Torturer' Gina Haspel as Next CIA Director 9. Shadowproof: Judge: Iraqis Sufficiently Allege Torture By Military Contractor And May Proceed With Lawsuit www.RootsAction.org [Donate button] [Facebook button] [Twitter button] Unsubscribe [empowered by Salsa] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Mar 17 20:38:23 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 15:38:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] HuffPo Yanks Article On Russiagate Hysteria By Award Winning Journalist Joe Lauria - So Here It Is In-Reply-To: References: <002e01d3bde1$ff84f070$fe8ed150$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <009701d3be2f$e56cced0$b0466c70$@comcast.net> Roger, Your head is so far up your ass that you are a waste of time even typing a response to. Hillary Clinton is a war monger ( just like you ) and a corporate puppet. There is NO difference between a neo-liberal / Neo-Con Democrat and a Republican. David J. From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 8:43 AM To: David Johnson; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] HuffPo Yanks Article On Russiagate Hysteria By Award Winning Journalist Joe Lauria - So Here It Is interesting, but clearly he is selling something and not really acting as a reporter - but then you folks did not like Hillary Clinton so you must love the current Liar-in-Chief and his stripping Andrew McCabe of his well deserved retirement and pension - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/16/1749674/-Just-Read-Andrew-McCabe-s-Statement-Regarding-His-Firing-By-Donald-Trump-Just-Read-it?detail=emaildkbn On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 4:20 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: HuffPo Yanks Article On Russiagate Hysteria By Award Winning Journalist Joe Lauria – So Here It Is Profile picture for user ZeroPointNow by ZeroPointNow Tue, 11/07/2017 - 20:56 50 SHARES Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print Award winning journalist and UN correspondent of 25 years, Joe Lauria, penned an outstanding article on the origins of “Russiagate” which he published to the liberal Huffington Post this week. 24 hours later, HuffPo yanked the article – leaving a dead link and a sad message in its place. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/byed.png Perhaps the insights offered in the article didn’t quite conform to HuffPo’s approved narratives, or maybe it has something to do with Lauria’s new book “How I Lost By Hillary Clinton,” with a forward written by Julian Assange. Considering Joe Lauria’s tenure as the Wall St. Journal’s UN correspondent of nearly seven years, as well as the Boston Globe’s for six – covering just about every major world crisis over the past quarter century, his unique perspective on the matter merits a read. Reproduced below for your edification: The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate As Russia-gate continues to buffet the Trump administration, we now know that the “scandal” started with Democrats funding the original dubious allegations of Russian interference, notes Joe Lauria. By Joe Lauria The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016 election — without providing convincing evidence — were both paid for by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by the Clinton campaign: the Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers. Think about that for a minute. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/portrait-clinton-300x226.jpgFormer Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We have long known that the DNC did not allow the FBI to examine its computer server for clues about who may have hacked it – or even if it was hacked – and instead turned to CrowdStrike, a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian. Within a day, CrowdStrike blamed Russia on dubious evidence. And, it has now been disclosed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for opposition research memos written by former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele using hearsay accusations from anonymous Russian sources to claim that the Russian government was blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump in a scheme that presupposed that Russian President Vladimir Putin foresaw Trump’s presidency years ago when no one else did. Since then, the U.S. intelligence community has struggled to corroborate Steele’s allegations, but those suspicions still colored the thinking of President Obama’s intelligence chiefs who, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “hand-picked” the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 “assessment” claiming that Russia interfered in the U.S. election. In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats. If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many people feel toward Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been cooked up by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama’s intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims. Absent new evidence based on forensic or documentary proof, we could be looking at a partisan concoction devised in the midst of a bitter general election campaign, a manufactured “scandal” that also has fueled a dangerous New Cold War against Russia; a case of a dirty political “oppo” serving American ruling interests in reestablishing the dominance over Russia that they enjoyed in the 1990s, as well as feeding the voracious budgetary appetite of the Military-Industrial Complex. Though lacking independent evidence of the core Russia-gate allegations, the “scandal” continues to expand into wild exaggerations about the impact of a tiny number of social media pages suspected of having links to Russia but that apparently carried very few specific campaign messages. ( Some pages reportedly were devoted to photos of puppies.) ‘Cash for Trash’ Based on what is now known, Wall Street buccaneer Paul Singer paid for GPS Fusion, a Washington-based research firm, to do opposition research on Trump during the Republican primaries, but dropped the effort in May 2016 when it became clear Trump would be the GOP nominee. GPS Fusion has strongly denied that it hired Steele for this work or that the research had anything to do with Russia. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/hpop-228x300.pngCouple walking along the Kremlin, Dec. 7, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry) Then, in April 2016 the DNC and the Clinton campaign paid its Washington lawyer Marc Elias to hire Fusion GPS to unearth dirt connecting Trump to Russia. This was three months before the DNC blamed Russia for hacking its computers and supposedly giving its stolen emails to WikiLeaks to help Trump win the election. “The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee retained Fusion GPS to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, his campaign team and Russia, court filings revealed this week,” The New York Times reported on Friday night. So, linking Trump to Moscow as a way to bring Russia into the election story was the Democrats’ aim from the start. Fusion GPS then hired ex-MI6 intelligence agent Steele, it says for the first time, to dig up that dirt in Russia for the Democrats. Steele produced classic opposition research, not an intelligence assessment or conclusion, although it was written in a style and formatted to look like one. It’s important to realize that Steele was no longer working for an official intelligence agency, which would have imposed strict standards on his work and possibly disciplined him for injecting false information into the government’s decision-making. Instead, he was working for a political party and a presidential candidate looking for dirt that would hurt their opponent, what the Clintons used to call “cash for trash” when they were the targets. Had Steele been doing legitimate intelligence work for his government, he would have taken a far different approach. Intelligence professionals are not supposed to just give their bosses what their bosses want to hear. So, Steele would have verified his information. And it would have gone through a process of further verification by other intelligence analysts in his and perhaps other intelligence agencies. For instance, in the U.S., a National Intelligence Estimate requires vetting by all 17 intelligence agencies and incorporates dissenting opinions. Instead Steele was producing a piece of purely political research and had different motivations. The first might well have been money, as he was being paid specifically for this project, not as part of his work on a government salary presumably serving all of society. Secondly, to continue being paid for each subsequent memo that he produced he would have been incentivized to please his clients or at least give them enough so they would come back for more. Dubious Stuff Opposition research is about getting dirt to be used in a mud-slinging political campaign, in which wild charges against candidates are the norm. This “oppo” is full of unvetted rumor and innuendo with enough facts mixed in to make it seem credible. There was so much dubious stuff in Steele’s memos that the FBI was unable to confirm its most salacious allegations and apparently refuted several key points. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/clapper-obama-oval-office-300x200-300x200.jpgDirector of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence) Perhaps more significantly, the corporate news media, which was largely partial to Clinton, did not report the fantastic allegations after people close to the Clinton campaign began circulating the lurid stories before the election with the hope that the material would pop up in the news. To their credit, established media outlets recognized this as ammunition against a political opponent, not a serious document. Despite this circumspection, the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump’s campaign. More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence “assessment” by those “hand-picked” analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies – the CIA, the FBI and the NSA – not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved. (Obama’s intelligence chiefs, DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan, publicly admitted that only three agencies took part and The New York Times printed a correction saying so.) If in fact the Steele memos were a primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against Trump, then there may be no credible evidence at all. It could be that because the three agencies knew the dossier was dodgy that there was no substantive proof in the Jan. 6 “assessment.” Even so, a summary of the Steele allegations were included in a secret appendix that then-FBI Director James Comey described to then-President-elect Trump just two weeks before his inauguration. Five days later, after the fact of Comey’s briefing was leaked to the press, the Steele dossier was published in fullby the sensationalist website BuzzFeed behind the excuse that the allegations’ inclusion in the classified annex of a U.S. intelligence report justified the dossier’s publication regardless of doubts about its accuracy. Russian Fingerprints The other source of blame about Russian meddling came from the private company CrowdStrike because the DNC blocked the FBI from examining its server after a suspected hack. Within a day, CrowdStrike claimed to find Russian “fingerprints” in the metadata of a DNC opposition research document, which had been revealed by an Internet site called DCLeaks, showing Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief. That supposedly implicated Russia. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/dmitri-300x300.jpgDmitri Alperovitch, the Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer of CrowdStrike Inc., leading its Intelligence, Technology and CrowdStrike Labs teams. CrowdStrike also claimed that the alleged Russian intelligence operation was extremely sophisticated and skilled in concealing its external penetration of the server. But CrowdStrike’s conclusion about Russian “fingerprints” resulted from clues that would have been left behind by extremely sloppy hackers or inserted intentionally to implicate the Russians. CrowdStrike’s credibility was further undermined when Voice of America reported on March 23, 2017, that the same software the company says it used to blame Russia for the hack wrongly concluded that Moscow also had hacked Ukrainian government howitzers on the battlefield in eastern Ukraine. “An influential British think tank and Ukraine’s military are disputing a report that the U.S. cyber-security firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election,” VOA reported. Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is also a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank in Washington. More speculation about the alleged election hack was raised with WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 release, which revealed that the CIA is not beyond covering up its own hacks by leaving clues implicating others. Plus, there’s the fact that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has declared again and again that WikiLeaks did not get the Democratic emails from the Russians. Buttressing Assange’s denials of a Russian role, WikiLeaks associate Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, said he met a person connected to the leak during a trip to Washington last year. And, William Binney, maybe the best mathematician to ever work at the National Security Agency, and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern have published a technical analysis of one set of Democratic email metadata showing that a transatlantic “hack” would have been impossible and that the evidence points to a likely leak by a disgruntled Democratic insider. Binney has further stated that if it were a “hack,” the NSA would have been able to detect it and make the evidence known. Fueling Neo-McCarthyism Despite these doubts, which the U.S. mainstream media has largely ignored, Russia-gate has grown into something much more than an election story. It has unleashed a neo-McCarthyite attack on Americans who are accused of being dupes of Russia if they dare question the evidence of the Kremlin’s guilt. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/twp26p1-300x188.jpgThe Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post) Just weeks after last November’s election, The Washington Post published a front-page story touting a blacklist from an anonymous group, called PropOrNot, that alleged that 200 news sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other leading independent news sources, were either willful Russian propagandists or “useful idiots.” Last week, a new list emerged with the names of over 2,000 people, mostly Westerners, who have appeared on RT, the Russian government-financed English-language news channel. The list was part of a report entitled, “The Kremlin’s Platform for ‘Useful Idiots’ in the West,” put out by an outfit called European Values, with a long list of European funders. Included on the list of “useful idiots” absurdly are CIA-friendly Washington Post columnist David Ignatius; David Brock, Hillary Clinton’s opposition research chief; and U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres. The report stated: “Many people in Europe and the US, including politicians and other persons of influence, continue to exhibit troubling naïveté about RT’s political agenda, buying into the network’s marketing ploy that it is simply an outlet for independent voices marginalised by the mainstream Western press. These ‘useful idiots’ remain oblivious to RT’s intentions and boost its legitimacy by granting interviews on its shows and newscasts.” The intent of these lists is clear: to shut down dissenting voices who question Western foreign policy and who are usually excluded from Western corporate media. RT is often willing to provide a platform for a wider range of viewpoints, both from the left and right. American ruling interests fend off critical viewpoints by first suppressing them in corporate media and now condemning them as propaganda when they emerge on RT. Geopolitical Risks More ominously, the anti-Russia mania has increased chances of direct conflict between the two nuclear superpowers. The Russia-bashing rhetoric not only served the Clinton campaign, though ultimately to ill effect, but it has pushed a longstanding U.S.-led geopolitical agenda to regain control over Russia, an advantage that the U.S. enjoyed during the Yeltsin years in the 1990s. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2017/11/Time-Yeltsin-227x300.jpgTime magazine cover recounting how the U.S. enabled Boris Yeltsin’s reelection as Russian president in 1996. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Wall Street rushed in behind Boris Yeltsin and Russian oligarchs to asset strip virtually the entire country, impoverishing the population. Amid widespread accounts of this grotesque corruption, Washington intervened in Russian politics to help get Yeltsin re-elected in 1996. The political rise of Vladimir Putin after Yeltsin resigned on New Year’s Eve 1999 reversed this course, restoring Russian sovereignty over its economy and politics. That inflamed Hillary Clinton and other American hawks whose desire was to install another Yeltsin-like figure and resume U.S. exploitation of Russia’s vast natural and financial resources. To advance that cause, U.S. presidents have supported the eastward expansion of NATO and have deployed 30,000 troops on Russia’s border. In 2014, the Obama administration helped orchestrate a coup that toppled the elected government of Ukraine and installed a fiercely anti-Russian regime. The U.S. also undertook the risky policy of aiding jihadists to overthrow a secular Russian ally in Syria. The consequences have brought the world closer to nuclear annihilation than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. In this context, the Democratic Party-led Russia-gate offensive was intended not only to explain away Clinton’s defeat but to stop Trump — possibly via impeachment or by inflicting severe political damage — because he had talked, insincerely it is turning out, about detente with Russia. That did not fit in well with the plan at all. Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist. He has written for the Boston Globe, the Sunday Times of London and the Wall Street Journal among other newspapers. He is the author of How I Lost By Hillary Clinton published by OR Books in June 2017. He can be reached at joelauria at gmail.com and followed on Twitter at @unjoe. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1120 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 21464 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 11673 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 91149 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17758 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 10986 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12763 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20333 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 17 21:12:30 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 21:12:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Tip of the Iceberg: My Lai Fifty Years On: Message-ID: A very long and detailed account, a very bitter account, as it should be…….. Fearless Muckraking Since 1993 [https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2015/05/JoinList-new.png] * HOME * ARTICLES * MAGAZINE * SUBSCRIBE * DONATE * ARCHIVES * ABOUT * BOOKS * PODCASTS * FAQS [Facebook][Twitter][Google+][Reddit][Email] MARCH 16, 2018 The Tip of the Iceberg: My Lai Fifty Years On by MICHAEL UHL FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail[https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2017/09/atoa-print-icon.png] [https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2018/03/Screen-Shot-2018-03-15-at-5.03.57-PM.png] Photo by Ronald L. Haeberle | CC BY 2.0 Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and to act without asking questions. — Primo Levy On March 17th, 1968, The New York Times ran a brief front page lede headed, “G.I.s’ in Pincer Movement Kill 128 in Daylong Battle;” the action took place the previous day roughly eight miles from Quang Ngai City, a provincial capital in the northern coastal quadrant of South Vietnam. Heavy artillery and helicopter gunships had been “called in to pound the North Vietnamese soldiers.” By three in the afternoon the battle had ceased, and “the remaining North Vietnamese had slipped out and fled.” The American side lost only two killed and several wounded. The article, datelined Saigon, had no byline. Its source was an “American military command’s communique,” a virtual press release hurried into print and unfiltered by additional digging. Several days later a more superficially factual telling of this seemingly crushing blow to the enemy was featured in Southern Cross, the weekly newsletter of the Americal Division in whose ‘area of operation’ the ‘day long battle’ had been fought. It was described by Army reporter Jay Roberts, who had been there, as “an attack on a Vietcong stronghold,” not an encounter with North Vietnamese regulars as the Times had misconstrued it. However, Roberts’ article tallied the same high number of enemy dead. When leaned on by Lt. Colonel Frank Barker, who commanded the operation, to downplay the lopsided outcome, Roberts complied, noting blandly that “the assault went off like clockwork.” But certain after action particulars could not be fudged. Roberts was obliged to report that the GIs recovered only “three [enemy] weapons,” a paradox that surely warranted clarification. None was given. It was to be assumed that, either the enemy was poorly armed, or that he had removed the weapons of his fallen comrades – leaving their bodies to be counted – when he retired from the field. Neither of the news outlets cited here, nor Stars and Stripes, the semi-official newspaper of the U. S. Armed Forces which ran with Robert’s account, makes reference to any civilian casualties. It would be nearly eighteen months later when, on September 6, 1969, a front page article in the Ledger-Enquire in Columbus, Georgia reported that the military prosecutor at nearby Ft. Benning – home of the U. S. Army Infantry – was investigating charges against a junior office, Lieutenant William L. Calley, of “multiple murders” of civilians during “an operation at a place called Pinkville,” GI patois for the color denoting manmade features on their topographical maps in a string of coastal hamlets near Quang Ngai. With the story now leaked, if only in the regional papers – it would migrate as well to a daily in Montgomery, Alabama – the Ft. Benning public information officer moved to “keep the story low profile,” and “released a brief statement that The New York Times ran deep inside its September 7, 1969 issue,” limited to three terse paragraphs on a page cluttered with retail advertising. The press announcement from the Army flack had referred only to “the deaths of more than one civilian.” In the nation’s newspaper of record, which also mentioned Calley by name, this delicate ambiguity was multiplied to “an unspecified number of civilians.” Yet, once again, the Times was enlisted to serve the agenda of a military publicist, and failed to approach the story independently. An Army recon commando named Rod Ridenhour had taken it upon himself to do just that. While still serving with the Americal Division’s 11th Light Infantry Brigade from which Task Force Barker – named for its commander – was assembled for the attack on Pinkville, Ridenhour documented accounts of those who had witnessed or participated in a mass killing. A year later in March 1969, now stateside and a civilian, Ridenhour sent “a five page registered letter” summarizing his findings to President Richard Nixon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and select members of the U.S. Congress urging “a widespread and public investigation.” General William Westmoreland, who had commanded U.S. forces in Vietnam until June 1968, reacted to Ridenhour’s allegations with “disbelief.” The accusations were, he told a Congressional committee, “so out of character with American forces in Vietnam that I was quite skeptical.” Nonetheless an inquiry was launched. The Times, although forewarned, had once again squandered a chance to scoop for its global readership what was arguably the most sensational news story of the entire Vietnam War. The two regional reporters had done their legwork, then, bereft of big city resources had nowhere else to go. But in late October, a seasoned freelance journalist in Washington named Seymour Hersh, acting on a colleague’s anonymous tip from inside the military, immediately “stopped all other work and began to chase down the story,” which by mid-November 1969 would be revealed to the American public and the world at large as the My Lai massacre. This outline of the massacre’s initial falsification and suppression, followed by its eventual disclosure, is cobbled from My Lai: Vietnam, 1968, and the Descent into Darkness (Oxford, 2017), a thorough retreatment of the infamous Vietnam War atrocity by Howard Jones, a professor of history at the University of Alabama. The question is, to what end? Has the voluminous, careful study in the literature devoted to the My Lai massacre left something out? It’s not a matter of omissions, the historian argues, but that the record is replete with conflicting interpretations. To tell the “full story” required Jones to reorder events in their “proper sequence,” he says. His other reasons for taking us back to Pinkville are equally vague, and casually embedded among several floating asides in the author’s Acknowledgments. His debts are many, but foremost among them Jones recognizes his Vietnamese-American graduate assistant who “emphasized the importance of incorporating the Vietnamese side into the narrative and remaining objective in telling the story.” I took this profession of objectivity as a signal to be on the alert for its potential subjective or editorial opposite. Jones insists that “everyone who has written… about My Lai has had an agenda.” The suspicion that a subtle revisionist agenda, nurtured perhaps by the resentments of a partisan of the losing side [his assistant], might underlie Jones’ intentions for revisiting this much examined massacre was heightened by the anecdote his tells about his wife’s emotionally fraught response when listening to his grim descriptions of the slaughter. However revolting, the atrocities must be detailed she insists. To do otherwise, the author agrees “would leave the mistaken impression that nothing extraordinary took place at My Lai.” That My Lai was extraordinary I hold beyond dispute. But the privileged attention given to the massacre by historians and other commentators – not to mention its impact on the general public – which by far prefers vivid superlatives to cloudy comparisons – hangs like a curtain and obscures the broader and far grizzlier picture of the U.S. driven horrors of the Vietnam War that were commonplace and quotidian. Would the historian tell that story too, I wondered, as I plunged into his text? Or was the only purpose to take up this subject again five decades on to ensure that the censorious curtain remained firmly in place? Quang Ngai was a hot bed of resistance under the Viet Minh independence movement during French colonial rule. With the transition to the American War, resistance fighters – now reconstituted as the National Liberation Front, or Viet Cong – remained capable of striking at will throughout the province, which, until 1967, was under the jurisdiction of the South Vietnamese Army. But the American command found its native allies unreliable, without ever asking if perhaps their reluctance to challenge the local resistance rested, not on fear or cowardice, but familiarity or even kinship. U.S. soldiers possessed no such scruples. After “intelligence sources” targeted the area around My Lai as “an enemy bastion for mounting attacks” on Quang Ngai City and its surroundings, American forces were concentrated under Task Force Barker, “a contingent of five hundred soldiers” to bring the troublesome province under control of the government of South Vietnam.[i] On the evening before the assault, Captain Earnest Medina – like Calley a principal target of the Army’s subsequent investigation – briefed the hundred men of Charlie Company under his command. “We’re going to Pinkville tomorrow… after the 48th Battalion,” he told them. “The landing zone will be hot. And they outnumber us two to one… expect heavy casualties.” Charlie Company had already taken “heavy casualties” in the two months they’d been humping the boonies of Quang Ngai. The local guerrilla unit, the lethal, elusive 48th, was all the more feared since the GIs had never seem the face of a single combatant behind the sniper bullets or booby traps that bloodied and killed their comrades. “By the last week of February,” Harold Jones reckons, “resentment and hostility had spread among the GI’s, aimed primarily at the villagers.” Pinkville had been declared a free fire zone. The mission for the assault was to search and destroy. If the soldiers encountered non-combatant villagers the text book regulations dictated they be detained and interrogated as to the whereabouts of the enemy, and then moved to safety in the rear. But the various strands of intelligence-gathering that guided Task Force Barker were interpreted to suggest there would be no non-combatants, because the villagers had been warned to evacuate, or, given that the assault was on a Saturday, those residents who’d defied evacuation would be off to the market in Quang Ngai City. This was all Intel double talk. The true military objective was that the residents have no village to return to because the GIs were primed to slay all livestock, lay waste to every dwelling and defensive bunker, destroy the crops and foul the wells, that is, to ensure that My Lai and its contiguous hamlets were left uninhabitable, and thus utterly untenable as bases to support the guerrillas. Beginning just before 8 a.m. on March 16th, the three platoons of Charlie Company were airlifted to the fringes of the Vietnamese hamlets where they expected to encounter fierce enemy resistance. The hail of bullets from helicopter gunships that churned up the earth around them and aimed at suppressing potential enemy fire, created for many of these soldiers who had never experienced combat the impression that they’d been dropped in the midst of the “hot landing zone” Captain Medina had promised them. But as Army photographer Ron Haeberle, assigned to document the assault, would later testify, there was “no hostile fire.” The headquarters of the 48thand what remained of its fighters had taken refuge west into the mountains after being decimated during the Tet Offensive a month before. And the few VC who had been visiting their families around My Lai, hardly ignorant of American movements, had gotten out by dawn on the 16th. In a state of confusion as to exactly what they were facing, Charlie Company’s platoons stepped off from opposing positons to sweep through the village, already partially damaged by artillery, intending to squeeze the enemy between them. Instead they soon confronted, not the guerrilla fighters they were sent to dislodge, but scores of inhabitants who weren’t supposed to be there. GIs immediately shot several villagers who panicked and attempted to flee. In this war such trigger happy killings were not far from the norm. But Lieutenant Calley “had interpreted Medina’s briefing to mean that they were to kill everyone in the village… Since it was impossible to distinguish between friend and foe, the only conclusion was to presume all Vietnamese were Viet Cong and to kill them all.” Calley, moreover, was being relentlessly spurred by Medina over the radio to quicken the pace of the 1st platoon’s forward sweep, and therefore, would later claim, he could neither evacuate the non-combatants, nor, for reasons of security, leave them to his rear. Jones offers from the record a facsimile of the field radio transmission between Calley and his commander: “What are you doing now?” Medina asked. “I’m getting ready to go.” “Now damn it! I told you now. Get your men in position now.” “And these people, they aren’t moving too swiftly.” “I don’t want that crap. Now damn it, waste all those goddamn people! And get in the damn position.” “Roger.” The idea of questioning orders, comments Jones dryly, never crossed Calley’s mind, particularly during combat. One brief panel of the horror show will suffice to roil the imagination toward grasping what Jones styles a ‘descent into darkness,” which, given the scale of the ensuing carnage that morning, has elevated the My Lai massacre to the extraordinary status in the Vietnam War that history has bestowed upon it. Calley, in the grip of all his embedded demons – his mental and moral mediocrity, his cracker barrel knee jerk racism, his incompetence as a leader, his slavish kowtowing to authority which clearly disgusted his commander and his troops, everything that conspired to create the monster that was him – returned from his latest whipping by Medina to where one group of villagers sat on the ground, and demanded of two members of his platoon, “How come you ain’t killed them yet?” The men explained they understood only that they were to guard them. “No,” Calley said, “I want them dead… When I say fire… fire at them.” Calley and, Paul Meadlo – whose name would became almost as closely associated with the massacre as Calley’s – “a bare ten feet from their terrified targets… set their M-16s on automatic… and sprayed clip after clip of deadly fire into their screaming and defenseless victims… At this point, a few children who had somehow escaped the torrent of gunfire struggled to their feet… Calley methodically picked off the children one by one… He looks like he’s enjoying it,” one soldier remarked, who moments before had been prevented by Calley from forcing a young woman’s face into his crotch, but who now refused to shoot. The mass killing, which Harold Jones parades scene by scene with exhaustive precision, was repeated throughout the morning until the bodies of hundreds of villagers lay scattered across the landscape. Not just those killed by Calley’s platoon, but by others throughout the rest of Charlie Company. And not just at My Lai 4, but also at My Khe 4 several miles distant by members of Bravo Company. “In not a few cases, women and girls were raped before they were killed.” Jones dutifully chronicles the accounts of the few who resolutely refused to shoot, and of one man who blasted his own foot with a .45 to escape the depravity. “Everyone except a few of us was shooting,” Pfc. Dennis Bunning of the second platoon would later testify. But there was another man that morning who didn’t just seek to avoid the killing, he attempted to stop it. Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson piloted his observation helicopter, a three seater with a crewmember on each flank armed with a machine gun, several hundred feet above My Lai. Thompson’s mission was to fly low and mark with smoke grenades any source of enemy fire, which would prompt the helicopter gunships tiered above him – known as Sharks – to swoop down and dispense their massive fire power on the target. Spotting a large number of civilian bodies in a ditch, Thompson at first suspected they’d been killed by the incoming artillery. Hovering near the ground for a closer look Thompson and his crew, Gary Andreotta and Larry Colburn, were stunned to witness Captain Medina shoot a wounded woman who was lying at his feet. Banking closer to the ditch, Thompson “estimated he saw 150 dead and dying Vietnamese babies, women and children and old men… and watched in disbelief as soldiers shot survivors trying to crawl out.” Against regulations, Thompson landed and confronted Lieutenant Calley, asking him to help the wounded and radio for their evacuation. Calley made it clear he resented the pilot’s interference and would do no such thing. Thompson stormed away furiously warning Calley “he hadn’t heard the last of this.” With Medina again at his heels, Calley ordered his sergeant “to finish off the wounded,” and just as Thompson was taking off the killing resumed. Aloft again Thompson saw “a small group… of women and children scurrying toward a bunker just outside My Lai 4… and about ten soldiers in pursuit,” and felt “compelled… to take immediate action.” He again put his craft down, jumped out between the civilians and the oncoming members of the second platoon led by Lieutenant Stephen Brooks. When Thompson asked Brooks to help evacuate the Vietnamese from the bunker, Brooks told him he would do so with a grenade. The two men screamed at each other. Like Calley, Brooks was unyielding, and Thompson warned his two gunners, now standing outside the chopper, “to prepare for a confrontation.” “I’m going to go over to the bunker myself and get those people out. If they [the soldiers] fire on those people or fire on me while I’m doing that. Shoot ‘em.” That moment has been cast in the My Lai literature as a classic armed standoff. But Thompson’s two gunners had not aimed their weapons at Brooks and his men who stood fifty yards away, a bit of manufactured drama several chroniclers of that confrontation, among them Sy Hersh, have chiseled into the record. Harold Jones in this instance had gone beyond the dogged task of compilation. While researching his book, he had spent many hours with Larry Colburn, and befriended him. And it was Larry who told Jones that he and Andreotta did not aim their weapons directly at the soldiers who faced them. They tried to stare then down, “while carefully pointing their weapons to the ground in case one of them accidentally went off.” This verisimilitude restores a dimension of realism to a scene imagined by those who’d never been soldiers. Checking Brooks, but failing to get his cooperation, Thompson took another extraordinary step. He radioed Warrant Officer Danny Millians, one of the pilots of the gunships, and convinced him to also defy the protocols against landing in a free fire zone. Then, in two trips, Millians used the Shark to transport the nine rescued Vietnamese, including five children, to safety. Making one final pass over the ditch where he’d locked horns with Calley, Thompson “hovered low… searching for signs of life while flinching at the sight of headless children.” Thompson landed a third time, remaining at the controls. He watched as Colburn, from the side of the ditch, grabbed hold of a boy that Andreotta, blood spilling from his boots, had pulled from among a pile of corpses. Do Hoa, a boy of eight, had survived. Livid and in great distress at what he had witnessed, Thompson, on returning to base, and in the company of the two gunship pilots, made their superior, Major Frederic Watke, immediately aware of “the mass murder going on out there.” From that moment, every step taken to probe and verify “the substance of Thompson’s charges almost instantly came into dispute.” Although Watke would later tell investigators he believed Thompson was “over-portraying” the killings” owing to his “limited combat experience,” the major had realized that the mere charge of war crimes obliged him “to seek an impartial inquiry at the highest level.” The Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) required that field commanders investigate “all known, suspected or alleged war crimes or atrocities… Failure to [do so] was a punishable offense.” Having reported Thompson’s allegations to Task Force commander Barker, Watke had fulfilled this duty. But there was a Catch-22 permitting command authority to ignore the MACV directive if they “thought” a war crime had not been committed. The trick here was for Barker and several other ranking officer in the division and brigade chain of command to assess if civilians had been killed during the assault, and if so, how many. Captain Medina – in addition to contributing to the fictional enemy body count – would supply a figure of “thirty civilians killed by artillery.” The division chaplain would characterize these deaths as “tragic… an operational mistake… in a combat operation.” For this line of argument to carry, however, it had been necessary for the commander of the Americal Division, Major General Samuel Koster, the “field commander” who alone possessed the authority to prevent the accusations from going higher, to put his own head deep into the sand. When Colonel Orin Henderson, who commanded the 11th Infantry Brigade from which Medina’s Charlie Company had been detailed to the Task Force, ordered LTC Barker in the late afternoon of March 16th to send Charlie Company back to My Lai 4 to “make a detailed report of the number of men, women and children killed and how they died, along with another search for weapons… Medina strongly objected.” It would be too dangerous, he said, to move his men “in the dark through a heavily mined and booby trapped area… where the Vietcong could launch a surprise attack.” Monitoring the transmission between Barker and Medina, General Koster countermanded Henderson’s order. Later claiming he was “concerned for the safety of the troops,” Koster saw “no reason to go look at that mess.” Medina’s estimate of the number of civilian deaths, Koster ruled, was “about right.” Not only had Koster’s snap judgement given Barker license to cook up the initial battlefield fantasy of 128 enemy dead, it ensured that the internal investigations into the charges of “mass murder,” notably by Henderson and other high ranking members of Koster’s staff, would not deviate from the conclusion voiced by the division commander. By navigating each twisting curve along a well camouflaged path toward the fictive end those in command were seeking, Harold Jones lays bare a virtual text book case of conspiracy, which must be read in its entirety to capture the intricate web of fabrication and self-deception the conspirators constructed to assure themselves the crypt of the cover-up had been sealed.[ii] When discussing the massacre later at an inquiry, the Americal Division chaplain, faithful to the Army but not his higher calling, claimed that, had a massacre been common knowledge, it would have come out. That the massacre was “common knowledge” to the Vietnamese throughout Quang Ngai Province on both sides of the conflict (not to mention among their respective leadership on up to Hanoi and Saigon) goes without saying. Indeed low ranking local South Vietnamese officials attempted to stir public outrage about the massacre (not to mention negotiate the urgent remedy of compensation for the victims), and were suppressed by the Quang Ngai Province Chief, a creature of the Saigon government who fed at the trough of U.S. materiel and did not wish to risk the good will of his American sponsors. My Lai was quickly recast as communist propaganda, pure and simple. While this proved a viable method of suppression for South Vietnamese authorities, it could not still tales of the massacre in the scuttlebutt of the soldiers who had been there, who had carried it out. From motives said to be high minded, but not fueled by an anti-military agenda, and in the piecemeal fact-gathering manner typical of any investigation, the whistleblower Ron Ridenhour had thus resurrected the buried massacre, and bestowed on Sy Hersh the journalistic coup of a lifetime. As the articles and newscasts about what took place at My Lai were cascaded before the public in November 1969, efforts to manage the political fallout by various levels of government were accelerated with corresponding intensity. Pushing back at the center of that storm were Richard Nixon and other members of the Executive; congressional committees in both the House and Senate; and not least, and in some cases with considerably more integrity than their civilian political masters, members of the professional military. Not surprisingly, if one understands anything about American society, a substantial portion of the public, in fact its majority, expressed far greater sympathy for William Calley than for his victims. One could cite endemic American racism as a contributing factor for this unseemly lack of human decency. More broadly speaking, an explanation less charged by aggression would point to a level of provincialism that apparently can only afflict a nation as relatively pampered as my own. In such an arrangement, turning a blind eye for expedience sake toward the pursuit of global power, consequences be damned, is as good as a national pastime. Despite the spontaneous public sympathy for Calley, Nixon, fretted that news of My Lai would strengthen the antiwar movement and “increase the opposition to America’s involvement in Vietnam.” Nixon, true to form, lashed out with venom at the otherness of his liberal enemies. “It’s those dirty rotten Jews in New York who are behind this,” Nixon ranted, learning that Hersh’s investigation had been subsidized by the Edgar B. Stern Family Fund, “clearly left-wing and anti-Administration.” Nixon was strongly pressed to “attack those who attack him… by dirty tricks… discredit one witness [Thompson] and highlight the atrocities committed by the Viet Cong.” Only Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird seemed to grasp that manipulation of public opinion would not perfume the stink of My Lai. The public might tolerate “a little of this,” Laird mused, “but you shouldn’t kill that many.” There was apprehension in the White House because calls for a civilian commission had begun to escalate. Habituated to work the dark side, and unbeknownst to his Secretary of Defense, Nixon formed a secret task force “that would seek to sabotage the investigative process by undermining the credibility of all those making massacre charges.” Nixon found a staunch ally for this strategy in Mendel Rivers, the “hawkish” Mississippi Democrat who chaired the House Armed Services Committee. As evidence from the military’s internal inquiries mounted to prove the contrary, members of River’s committee sought to establish that no massacre had occurred, and that the only legitimate targets of interest were Hugh Thompson and Larry Colburn (Gary Andreotta having been killed in an air crash soon after the massacre), who were pilloried at a closed hearing, virtually accused of treason for turning their guns on fellow Americans. During a televised news conference on December 8th – with Calley’s court martial already under way for three weeks – Nixon announced that he had rejected calls for an independent commission to investigate what he now admitted for the first time “appears to have been a massacre.” The President would rely instead on the military’s judicial process to bring “this incident completely before the public.” The message the Administration and its pro-war allies would thenceforth steam shovel into the media mainstream wherever the topic was raised, was that My Lai was “an isolated incident,” and by no means a reflection of our “national policy” in Vietnam. As maneuvers to re-consign the massacre to oblivion faltered, the Army was just then launching a commission of its own under a three-star general, William Peers, whose initial charge was to disentangle the elaborate cover-up within the Americal Division that had kept the massacre from exposure for almost two years. In order to reconcile the divergent testimonies among its witnesses, the scope of the Peers Commission soon necessarily expanded to gather a complete picture of the event the cover-up sought to erase. The Army’s criminal investigation by the CID, on which charges could be based, and which would guide any eventual legal proceedings, continued on a separate track and beyond the public eye as a matter of due process. After Lieutenant General Peers had submitted the commission’s preliminary report, Secretary of the Army, Stanley Resor moved to soften the “abrupt and brutal” language. He requested that Peers not refer “to the victims as elderly men, women, children and babies,” but as “noncombatant casualties.” And might Peers “also be less graphic in describing the rapes?” Resor further edited the word “massacre” from the report, and when presenting it to the press, had the chair of his commission describe My Lai rather as “a tragedy of major proportions.” Peers was reportedly indignant, but complied. It required no such compulsion to ensure that Peers toe the line on a far more central theme. Responding to questions from the media, Peers insisted there had been no cover-up at higher levels of command beyond the Americal Division, and echoed his Commander in Chief’s mantra that My Lai was an isolated incident. When Peers was questioned about what took place at My Khe that same day, he insisted it was inseparable from what occurred at My Lai. No reporter followed up with a challenge to that assertion. Investigators had a long list of suspects deployed at My Lai and My Khe in Task Force Barker, as well as those throughout the Americal chain of command, who they believed should be charged and tried. Some forty enlisted men were named, along with more than a dozen commissioned officers. [iii] Only six among them, two sergeants and four officers would ultimately stand trial. There would be no opportunity to enlarge the scope of the massacre through the spectacle of a mass trial that would, moreover, conjure images of Nuremburg and Tokyo where America dispensed harsh justice on its defeated enemies only two decades earlier. It was agreed upon by both Nixon and the Pentagon Chiefs that defendants would be tried separately and at a spread of different Army bases. If the elaborate subterfuge employed to cover-up the massacre had been the work of individuals desperate to protect their professional military careers, the court martial proceedings reveal how an entire institution operates to protect itself. George Clemenceau, French Prime Minister during the First World War, is credited with the droll observation that ‘military music is to music what military justice is to justice.” Harold Jones, using the idiom of the historian, demonstrates in his summaries of the trials the disturbing reality behind Clemenseau’s quip. First before the bar at Fort Hood, Texas in November 1969 was Calley’s platoon sergeant David Mitchell, that witnesses described as someone who carried out the lieutenant’s orders with a particular gusto. Then in January it was Sergeant Charles Hutto’s turn at Fort McPhearson, Georgia. Hutto had admitted turning his machine gun on a group of unarmed civilians. These two men were so patently guilty in the eyes of their own comrades that theirs were among the strongest cases the investigators had constructed for the prosecution. Both men were acquitted in trials that can only be described as judicial parodies. At Mitchell’s trial the judge, ruling on a technicality, did not allow the prosecution to call witnesses with the most damning testimony, like Hugh Thompson. Hutto had declared in court that “it was murder,” but claimed “we were doing it because we had been told.” When the jury refused to convict him because Hutto had not known that some orders could be illegal, Harold Jones nails how the court was sanctioning “the major argument that had failed to win acquittal at Nuremburg.” Shortly after Hutto’s trial, the Army dropped all charges against the remaining soldiers, fearing their claims to have been following orders would likewise find merit in the prevailing temper of the military juries. Heeding the judicial trend, Lieutenant General Jonathan Seaman, a regional commander exercising jurisdiction over officers above the rank of captain, dropped all charges against Major General Koster. By some opaque calculation which convinced no one, Seaman had concluded that Koster was not guilty of “intentional abrogation of responsibilities.” A hue and cry followed in the press and on Capitol Hill denouncing Seaman for “a white wash of the top man.” The outcry did prod the Pentagon to take punitive action against Koster. The general had already been dismissed as the commandant of West Point, and he was now demoted to brigadier general and stripped of his highest commendation. Seaman informed Koster through internal channels that he held him “personally responsible” for My Lai, a kind of symbolic snub among gentlemen. But in exonerating the Americal commander, Seaman had, by design it can be argued, inoculated the higher reaches of command straight up to General Westmoreland from being held responsible for the actions of their subordinates, a blatant act of duplicity in light of the ruling at the Tokyo trials following World War II where lack of knowledge of atrocities committed by his troops had not prevented General Yamaschita from being hanged. With Calley’s court martial already in progress, only three other officers, Medina and the Task Force Barker intelligence officer, Captain Eugene Kotouc, for war crimes, and 11th Brigade commander Henderson, for the cover-up, remained to be tried. Harold Jones deftly unspools how the flawed and self-protective system of military justice enabled trial judges in each case to provide improvised instructions to their juries which had all but dictated the acquittal of all three men. Kotouc had been charged with murdering a prisoner, whom, given the available evidence, he almost certainly had; still the jury found him not guilty in less than an hour. Asked if he would stay in the military, Kotouc gushed, “Who would get out of a system like this… it’s the best damn army in the world.”[iv] Henderson’s and Medina’s trials were media spectacles in their own right, but mere side shows compared with the main event at Fort Benning, Georgia. The Calley trial opened in November, soon after the My Lai revelation. By the middle of March when the talented young prosecutor, Captain Aubrey Daniel, began his closing argument, a great majority of Americans had been glued to the courtroom drama for four months. Calley had a courtly elderly gent, George Latimer, a former Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, and later an original member of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, to lead his defense. Clearly Latimer knew his way around the arcana of military justice; moreover as a veteran of World War II who had achieved the rank of colonel, he was of the very caste. Latimer was confident he’d prevail. As the trial progressed, the testimony of nearly one hundred witnesses so prejudiced his client that Latimer desperately veered the defense toward an insanity plea, a strategy which founded after three Army psychiatrists judged the accused to possess “the mental capacity to premeditate.” Finally Calley took the witness stand and quickly blundered. Under a rigorous cross-examination, Captain Daniel marched Calley back across the killing fields of Pinkville, at each step recapping eyewitness accounts, including the testimony of Hugh Thompson. Before he grasped the significance of his misstep, Calley had confessed to shooting into the ditch filled with Vietnamese victims. The verdict seemed ordained. Yet, it was no slam dunk for the prosecution. The jury took eighty hours to deliberate, in the end finding Calley guilty of murder by a vote of four to two, one ballot shy of a mistrial, if not an outright acquittal. As a capital felony, Calley might have received the death penalty, but Daniel argued only for life imprisonment. On March 29, 1970 the judge agreed and passed sentence. Calley appeared shaken as he faced the court. Surely the shrinks had gotten it wrong in not certifying a case of mental dissociation as acutely obvious as Calley’s? He seemed the perfect robotic tool of the Cold War. Hadn’t he been madly insisting all along that he had not been killing humans, but only communists, including babes at the breast who would grow up one day to be communists themselves? Then again, maybe Calley wasn’t as clueless and out of touch as he came across. In addressing the judge at sentencing, one could read in Calley’s plea, “I beg you… do not strip future soldiers of their honor” as he had been stripped of his, a message defending the common man and shrewdly aimed at a wider audience beyond the courtroom that the defendant must have known was substantially in his corner. The polls quickly confirmed this. 79% of the public opposed the conviction. Across an ideological divide embracing both the war’s supporters and opponents, a large majority saw Calley as a scapegoat, one man custom-made to bear the blame for the entire Vietnam fiasco. Nixon played this public frustration to his advantage. There was little opposition when the President saw fit to have the prisoner removed from the stockade, where he’d spent just one night, and returned to his own Ft. Benning apartment. Calley would serve only three and a half years under house arrest before going free, but, after the trial, he quickly faded into anonymity. At the While House, only a week after the verdict, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger reassured Nixon that “the public furor… [had] quieted down… Let the judicial process… take its normal course,” counselled Kissinger. Liberal efforts to stir “a feeling of revulsion against the deed,” and turn the trial into a referendum against the war, had failed. “In fact the deed itself didn’t bother anybody,” Kissinger added. “No,” Nixon agreed, picking up eagerly on his advisor’s cynical drift. “The public said, ‘Sure he was guilty but, by God, why not?’ ” Both laughed.[v] The “deed” these two twisted political misanthropes found so amusing is memorialized at a shrine today in the My Lai township listing the names of the massacre’s 504 victims, more than half of whom were under the age of twenty, to include “forty-nine teenagers, 160 aged four to twelve, and fifty who were three years old or younger.” In reflecting on the sordid tale he has chosen to historicize anew, and on its reduction by the U.S. political and military establishments to a judicial farce, Harold Jones explains how, “My Lai made it imperative nonetheless that the army institute major changes in training.” And further that “to understand the importance of restraint in combat, soldiers and officers must learn to disobey illegal orders… and the importance of distinguishing between ‘unarmed civilians… and the people who are shooting at us.’ ” Jones documents the extensive effort undertaken to incorporate this thinking by updating the rules of war, to “make them more specific, then teach, follow and enforce them.” But in examining the next most infamous atrocity of modern memory committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib during the recent Iraq War, Jones concludes that “the central problem… lies less in writing new laws and regulations than in having officers who enforce those already in effect.” That officers may not be inclined to such enforcement underscores the apparently insoluble dilemma of an autocratic institution, the military, at the heart of a civilian democracy to which it is, in principle, subordinate. But we have already been shown over a panoply of legal proceedings that, at least in its capacity to dispense justice, the military is a power unto itself.[vi] Jones does not follow that thought directly, but rather indulges in a philosophical aside which dilutes the unhappy subject of his history in the horrors that attend all wars, concluding darkly that, in the right situation, we are all “one step away from My Lai.” It’s not that the historian entirely buys Nixon’s aberration line; Jones does refer to other reported atrocities in VN. But he does buy Peers’ “right situation” explanation for why My Lai stands out, quoting the Peers Commission report that “none of the other [investigated] crimes even remotely approached the magnitude… of My Lai.” That would depend on how one defines “magnitude.” Peers had failed to do the math, and so has Jones. The American invasion, and occupation for over a decade, left a trail of bloodshed and destruction throughout Vietnam that led elements of the antiwar movement worldwide to level the charge of genocide against the U.S. What one pro-war historian lamented as a veritable “war crimes industry,” had sprung up within the U.S., not from the campuses of the middle class protestors, but among the ranks of returning veterans, who for roughly two years after My Lai was exposed, brought accounts of atrocities they had participated in or witnessed before the American public. Harold Jones, to demonstrate historical balance, provides a cursory account of this effort, referring to a “sizeable segment of Vietnam veterans who considered… that My Lai was not an isolated incident and that Calley had become a scapegoat for the high ranking civilian and military officials who drew up the policies responsible for the atrocities.” Having already established that Nixon denied the link between My Lai and “national policy,” Jones does not engage the argument further. But the war veterans (including the present writer) were not suggesting that the policy of genocide was etched in a secret covenant buried in a Pentagon vault. We were saying, in effect, don’t just look at the record body count attached to the slaughter at Pinkville, and imagine you have a true picture of American crimes in that war. Count the day to day toll of Vietnamese civilian deaths that resulted from premeditated frames like “mass population transfers” – the Strategic Hamlet program, or “chemical warfare” – the saturation of the countryside with phenoxy herbicides like Agent Orange, that were already prohibited by the conventions of war to which the U.S. was a signatory. Other strategic tools, the Air War, and the relentless, not atypically indiscriminate, bombardment by artillery and naval guns, were employed by American forces against the “unpacified” countryside with unprecedented savagery.[vii] While these displays of massive fire power are thought to have created the highest proportion of civilian casualties during the war, the battlefield tactics – search and destroy operations in free fire zones, systematic torture and murder of prisoners, the “mere gook rule,” that turned every dead Vietnamese into an enemy body count, were a close second. These are facts available to anyone who cares to know them [viii] In both detail and presentation Harold Jones, with My Lai: Vietnam, 1968 ,and the Descent into Darkness, has produced a work of considerable value, and it is fair to acknowledge that the work, as recently characterized in a brief note by the New York Times Book Review, must now be considered the standard reference for the massacre. As for the scale and volume of terrors inflicted on the Vietnamese people during the American War, Jones, hewing close to official doctrine in the U.S., fails to acknowledge that My Lai was just the tip of the iceberg. [ix] Michael Uhl served with the 11th Light Infantry Brigade as leader of a combat intelligence team eight months after the My Lai massacre. On return from Vietnam he joined the antiwar movement, and organized fellow veterans to make public their personal accounts of American atrocities in Vietnam. He presents this history in the war memoir, Vietnam Awakening (McFarland, 2007). Notes. [i]. Heonik Kwon, in his study, After the Massacre: Commemoration and Consolation in Ha My and My Lai (University of California Press, 2006), attributed to allied forces operating in Quang Ngai Province, notably units of the ROK (Republic of Korea) Marines (p.44), “at least six large scale civilian massacres during the first three months of 1968… Two secret reports made by the district communist cells to the provincial authority recorded nineteen incidents of mass killings during this short period. The tragedy of mass killings had already been witnessed in Quang Ngai in 1966.” In their recent documentary film series on the Vietnam War, Ken Burns and Lynn Novick reported that no province suffered more than Quang Ngai during the war, and no place was more dangerous for operating militarily. [ii]. The author’s account of the cover-up reads as definitive; Harold Jones here follows closely Seymour M. Hersh in Cover Up (Random House, 1972). [iii]. This would not include Barker, himself, who had died a month after the massacre when his helicopter crashed during a combat mission. [iv]. This quote (p. 347) is from Four Hours in My Lai, by Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim, (Penguin, 1993), the standard work on the massacre for the past twenty-five years. [v]. Harold Jones is reporting here from what he heard on the Nixon tapes recorded on April 8, 1971. [vi] . One portrait of what has been called the West Point Protective Association embodying the Army’s Spartan ethic, can be found in a highly charged expose, co-authored by a former academy graduate, West Point: America’s Power Fraternity, by Bruce Calloway and Robert Bowie Johnson (Simon and Schuster, 1973). [vii]. An extensive account of the Air War in Quang Ngai Province is found in The Real War by Jonathan Schell (Da Capo Press, 1988). [viii]. The Vietnam Memorial Wall in Washington, D.C. with the names of the 58,282 American war dead is 475 feet long; a wall inscribed with the names of the Vietnamese war dead would go on for miles. [ix]. Herbicide poisoning and unexploded ordnance are legacy issues of the war that continue to take their toll on Vietnamese victims to this day. A version of this essay appeared in the February / April 2018 edition of the Mekong Review. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 17 22:16:58 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 22:16:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The campaign over the Scribal poisoning: An international war provocation Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » The campaign over the Skripal poisoning: An international war provocation 17 March 2018 The campaign by the imperialist powers in Europe and the United States over the poisoning of former Russian spy and British double agent Sergei Skripal stinks to high heaven. The most far-reaching claims are being made, with the most far-reaching consequences, without any substantiation. The propaganda offensive is not about what may or may not have happened in a park in Salisbury, England on March 4. It is about creating the pretext for a massive escalation of the war drive in Syria, the broader Middle East, and against Russia itself. When Skripal and his daughter were first discovered on a park bench, the police declared that establishing what had happened would take weeks, if not months. The British government, however, has wrapped up the case far more quickly than any conventional criminal inquiry. On March 12, Prime Minister Theresa May’s declared that Russia was “highly likely” to have been responsible for “an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom.” This has been followed by the declaration of UK Foreign Minister Boris Johnson Friday that “our quarrel is with Putin’s Kremlin, and with his decision—and we think it overwhelmingly likely that it was his decision—to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the UK.” The assertions of the British government were endorsed by the US, France and Germany on Thursday, which declared the poisoning “the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War.” "It certainly looks like the Russians were behind it,” Trump declared on Thursday, with the administration announcing new sanctions against Russia. The rapidity with which the major imperialist policies have signed on to the statements of the UK makes clear that a plan was worked out beforehand. It required only the appropriate occasion to unveil it. The story as told by the UK government is full of contradictions, without a shred of probative evidence. The entire pretext is based on the analysis coming out of Porton Down, the biochemical warfare facility dedicated to developing weapons of mass destruction, which is located only 10 miles from Salisbury. After first asserting that the poison was a nerve gas like Sarin or VX, the agency now claims that the toxic agent is “of a type developed by Russia,” namely Novichok. As former UK ambassador and author Craig Murray has noted, the phrase “of a type developed by Russia” is carefully chosen. He cited a source within the British government as confirming that “Porton Down scientists are not able to identify the nerve gas as being of Russian manufacture, and have been resentful of the pressuring being placed on them to do so.” Even if one were to accept the conclusion of the British government about the use of Novichok—and it has refused to provide samples to Russia or anyone else—this does not constitute proof that Russia directed the attack. The chemical was researched during the era of the Soviet Union. There is no evidence that Russia ever produced it, and it could just as easily have been manufactured in London, Langley or one of the states in the former Soviet Union that are now bitterly hostile to Russia. And if a Russian was in fact involved, this is a far cry from proving the responsibility of the Russian government. The Russian government has strenuously denied any involvement. Presidential press secretary Dmitri Peskov said on Friday, “In international practice we never encountered such behavior at the state level when very serious accusations are being brought up against a country—our country in this case—with such wording as ‘apparently,’ ‘most likely’ and so on.” Such an approach, he noted, “contradicts not only international law, but common sense as a whole.” The Putin regime is deeply reactionary, governing on behalf of a criminal financial oligarchy that grew rich by plundering the assets of the former Soviet Union. But there is no proof that it was involved in the attack on Skripal and many reasons to question why it would want do so, as it provides a ready-made pretext for aggression by the US and Europe. From the standpoint of who benefits, the most likely guilty parties in the Skripal affair are London and Washington, rather than Moscow. They are furious that the Russian government is obstructing their operations in Syria, aimed at removing the Assad government and setting up a puppet regime. The events of the past two weeks were preceded by a significant escalation in Syria. On February 7, US warplanes and artillery batteries carried out a massacre in the north-eastern province of Deir Ezzor—knowing that the bulk of hundreds of casualties would be Russian mercenaries. On February 25, the Trump administration declared that it no longer needed further approval for a vast expansion of military operations against Syria and its allies, including Iran. Preparations have also been made for a direct conflict with Russia itself. It was only on January 19 that US Defence Secretary James Mattis announced a new National Defence Strategy that declared, “Great power competition—not terrorism—is now the primary focus of US national security.” All the governments involved in the present campaign are warmongering regimes, run by the military-intelligence agencies. They all, moreover, face deep internal crises. The UK is riven by internal conflicts over Brexit. The Trump administration in the US staggers from crisis to crisis and is currently carrying out a purge of top government officials. In Germany, the major parties have finally formed a government, nearly six months after elections in September—the last piece of the political machinery required to secure the US-led anti-Russian alliance now in operation. In addition to justifying the expansion of war abroad, the campaign against Russia provides a pretext for an escalation of attacks on democratic rights at home. In the United States, the campaign over “Russian meddling” has already been used by the ruling class—led by the Democratic Party and the CIA—with the pretext for censoring the Internet. March 20 marks the 15th anniversary of the launching of the 2003 Iraq war based on a torrent of lies. As part of a concerted campaign to “prove” the existence of weapons of mass destruction, the US and UK spent months manufacturing intelligence, producing two “dodgy dossiers,” and even sending in weapons inspectors to Iraq. After these inspectors found no evidence of a nuclear or chemical weapons programme, on February 5, US Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations to present his infamous and wholly manufactured slide show, purporting to show photographic “evidence” of Iraq hiding unconventional weapons. On March 18, on this basis, the Labour government of Tony Blair committed the UK to support a US-led war. The same playbook is being used again, only the case now being made against Russia regarding Skripal is even flimsier than that offered up to justify war against Iraq. Within the political establishments in all the imperialist powers involved, there is no significant opposition to the present disastrous course. The Labour Party in Britain, like the Democrats in the US, are the most bellicose advocates of anti-Russian measures. In the media, not a single major publication has come out against the filthy campaign waged because the hallowed “free press” is nothing but a mouthpiece of the financial oligarchy and its drive to seize the markets and resources of the entire world. The working class can only combat the growing danger of war by its own independent political action, in opposition to all parties of the ruling class. The formation of a new anti-war movement, uniting the great mass of working people and youth in opposition to capitalism and imperialism, is the most urgent political task. Chris Marsden WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Mar 17 22:50:16 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The campaign over the Scribal poisoning: An international war provocation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ...From the standpoint of who benefits, the most likely guilty parties in the Skripal affair are London and Washington, rather than Moscow. They are furious that the Russian government is obstructing their operations in Syria, aimed at removing the Assad government and setting up a puppet regime. The events of the past two weeks were preceded by a significant escalation in Syria. On February 7, US warplanes and artillery batteries carried out a massacre in the north-eastern province of Deir Ezzor—knowing that the bulk of hundreds of casualties would be Russian mercenaries. On February 25, the Trump administration declared that it no longer needed further approval for a vast expansion of military operations against Syria and its allies, including Iran. Preparations have also been made for a direct conflict with Russia itself. It was only on January 19 that US Defence Secretary James Mattis announced a new National Defence Strategy that declared, “Great power competition—not terrorism—is now the primary focus of US national security.” All the governments involved in the present campaign are warmongering regimes, run by the military-intelligence agencies. They all, moreover, face deep internal crises. The UK is riven by internal conflicts over Brexit. The Trump administration in the US staggers from crisis to crisis and is currently carrying out a purge of top government officials. In Germany, the major parties have finally formed a government, nearly six months after elections in September—the last piece of the political machinery required to secure the US-led anti-Russian alliance now in operation. In addition to justifying the expansion of war abroad, the campaign against Russia provides a pretext for an escalation of attacks on democratic rights at home. In the United States, the campaign over “Russian meddling” has already been used by the ruling class—led by the Democratic Party and the CIA—with the pretext for censoring the Internet. March 20 marks the 15th anniversary of the launching of the 2003 Iraq war based on a torrent of lies. As part of a concerted campaign to “prove” the existence of weapons of mass destruction, the US and UK spent months manufacturing intelligence, producing two “dodgy dossiers,” and even sending in weapons inspectors to Iraq. After these inspectors found no evidence of a nuclear or chemical weapons programme, on February 5, US Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations to present his infamous and wholly manufactured slide show, purporting to show photographic “evidence” of Iraq hiding unconventional weapons. On March 18, on this basis, the Labour government of Tony Blair committed the UK to support a US-led war. The same playbook is being used again, only the case now being made against Russia regarding Skripal is even flimsier than that offered up to justify war against Iraq… ### > On Mar 17, 2018, at 5:16 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The campaign over the Skripal poisoning: An international war provocation > 17 March 2018 > The campaign by the imperialist powers in Europe and the United States over the poisoning of former Russian spy and British double agent Sergei Skripal stinks to high heaven. The most far-reaching claims are being made, with the most far-reaching consequences, without any substantiation. > The propaganda offensive is not about what may or may not have happened in a park in Salisbury, England on March 4. It is about creating the pretext for a massive escalation of the war drive in Syria, the broader Middle East, and against Russia itself. > When Skripal and his daughter were first discovered on a park bench, the police declared that establishing what had happened would take weeks, if not months. The British government, however, has wrapped up the case far more quickly than any conventional criminal inquiry. > On March 12, Prime Minister Theresa May’s declared that Russia was “highly likely” to have been responsible for “an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom.” This has been followed by the declaration of UK Foreign Minister Boris Johnson Friday that “our quarrel is with Putin’s Kremlin, and with his decision—and we think it overwhelmingly likely that it was his decision—to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the UK.” > The assertions of the British government were endorsed by the US, France and Germany on Thursday, which declared the poisoning “the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War.” "It certainly looks like the Russians were behind it,” Trump declared on Thursday, with the administration announcing new sanctions against Russia. > The rapidity with which the major imperialist policies have signed on to the statements of the UK makes clear that a plan was worked out beforehand. It required only the appropriate occasion to unveil it. > The story as told by the UK government is full of contradictions, without a shred of probative evidence. The entire pretext is based on the analysis coming out of Porton Down, the biochemical warfare facility dedicated to developing weapons of mass destruction, which is located only 10 miles from Salisbury. After first asserting that the poison was a nerve gas like Sarin or VX, the agency now claims that the toxic agent is “of a type developed by Russia,” namely Novichok. > As former UK ambassador and author Craig Murray has noted, the phrase “of a type developed by Russia” is carefully chosen. He cited a source within the British government as confirming that “Porton Down scientists are not able to identify the nerve gas as being of Russian manufacture, and have been resentful of the pressuring being placed on them to do so.” > Even if one were to accept the conclusion of the British government about the use of Novichok—and it has refused to provide samples to Russia or anyone else—this does not constitute proof that Russia directed the attack. The chemical was researched during the era of the Soviet Union. There is no evidence that Russia ever produced it, and it could just as easily have been manufactured in London, Langley or one of the states in the former Soviet Union that are now bitterly hostile to Russia. > And if a Russian was in fact involved, this is a far cry from proving the responsibility of the Russian government. > The Russian government has strenuously denied any involvement. Presidential press secretary Dmitri Peskov said on Friday, “In international practice we never encountered such behavior at the state level when very serious accusations are being brought up against a country—our country in this case—with such wording as ‘apparently,’ ‘most likely’ and so on.” Such an approach, he noted, “contradicts not only international law, but common sense as a whole.” > The Putin regime is deeply reactionary, governing on behalf of a criminal financial oligarchy that grew rich by plundering the assets of the former Soviet Union. But there is no proof that it was involved in the attack on Skripal and many reasons to question why it would want do so, as it provides a ready-made pretext for aggression by the US and Europe. > From the standpoint of who benefits, the most likely guilty parties in the Skripal affair are London and Washington, rather than Moscow. They are furious that the Russian government is obstructing their operations in Syria, aimed at removing the Assad government and setting up a puppet regime. > The events of the past two weeks were preceded by a significant escalation in Syria. On February 7, US warplanes and artillery batteries carried out a massacre in the north-eastern province of Deir Ezzor—knowing that the bulk of hundreds of casualties would be Russian mercenaries. On February 25, the Trump administration declared that it no longer needed further approval for a vast expansion of military operations against Syria and its allies, including Iran. > Preparations have also been made for a direct conflict with Russia itself. It was only on January 19 that US Defence Secretary James Mattis announced a new National Defence Strategy that declared, “Great power competition—not terrorism—is now the primary focus of US national security.” > All the governments involved in the present campaign are warmongering regimes, run by the military-intelligence agencies. They all, moreover, face deep internal crises. The UK is riven by internal conflicts over Brexit. The Trump administration in the US staggers from crisis to crisis and is currently carrying out a purge of top government officials. In Germany, the major parties have finally formed a government, nearly six months after elections in September—the last piece of the political machinery required to secure the US-led anti-Russian alliance now in operation. > In addition to justifying the expansion of war abroad, the campaign against Russia provides a pretext for an escalation of attacks on democratic rights at home. In the United States, the campaign over “Russian meddling” has already been used by the ruling class—led by the Democratic Party and the CIA—with the pretext for censoring the Internet. > March 20 marks the 15th anniversary of the launching of the 2003 Iraq war based on a torrent of lies. As part of a concerted campaign to “prove” the existence of weapons of mass destruction, the US and UK spent months manufacturing intelligence, producing two “dodgy dossiers,” and even sending in weapons inspectors to Iraq. After these inspectors found no evidence of a nuclear or chemical weapons programme, on February 5, US Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations to present his infamous and wholly manufactured slide show, purporting to show photographic “evidence” of Iraq hiding unconventional weapons. On March 18, on this basis, the Labour government of Tony Blair committed the UK to support a US-led war. > The same playbook is being used again, only the case now being made against Russia regarding Skripal is even flimsier than that offered up to justify war against Iraq. > Within the political establishments in all the imperialist powers involved, there is no significant opposition to the present disastrous course. The Labour Party in Britain, like the Democrats in the US, are the most bellicose advocates of anti-Russian measures. In the media, not a single major publication has come out against the filthy campaign waged because the hallowed “free press” is nothing but a mouthpiece of the financial oligarchy and its drive to seize the markets and resources of the entire world. > The working class can only combat the growing danger of war by its own independent political action, in opposition to all parties of the ruling class. The formation of a new anti-war movement, uniting the great mass of working people and youth in opposition to capitalism and imperialism, is the most urgent political task. > Chris Marsden > WSWS.ORG > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 17 22:57:59 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 22:57:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NFN 3/16/18 worth a watch Message-ID: https://youtu.be/lN2LO_3mmv0 From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 17 23:30:20 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 23:30:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [southnews] Francis A. Boyle on Bush Impeachment In-Reply-To: <44627D9D.2070308@alphalink.com.au> References: <44627D9D.2070308@alphalink.com.au> 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: southnews at yahoogroups.com [mailto:southnews at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Muller Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:56 PM To: southnews at yahoogroups.com Subject: [southnews] Francis A. Boyle on Bush Impeachment ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Professor Boyle argues for the use of impeachment to remove Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and Rumsefeld before they can take us into another war in Iran and farther along into an American police state. Professor Boyle, who along with former Attorney General Ramsey Clark brought articles of impeachment to Congress at the request of Rep. John Conyers just prior to the Iraq invasion to "head off the impending war." The attempt failed, chiefly because the Democratic leadership did not want to jeopardize their as yet undetermined Presidential candidate's chances for election. Professor Boyle brings it all together here: why impeachment must be pursued, what must be done for impeachment to succeed, the peace movement, NSA spying, the Fitzgerald investigation, Bush's subversion of the constitution and assuming authority to violate over 700 laws, the effort by the Neocons to remove Habeas Corpus and create a police state, the nuclear agenda of the Neocons and threat of first-use of nuclear weapons against Iran, the war crime of destroying an entire city - Fallujah - in Iraq and the wider issue of destroying the entire country, the Mearshimer and Walt paper, and the connection of the Israel lobby to the administration's intent to manufacture a crisis with Iran, or the unthinkable - to start a nuclear war. Talk Nation Radio Interview with Law Professor Francis A. Boyle on 4 Square Impeachment, the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and Attorney General Posted on Friday 5 May 2006 Francis A. Boyle teaches law at the University of Illinois. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School. He has advised numerous international bodies in the areas of human rights, war crimes, genocide, nuclear policy, and bio warfare. Professor Boyle also serves as counsel for Bosnia Herzegovina in application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide pending before the International Court of Justice. He also represents associations of citizens within the country and has been instrumental in developing the indictment against Slobdon Milosovich for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He received a PHD in political science from Harvard University. You can find Professor Francis A. Boyle's writing online at Counterpunch.org. Welcome to Talk Nation Radio, a half hour discussion on politics, human rights, and the environment, I'm Dori Smith. "We were in dire straights under Nixon in Vietnam and we impeached Nixon, ended up with Gerald Ford, and the Vietnam War was wound down. So I don't think we can ever give up hope but we really have no alternative." - Francis Boyle Intro: International law expert Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois is our guest this time to discuss Iran, presidential powers, the Plame Affair, the President's decision to override 750 laws, and the professor's draft impeachment resolution against President George W. Bush written back in January of 2003. In debates held at that time with administration officials Attorney Boyle came under sharp criticism for maintaining that the President and others in the administration made false statements that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. As Congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle struggle to evaluate any illegality on the part of the President and others in his administration, Professor Boyle's warnings about the direction the government was moving in now seem prophetic. Dori Smith: Professor Boyle, welcome to Talk Nation Radio. Francis A. Boyle: Thank you very much for having me on and my best to your listening audience. Dori Smith: You wrote your draft impeachment resolution against President Bush back in January of 2003 and in the time since we have learned a lot more about pre-war intelligence manipulation and the various kinds of disinformation provided to the American people about Iraq. Just talk about the ongoing effort to impeach since your resolution in 2003. Do you think enough is known for impeachment to proceed and can we get there? Francis A. Boyle: Yes, I think those of us in the peace movement in the fall of 2002 were publicly stating that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and this was just a bald faced lie and propaganda to generate momentum towards war. And I think we have now been proven to be correct. Where the impeachment campaign stands now; I have to review just a little bit of history. On 13 March 2003, that is just before the outbreak of the war against Iraq, Congressman John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, convened an emergency meeting of 40 to 50 of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers, to put in emergency bills of impeachment against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and at that time Ashcroft, to head off the impending war. He invited me and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark in to debate the issue in favor of impeachment. The debate lasted two hours. We had my draft resolution on the table and Ramsey also had his draft resolution; we don't disagree at all in how we see the issues. And to make a long story short the lawyers there did not disagree with me and Ramsey that Bush merited impeachment for what he had done and was threatening to do so far. The main objection was political expedience and in particular John Podesta was there. He had been Clinton's White House chief of staff. He stated he was appearing on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and that as far as the DNC was concerned it was going to hurt their ability to get whoever their candidate was going to be in 2004 elected President if we put in these bills of impeachment. I found that argument completely disingenuous when the Democrats had no idea who their candidate was going to be in 2004 as of March 2003. We had no idea. In any event I'm a political independent so I didn't argue that point. It was not for me to tell Democrats how to get their candidates elected. I just continued to hammer on on the merits of impeachment. Now, Ramsey, as you know he's a lifelong Democrat so he did argue that issue and Ramsey's argument was the he didn't think it was going to hurt and it might help to put in these bills of impeachment immediately. Unfortunately, the Podesta argument prevailed and those draft bills of impeachment are still sitting there at the House Judiciary Committee. I've been updating impeachable offenses since then sending it in there to the House Judiciary Committee. So the main problem we have now is political. That the Democratic leadership in the House where the bill must originate and also the Democratic honchos at the DNC are opposed to putting in bills of impeachment against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and now Gonzales. So this is not a drafting problem, a substantive problem. We've already debated these and Ramsey and I won the arguments. And as time has gone on since I drafted my bill and this debate before Congressman Conyers, more and more evidence has come out of the lies, propaganda, disinformation, and further crimes that the Bush Jr. administration has engaged in. -Recently; spying on the American people in violation of the 4th Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which is a felony so obviously another impeachable offense that Gonzales approved. So that's where we stand. So far we need one member of the House of Representatives with courage, intelligence, integrity, principle, and a safe seat, willing to put in a bill of impeachment or bills of impeachment against the four of them. Right now we do not have that member of Congress because the leadership of the Democratic Party is taking the position that this would be politically counter productive as far as they are concerned. Dori Smith: You mentioned the NSA spy program. There is also the right now Patrick Fitzgerald is working on involving leaks of the name, Valerie Plame Wilson, who as we know was a CIA agent. We have many documents that have been coming out and so I want to talk with you about that. And finally, I do want to touch on the more recent story about the President quietly assuming the authority to disobey 750 laws since he took office. This is a story by the Boston Globe's Charles Savage, April 30, 2006. So taking them one at a time, you mentioned the NSA spy program. Are we on the verge of seeing a bipartisan effort to question Bush on that program and could that possibly bring up the issue of impeachment if the President is unwilling to listen, say, even to the head of the U.S. Senate Francis A. Boyle: Well it would be nice if we were on the verge but Senator Specter was making some noises that he was going to do something and maybe have some hearings but so far we don't have them. I really don't know what to say. Again, the issues you mentioned all involve impeachable offenses. There's more than enough there on the substantive merits across the board to impeach these four individuals but I regret to say I just don't think the Democrats have the guts to do it. (See update in breaking story Thursday, May 4, 2006, one day after this program aired that Senator Specter has called for hearings on the President's failure to obey 750 laws. Hearings Update My conclusion is that basically the incumbent Democrats have pretty much been complicit with everything Bush has done since September 11, 2001. In the NSA spying scandal it came out that the leadership of the Democratic Party, the 14 top leaders in the House and the Senate, knew full well that Bush was spying on the American people and said nothing at all to the American people. It was the New York Times as you know who broke the story, but they sat on it for a year. Well let's put the New York Times responsibility aside, the Democratic leadership who knew should have said something. Now they gave the lame excuse saying well the information was classified. That's baloney. In the Constitution there is what is known as the speech and debate clause that gives any member of Congress absolute immunity from both civil and criminal proceedings to say anything he or she wants to say from the floor of the House or the floor of the Senate. This happened in the impeachment campaign against Bush Senior where I was counsel to Congressman Henry B. Gonzales and did the first draft of his impeachment resolution that was introduced January 16, 1991, and in support of that resolution as matters went on Congressman Gonzales repeatedly got up on the floor of the House and released classified information. Of course Bush Sr. went irate. He sicked the CIA to investigate Congressman Gonzales but nothing could be done because of the speech and debate clause. As long as the member of Congress only talks on the floor of the House or the Senate they can say what they want. They can't go back and have a press conference on classified information. So everyone knows this and in my opinion my reading then went with the NSA spy scandal it came out that the Democratic leadership has simply been complicit with Bush. They were complicit on the war against Afghanistan. They were complicit in the war against Iraq. We in the peace movement told the leadership of the Democratic Party that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction for those of us who also have been following this matter for 20 years. You know, these are intelligent people, they had access to the same information I did and Ramsey Clark did and others. So, the problem is we have a leadership in the Democratic Party that has been complicit in all of these Constitutional violations being inflicted by the Bush Administration. I think we are going to have to elect people; men and women of good faith whatever party, who are willing to put in bills of impeachment because otherwise we are quickly degenerating here into a dictatorship. You mentioned that story in the Boston Globe. The President is just ignoring laws or issuing these signing statements saying he is not going to enforce them. Well the President has an obligation under the Constitution to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. If he believes they are unconstitutional he has to go to the Supreme Court and get the Supreme Court to strike them down. He has also taken an oath to uphold the Constitutional laws of the United States as required by the Constitution. So this behavior, this pattern of behavior rises to the level of an impeachable offense. The test is subversion of the Constitution and clearly you have over 700 laws that the President has said he is not going to enforce. Dori Smith: In terms of which laws we are looking at his unwillingness to adhere to laws recently passed, since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. And now this has gone to issues like torture. He has said he can bypass the torture ban. There are other laws involving the Military, armies, the ability to declare war, make rules for captured enemies, make rules for government and regulation of the land and Naval forces and also regulate the Military; and this is traditionally a role that Congress does play. Francis A. Boyle: That's correct. If you read the Constitution Congress is given all sorts of powers with respect to the conduct of warfare and most importantly the power to declare war, not the President. Look what we have in operation here is the [Fuhrer] principle that was rejected by the Nuremberg Charter judgment and principles that the President is above the law, he's above the Constitution, he's above international law, he can do whatever he wants. He can take United States citizens, strip them of their rights, and throw them into Military brigs. We have to remember that in the first draft of the USA Patriot Act that was done by a Federalist Society lawyer for Ashcroft, in the first draft they tried to have in there the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus which is all that stands between us and a police state. -It's your ability if you are detained by any law enforcement official to have a lawyer go into court and the judge you know produce the body, a person appears in court, and then the government has to explain what is the legal authority for this person to be detained and if there are any problems with condition of detention, I.e., torture or something like that. John Ashcroft and his Federalist Society lawyers tried to get Congress to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus for all of us U.S. citizens. Fortunately a Congressional staffer saw that and it was struck out. But clearly that is their ultimate objective; to set up a police state. Dori Smith: Well now you say that, a lot of the laws that were ignored did turn out to be military rules and regulations, but also there were Affirmative Action provisions, requirements Congress be told about immigration service problems, whistle blower protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. We could look at any one of those and find lots of stories to work on, but let's talk about the nuclear aspect because I know you have looked at that as well and we do see a new nuclear arms race going on where the White House is now working on how to describe programs that are already underway, we are already looking at testing, we are already looking at development and replacement with some of the weapons systems and various kind of new technologies; and an emphasis on new weapons that may be "usable" under the new sort of description of a nuclear conflict, which is the old traditional label of "Low Intensity Conflict" that has to do with these surgical strikes again with a nuclear warhead. Francis A. Boyle: That is correct. As you know in December of 2002 they put a new policy on the White House web site, a new National Security Policy that supplemented the one they had done earlier that fall in September endorsing preventive warfare. And in the December 2002 policy and I discuss this in my book, Destroying World Order they made it clear that they were prepared to use weapons of mass destruction to carry out that policy. And now it has come out from the Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran they say low yield, but we are talking of orders of a little bit less than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Just recently President Bush and Secretary of State Rice were asked about the use of nuclear weapons with that name, by the way, with respect to Iran, and both the President and the Secretary of State said "all options are on the table." If you look at the Pentagon policy manual on war fighting, which I have reviewed, that came out I believe a year ago, implementing then the December 2002 policy on weapons of mass destruction, and they are currently integrating nuclear weapons with conventional weapons all up and down their operational policy. So this is going on now as we speak. As you know at Nevada they have this, Nevada test site, this Operation Divine Strike, that is again going to simulate bunker busters, and it's clear they are getting ready there to resume nuclear testing. So if you add it all up it looks horrendous and of course then you don't want nuclear whistle blowers going out and trying to tell the American people what's really going on. But if you make a very close examination of what's already out there in the public record it is startling and extremely disturbing. If Bush were to go ahead and actually do what Seymour Hersh says he is going to do we could be witnessing the outbreak of the third world war. And I know Noam Chomsky has recently taken the same position on that independently of me. Dori Smith: That brings us to CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson again but it turns out that she was working on Iran at the time she was outted by this White House, then we see that her husband Joseph Wilson had been in Niger on a mission to determine the degree of any validity to this suggestion that Saddam Hussein was trying to get nuclear material from Niger, that turned out to be false and of course he said so in his OP-ED piece that is now so famous. So here we see two people who did try to in a way warn us back at the time that this was all starting to come out and now we see that every argument they made is being legitimized if you will with more and more of the documents that are coming out through the Special Prosecutor as he proceeds with his case. Francis A. Boyle: You know Daniel Ellsberg who released the Pentagon Papers has publicly stated that it is in the interest of the preservation of our republic that people inside the government who have this information have to start leaking because otherwise I'm afraid the Bush people are going to lead us into a total catastrophe. It could be a nuclear catastrophe. As to Mr. Fitzgerald my reading of him is he is not an Archibald Cox or Leon Jawarski. Remember he was appointed as U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Illinois by President Bush himself. So he is not really independent of anything and it seems to me he is pretty much going with their play book which is to narrow his focus as much as possible and zero in on underlings and avoid the responsibility of the people on the top. So I'm afraid we really can't rely on Mr. Fitzgerald to do the right thing. He might. I'm not discounting him. But he's no Archie Cox he's no Leon Jawarski. He is a creature of this administration. Again, it's really going to be up to us, the American people, to take a stand here because otherwise the Bush people I'm afraid will lead us over a precipice with this purely concocted crisis with Iran. It's the exact same playbook they used on Iraq. It appears they are timing it to coincide with the November elections, again, Karl Rove at work again. It looks like the Republicans are afraid they are going to lose control of either one of both houses. And what better way to keep that control than to manufacture this crisis with Iran, distract attention from all their other problems that they have, and try to hold on to the House and the Senate, to prevent a bill of impeachment or investigation or whatever. So this is the dilemma we are in as American people. Dori Smith: I just want to ask again about the potential to use impeachment as a remedy for the present crisis in Washington; a crisis of economics, a crisis of leadership, and as it turns out a crisis of just plain old honesty because we have seen again and again corruption at the highest levels of the land and so often we can trace that directly to the doors of multinational corporations. Let me just ask you if the American people are ready to hear that they need to stand up for impeachment and if we can translate that into a state by state effort. Francis A. Boyle: First of all it did work with Nixon so we have a very powerful precedent there. Now, I admit at that time the Democrats controlled Congress, it was a different party. But even eventually most of the Republicans came along to the need to get rid of Nixon just for the good of the country. So we have that precedent. Number two, we have the precedent of what happened all over this country for immigration reform. We've had hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets all over to advocate in a peaceful nonviolent way for human rights, for undocumented aliens in this country. So there is an enormous potential out there that the peace movement is going to have to mobilize. As I see it we are going to have to sit down and figure out how did the immigration reform movement turn all those people out and we are going to have to start turning out similar numbers for impeachment of Bush and trying to stop the war in Iraq, it's killed now over 2400 U.S. service members, all needlessly killed, we have no idea how many Iraqis, probably 200,000 at least, and to head off what could be a nuclear catastrophe in Iran. Dori Smith: Finally, you have written about Obliterating Fallujah and what the U.S. Military did there. And we have had as a guest on our program Dahr Jamail who drew a very devastating picture of what was going on in Fallujah, as did a few others who had been there and spoke with us about that, Jo Wilding and Rahul Mahajan We get the impression that not much has been done there by way of reconstruction so we see this city basically destroyed, and we see other cities in Iraq getting to the point of destroyed, and we see lots of refugees being created from the cities; To what extent do you think that this is going to have such an impact in the region that that too could provoke more war and wider war? Francis A. Boyle: Fallujah will probably be like Grozny which is completely demolished and almost uninhabitable over in Chechnya. What I was pointing out in that essay was the legal principles of State; you have to go back to the Nuremberg Charter that said quite clearly that the wanton devastation of a city, town, or district, is a war crime. And what I pointed out was to obliterate an entire city like Fallujah or Grozny, these are Nazi crimes to try to put them into perspective. That we prosecuted, convicted, and executed Nazis at Nuremberg for doing this type of behavior. Now, I'm against the death penalty for anyone including Bush and the rest of them. I believe they should be impeached, they should be indicted and they should be prosecuted, but not executed. -I wrote that piece to try to put this behavior into perspective and right now as you saw Senator Biden making the proposal that Iraq should be carved up into three pieces? Well that's been their policy all along is to destroy Iraq as a viable state. And I am very afraid then that this will be implemented and you could see a massive convulsion of civil war in Iraq that could draw in, even against their best wishes, the neighboring states particularly Turkey, Iran, and others. It's a very volatile situation over there. You have Russia arming Iran, China pretty much supporting them. You have close to two thirds of all the oil and gas supplies in the world at stake there. I don't think I or Professor Chomsky have underestimated the potential cataclysm that could happen if the Bush Administration continues on its campaign. But look, we were in dire straights under Nixon in Vietnam and we impeached Nixon, ended up with Gerald Ford, and the Vietnam War was wound down. I don't think we can ever give up hope. But we really have no alternative. Dori Smith: We see Israel in the press now relating to Iran. The latest being that Israel announced the sale of some rockets from North Korea to Iran, I believe these were scud type missiles, and Iran has been talking about the destruction of Israel and has said some very harsh things about the Holocaust. -A very inflammatory situation. Just talk about Israel under the new leaders and where we stand in that regard. Francis A. Boyle: Well I have to agree with the study by Professors Walt and Mearsheimer at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. If you look at the record here in the United States, the only people pushing for war against Iran are the Israel lobby people, their sources, assets in the news media, and also in Congress. I don't detect any great sentiment here on the part of the American people to go to war against Iran. It's clear under the philosophy of the Neo-Conservatives that they wrote Clean Break" ("A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm," Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, By Douglas J. Feith and Richard Perle.) and everything, they want the United States to take out Iran as a favor to Israel and so I think we have to be aware of these strategies and who is mongering for war against Iran. Again, that's not just my reading of it. That's also what Professor's Walt and Mearsheimer have stated in their article in the London Review of Books with all of the footnotes at the Harvard Kennedy School. I agree with them. Dori Smith: Francis A. Boyle teaches law at the University of Illinois. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School. He has advised numerous international bodies in the areas of human rights, war crimes, genocide, nuclear policy, and bio warfare. Professor Boyle also serves as counsel for Bosnia Herzegovina in application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide pending before the International Court of Justice. He also represents associations of citizens within the country and has been instrumental in developing the indictment against Slobdon Milosovich for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He received a PHD in political science from Harvard University. You can find Professor Francis A. Boyle's writing online at Counterpunch.org. Some of Professor Boyle's Books: The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence World Politics and International Law Destroying World Order: U.S. Imperialism in the Middle East Before and After September 11th Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations 1898-1921 For Talk Nation Radio, I'm Dori Smith. Talk Nation Radio is produced in the studios of WHUS at the University of Connecticut. WHUS.org to listen live Wed. at 5 pm. talknation.org and talknationradio.org for transcripts and discussion. Our music is provided by Fritz Heede. http://talknationradio.org =================== AUDIO LINK: http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=17961 Summary: Professor Boyle argues for the use of impeachment to remove Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and Rumsefeld before they can take us into another war in Iran and farther along into an American police state. Credits: Produced by Dori Smith at Pacifica Affiliate WHUS in Storrs, CT http://www.whus.org Music by Fritz Heede http://www.fritzheede.com Notes: Notify Smith of use if possible. theshockvote at yahoo.com Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: southnews-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Mar 18 00:54:37 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 00:54:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [southnews] Francis A. Boyle on Bush Impeachment References: <44627D9D.2070308@alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: For the record, when Bernie Sanders was in the US House of Representatives, he rejected sponsoring my Bills of Impeachment against Bush et al, telling me he did not "feel it would be productive." Bernie 2020: No light at the end of the tunnel. Fab. 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: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:30 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: FW: [southnews] Francis A. Boyle on Bush Impeachment 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: southnews at yahoogroups.com [mailto:southnews at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Muller Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:56 PM To: southnews at yahoogroups.com Subject: [southnews] Francis A. Boyle on Bush Impeachment ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Professor Boyle argues for the use of impeachment to remove Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and Rumsefeld before they can take us into another war in Iran and farther along into an American police state. Professor Boyle, who along with former Attorney General Ramsey Clark brought articles of impeachment to Congress at the request of Rep. John Conyers just prior to the Iraq invasion to "head off the impending war." The attempt failed, chiefly because the Democratic leadership did not want to jeopardize their as yet undetermined Presidential candidate's chances for election. Professor Boyle brings it all together here: why impeachment must be pursued, what must be done for impeachment to succeed, the peace movement, NSA spying, the Fitzgerald investigation, Bush's subversion of the constitution and assuming authority to violate over 700 laws, the effort by the Neocons to remove Habeas Corpus and create a police state, the nuclear agenda of the Neocons and threat of first-use of nuclear weapons against Iran, the war crime of destroying an entire city - Fallujah - in Iraq and the wider issue of destroying the entire country, the Mearshimer and Walt paper, and the connection of the Israel lobby to the administration's intent to manufacture a crisis with Iran, or the unthinkable - to start a nuclear war. Talk Nation Radio Interview with Law Professor Francis A. Boyle on 4 Square Impeachment, the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and Attorney General Posted on Friday 5 May 2006 Francis A. Boyle teaches law at the University of Illinois. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School. He has advised numerous international bodies in the areas of human rights, war crimes, genocide, nuclear policy, and bio warfare. Professor Boyle also serves as counsel for Bosnia Herzegovina in application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide pending before the International Court of Justice. He also represents associations of citizens within the country and has been instrumental in developing the indictment against Slobdon Milosovich for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He received a PHD in political science from Harvard University. You can find Professor Francis A. Boyle's writing online at Counterpunch.org. Welcome to Talk Nation Radio, a half hour discussion on politics, human rights, and the environment, I'm Dori Smith. "We were in dire straights under Nixon in Vietnam and we impeached Nixon, ended up with Gerald Ford, and the Vietnam War was wound down. So I don't think we can ever give up hope but we really have no alternative." - Francis Boyle Intro: International law expert Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois is our guest this time to discuss Iran, presidential powers, the Plame Affair, the President's decision to override 750 laws, and the professor's draft impeachment resolution against President George W. Bush written back in January of 2003. In debates held at that time with administration officials Attorney Boyle came under sharp criticism for maintaining that the President and others in the administration made false statements that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. As Congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle struggle to evaluate any illegality on the part of the President and others in his administration, Professor Boyle's warnings about the direction the government was moving in now seem prophetic. Dori Smith: Professor Boyle, welcome to Talk Nation Radio. Francis A. Boyle: Thank you very much for having me on and my best to your listening audience. Dori Smith: You wrote your draft impeachment resolution against President Bush back in January of 2003 and in the time since we have learned a lot more about pre-war intelligence manipulation and the various kinds of disinformation provided to the American people about Iraq. Just talk about the ongoing effort to impeach since your resolution in 2003. Do you think enough is known for impeachment to proceed and can we get there? Francis A. Boyle: Yes, I think those of us in the peace movement in the fall of 2002 were publicly stating that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and this was just a bald faced lie and propaganda to generate momentum towards war. And I think we have now been proven to be correct. Where the impeachment campaign stands now; I have to review just a little bit of history. On 13 March 2003, that is just before the outbreak of the war against Iraq, Congressman John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, convened an emergency meeting of 40 to 50 of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers, to put in emergency bills of impeachment against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and at that time Ashcroft, to head off the impending war. He invited me and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark in to debate the issue in favor of impeachment. The debate lasted two hours. We had my draft resolution on the table and Ramsey also had his draft resolution; we don't disagree at all in how we see the issues. And to make a long story short the lawyers there did not disagree with me and Ramsey that Bush merited impeachment for what he had done and was threatening to do so far. The main objection was political expedience and in particular John Podesta was there. He had been Clinton's White House chief of staff. He stated he was appearing on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and that as far as the DNC was concerned it was going to hurt their ability to get whoever their candidate was going to be in 2004 elected President if we put in these bills of impeachment. I found that argument completely disingenuous when the Democrats had no idea who their candidate was going to be in 2004 as of March 2003. We had no idea. In any event I'm a political independent so I didn't argue that point. It was not for me to tell Democrats how to get their candidates elected. I just continued to hammer on on the merits of impeachment. Now, Ramsey, as you know he's a lifelong Democrat so he did argue that issue and Ramsey's argument was the he didn't think it was going to hurt and it might help to put in these bills of impeachment immediately. Unfortunately, the Podesta argument prevailed and those draft bills of impeachment are still sitting there at the House Judiciary Committee. I've been updating impeachable offenses since then sending it in there to the House Judiciary Committee. So the main problem we have now is political. That the Democratic leadership in the House where the bill must originate and also the Democratic honchos at the DNC are opposed to putting in bills of impeachment against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and now Gonzales. So this is not a drafting problem, a substantive problem. We've already debated these and Ramsey and I won the arguments. And as time has gone on since I drafted my bill and this debate before Congressman Conyers, more and more evidence has come out of the lies, propaganda, disinformation, and further crimes that the Bush Jr. administration has engaged in. -Recently; spying on the American people in violation of the 4th Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which is a felony so obviously another impeachable offense that Gonzales approved. So that's where we stand. So far we need one member of the House of Representatives with courage, intelligence, integrity, principle, and a safe seat, willing to put in a bill of impeachment or bills of impeachment against the four of them. Right now we do not have that member of Congress because the leadership of the Democratic Party is taking the position that this would be politically counter productive as far as they are concerned. Dori Smith: You mentioned the NSA spy program. There is also the right now Patrick Fitzgerald is working on involving leaks of the name, Valerie Plame Wilson, who as we know was a CIA agent. We have many documents that have been coming out and so I want to talk with you about that. And finally, I do want to touch on the more recent story about the President quietly assuming the authority to disobey 750 laws since he took office. This is a story by the Boston Globe's Charles Savage, April 30, 2006. So taking them one at a time, you mentioned the NSA spy program. Are we on the verge of seeing a bipartisan effort to question Bush on that program and could that possibly bring up the issue of impeachment if the President is unwilling to listen, say, even to the head of the U.S. Senate Francis A. Boyle: Well it would be nice if we were on the verge but Senator Specter was making some noises that he was going to do something and maybe have some hearings but so far we don't have them. I really don't know what to say. Again, the issues you mentioned all involve impeachable offenses. There's more than enough there on the substantive merits across the board to impeach these four individuals but I regret to say I just don't think the Democrats have the guts to do it. (See update in breaking story Thursday, May 4, 2006, one day after this program aired that Senator Specter has called for hearings on the President's failure to obey 750 laws. Hearings Update My conclusion is that basically the incumbent Democrats have pretty much been complicit with everything Bush has done since September 11, 2001. In the NSA spying scandal it came out that the leadership of the Democratic Party, the 14 top leaders in the House and the Senate, knew full well that Bush was spying on the American people and said nothing at all to the American people. It was the New York Times as you know who broke the story, but they sat on it for a year. Well let's put the New York Times responsibility aside, the Democratic leadership who knew should have said something. Now they gave the lame excuse saying well the information was classified. That's baloney. In the Constitution there is what is known as the speech and debate clause that gives any member of Congress absolute immunity from both civil and criminal proceedings to say anything he or she wants to say from the floor of the House or the floor of the Senate. This happened in the impeachment campaign against Bush Senior where I was counsel to Congressman Henry B. Gonzales and did the first draft of his impeachment resolution that was introduced January 16, 1991, and in support of that resolution as matters went on Congressman Gonzales repeatedly got up on the floor of the House and released classified information. Of course Bush Sr. went irate. He sicked the CIA to investigate Congressman Gonzales but nothing could be done because of the speech and debate clause. As long as the member of Congress only talks on the floor of the House or the Senate they can say what they want. They can't go back and have a press conference on classified information. So everyone knows this and in my opinion my reading then went with the NSA spy scandal it came out that the Democratic leadership has simply been complicit with Bush. They were complicit on the war against Afghanistan. They were complicit in the war against Iraq. We in the peace movement told the leadership of the Democratic Party that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction for those of us who also have been following this matter for 20 years. You know, these are intelligent people, they had access to the same information I did and Ramsey Clark did and others. So, the problem is we have a leadership in the Democratic Party that has been complicit in all of these Constitutional violations being inflicted by the Bush Administration. I think we are going to have to elect people; men and women of good faith whatever party, who are willing to put in bills of impeachment because otherwise we are quickly degenerating here into a dictatorship. You mentioned that story in the Boston Globe. The President is just ignoring laws or issuing these signing statements saying he is not going to enforce them. Well the President has an obligation under the Constitution to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. If he believes they are unconstitutional he has to go to the Supreme Court and get the Supreme Court to strike them down. He has also taken an oath to uphold the Constitutional laws of the United States as required by the Constitution. So this behavior, this pattern of behavior rises to the level of an impeachable offense. The test is subversion of the Constitution and clearly you have over 700 laws that the President has said he is not going to enforce. Dori Smith: In terms of which laws we are looking at his unwillingness to adhere to laws recently passed, since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. And now this has gone to issues like torture. He has said he can bypass the torture ban. There are other laws involving the Military, armies, the ability to declare war, make rules for captured enemies, make rules for government and regulation of the land and Naval forces and also regulate the Military; and this is traditionally a role that Congress does play. Francis A. Boyle: That's correct. If you read the Constitution Congress is given all sorts of powers with respect to the conduct of warfare and most importantly the power to declare war, not the President. Look what we have in operation here is the [Fuhrer] principle that was rejected by the Nuremberg Charter judgment and principles that the President is above the law, he's above the Constitution, he's above international law, he can do whatever he wants. He can take United States citizens, strip them of their rights, and throw them into Military brigs. We have to remember that in the first draft of the USA Patriot Act that was done by a Federalist Society lawyer for Ashcroft, in the first draft they tried to have in there the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus which is all that stands between us and a police state. -It's your ability if you are detained by any law enforcement official to have a lawyer go into court and the judge you know produce the body, a person appears in court, and then the government has to explain what is the legal authority for this person to be detained and if there are any problems with condition of detention, I.e., torture or something like that. John Ashcroft and his Federalist Society lawyers tried to get Congress to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus for all of us U.S. citizens. Fortunately a Congressional staffer saw that and it was struck out. But clearly that is their ultimate objective; to set up a police state. Dori Smith: Well now you say that, a lot of the laws that were ignored did turn out to be military rules and regulations, but also there were Affirmative Action provisions, requirements Congress be told about immigration service problems, whistle blower protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. We could look at any one of those and find lots of stories to work on, but let's talk about the nuclear aspect because I know you have looked at that as well and we do see a new nuclear arms race going on where the White House is now working on how to describe programs that are already underway, we are already looking at testing, we are already looking at development and replacement with some of the weapons systems and various kind of new technologies; and an emphasis on new weapons that may be "usable" under the new sort of description of a nuclear conflict, which is the old traditional label of "Low Intensity Conflict" that has to do with these surgical strikes again with a nuclear warhead. Francis A. Boyle: That is correct. As you know in December of 2002 they put a new policy on the White House web site, a new National Security Policy that supplemented the one they had done earlier that fall in September endorsing preventive warfare. And in the December 2002 policy and I discuss this in my book, Destroying World Order they made it clear that they were prepared to use weapons of mass destruction to carry out that policy. And now it has come out from the Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran they say low yield, but we are talking of orders of a little bit less than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Just recently President Bush and Secretary of State Rice were asked about the use of nuclear weapons with that name, by the way, with respect to Iran, and both the President and the Secretary of State said "all options are on the table." If you look at the Pentagon policy manual on war fighting, which I have reviewed, that came out I believe a year ago, implementing then the December 2002 policy on weapons of mass destruction, and they are currently integrating nuclear weapons with conventional weapons all up and down their operational policy. So this is going on now as we speak. As you know at Nevada they have this, Nevada test site, this Operation Divine Strike, that is again going to simulate bunker busters, and it's clear they are getting ready there to resume nuclear testing. So if you add it all up it looks horrendous and of course then you don't want nuclear whistle blowers going out and trying to tell the American people what's really going on. But if you make a very close examination of what's already out there in the public record it is startling and extremely disturbing. If Bush were to go ahead and actually do what Seymour Hersh says he is going to do we could be witnessing the outbreak of the third world war. And I know Noam Chomsky has recently taken the same position on that independently of me. Dori Smith: That brings us to CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson again but it turns out that she was working on Iran at the time she was outted by this White House, then we see that her husband Joseph Wilson had been in Niger on a mission to determine the degree of any validity to this suggestion that Saddam Hussein was trying to get nuclear material from Niger, that turned out to be false and of course he said so in his OP-ED piece that is now so famous. So here we see two people who did try to in a way warn us back at the time that this was all starting to come out and now we see that every argument they made is being legitimized if you will with more and more of the documents that are coming out through the Special Prosecutor as he proceeds with his case. Francis A. Boyle: You know Daniel Ellsberg who released the Pentagon Papers has publicly stated that it is in the interest of the preservation of our republic that people inside the government who have this information have to start leaking because otherwise I'm afraid the Bush people are going to lead us into a total catastrophe. It could be a nuclear catastrophe. As to Mr. Fitzgerald my reading of him is he is not an Archibald Cox or Leon Jawarski. Remember he was appointed as U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Illinois by President Bush himself. So he is not really independent of anything and it seems to me he is pretty much going with their play book which is to narrow his focus as much as possible and zero in on underlings and avoid the responsibility of the people on the top. So I'm afraid we really can't rely on Mr. Fitzgerald to do the right thing. He might. I'm not discounting him. But he's no Archie Cox he's no Leon Jawarski. He is a creature of this administration. Again, it's really going to be up to us, the American people, to take a stand here because otherwise the Bush people I'm afraid will lead us over a precipice with this purely concocted crisis with Iran. It's the exact same playbook they used on Iraq. It appears they are timing it to coincide with the November elections, again, Karl Rove at work again. It looks like the Republicans are afraid they are going to lose control of either one of both houses. And what better way to keep that control than to manufacture this crisis with Iran, distract attention from all their other problems that they have, and try to hold on to the House and the Senate, to prevent a bill of impeachment or investigation or whatever. So this is the dilemma we are in as American people. Dori Smith: I just want to ask again about the potential to use impeachment as a remedy for the present crisis in Washington; a crisis of economics, a crisis of leadership, and as it turns out a crisis of just plain old honesty because we have seen again and again corruption at the highest levels of the land and so often we can trace that directly to the doors of multinational corporations. Let me just ask you if the American people are ready to hear that they need to stand up for impeachment and if we can translate that into a state by state effort. Francis A. Boyle: First of all it did work with Nixon so we have a very powerful precedent there. Now, I admit at that time the Democrats controlled Congress, it was a different party. But even eventually most of the Republicans came along to the need to get rid of Nixon just for the good of the country. So we have that precedent. Number two, we have the precedent of what happened all over this country for immigration reform. We've had hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets all over to advocate in a peaceful nonviolent way for human rights, for undocumented aliens in this country. So there is an enormous potential out there that the peace movement is going to have to mobilize. As I see it we are going to have to sit down and figure out how did the immigration reform movement turn all those people out and we are going to have to start turning out similar numbers for impeachment of Bush and trying to stop the war in Iraq, it's killed now over 2400 U.S. service members, all needlessly killed, we have no idea how many Iraqis, probably 200,000 at least, and to head off what could be a nuclear catastrophe in Iran. Dori Smith: Finally, you have written about Obliterating Fallujah and what the U.S. Military did there. And we have had as a guest on our program Dahr Jamail who drew a very devastating picture of what was going on in Fallujah, as did a few others who had been there and spoke with us about that, Jo Wilding and Rahul Mahajan We get the impression that not much has been done there by way of reconstruction so we see this city basically destroyed, and we see other cities in Iraq getting to the point of destroyed, and we see lots of refugees being created from the cities; To what extent do you think that this is going to have such an impact in the region that that too could provoke more war and wider war? Francis A. Boyle: Fallujah will probably be like Grozny which is completely demolished and almost uninhabitable over in Chechnya. What I was pointing out in that essay was the legal principles of State; you have to go back to the Nuremberg Charter that said quite clearly that the wanton devastation of a city, town, or district, is a war crime. And what I pointed out was to obliterate an entire city like Fallujah or Grozny, these are Nazi crimes to try to put them into perspective. That we prosecuted, convicted, and executed Nazis at Nuremberg for doing this type of behavior. Now, I'm against the death penalty for anyone including Bush and the rest of them. I believe they should be impeached, they should be indicted and they should be prosecuted, but not executed. -I wrote that piece to try to put this behavior into perspective and right now as you saw Senator Biden making the proposal that Iraq should be carved up into three pieces? Well that's been their policy all along is to destroy Iraq as a viable state. And I am very afraid then that this will be implemented and you could see a massive convulsion of civil war in Iraq that could draw in, even against their best wishes, the neighboring states particularly Turkey, Iran, and others. It's a very volatile situation over there. You have Russia arming Iran, China pretty much supporting them. You have close to two thirds of all the oil and gas supplies in the world at stake there. I don't think I or Professor Chomsky have underestimated the potential cataclysm that could happen if the Bush Administration continues on its campaign. But look, we were in dire straights under Nixon in Vietnam and we impeached Nixon, ended up with Gerald Ford, and the Vietnam War was wound down. I don't think we can ever give up hope. But we really have no alternative. Dori Smith: We see Israel in the press now relating to Iran. The latest being that Israel announced the sale of some rockets from North Korea to Iran, I believe these were scud type missiles, and Iran has been talking about the destruction of Israel and has said some very harsh things about the Holocaust. -A very inflammatory situation. Just talk about Israel under the new leaders and where we stand in that regard. Francis A. Boyle: Well I have to agree with the study by Professors Walt and Mearsheimer at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. If you look at the record here in the United States, the only people pushing for war against Iran are the Israel lobby people, their sources, assets in the news media, and also in Congress. I don't detect any great sentiment here on the part of the American people to go to war against Iran. It's clear under the philosophy of the Neo-Conservatives that they wrote Clean Break" ("A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm," Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, By Douglas J. Feith and Richard Perle.) and everything, they want the United States to take out Iran as a favor to Israel and so I think we have to be aware of these strategies and who is mongering for war against Iran. Again, that's not just my reading of it. That's also what Professor's Walt and Mearsheimer have stated in their article in the London Review of Books with all of the footnotes at the Harvard Kennedy School. I agree with them. Dori Smith: Francis A. Boyle teaches law at the University of Illinois. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School. He has advised numerous international bodies in the areas of human rights, war crimes, genocide, nuclear policy, and bio warfare. Professor Boyle also serves as counsel for Bosnia Herzegovina in application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide pending before the International Court of Justice. He also represents associations of citizens within the country and has been instrumental in developing the indictment against Slobdon Milosovich for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He received a PHD in political science from Harvard University. You can find Professor Francis A. Boyle's writing online at Counterpunch.org. Some of Professor Boyle's Books: The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence World Politics and International Law Destroying World Order: U.S. Imperialism in the Middle East Before and After September 11th Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations 1898-1921 For Talk Nation Radio, I'm Dori Smith. Talk Nation Radio is produced in the studios of WHUS at the University of Connecticut. WHUS.org to listen live Wed. at 5 pm. talknation.org and talknationradio.org for transcripts and discussion. Our music is provided by Fritz Heede. http://talknationradio.org =================== AUDIO LINK: http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=17961 Summary: Professor Boyle argues for the use of impeachment to remove Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and Rumsefeld before they can take us into another war in Iran and farther along into an American police state. Credits: Produced by Dori Smith at Pacifica Affiliate WHUS in Storrs, CT http://www.whus.org Music by Fritz Heede http://www.fritzheede.com Notes: Notify Smith of use if possible. theshockvote at yahoo.com Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: southnews-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Mar 18 12:30:59 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 07:30:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_bad_press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_?= =?utf-8?b?UG9zdOKAmQ==?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> From: David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:47 PM Subject: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/getting-jewish-washington/ Image removed by sender. AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ mondoweiss.net In a sign of growing establishment distrust of the Israel lobby group AIPAC, several writers liken it to the NRA, and the Washington Post publishes an important article by Doug Rossinow saying that… US Politics Philip Weiss on March 16, 2018 39 Comments o Image removed by sender. Decrease Text Size o Image removed by sender. Increase Text Size o Adjust Font Size Image removed by sender. Doug Rossinow  One pleasurable surprise of the AIPAC policy conference in early March — the leading Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — was how much bad press the organization got. It’s becoming almost fashionable to criticize the lobby for its enforcement of lockstep political support for Israel in Washington, and for its Soviet-style policy on access to the press. These criticisms are finally showing up in the mainstream press. Reporters have been licensed by the injury mere high school students have done to another powerful lobby, the National Rifle Association. So maybe AIPAC is on the same path-to-pariah status, more than a decade after Walt and Mearsheimer published their book The Israel Lobby. Here are a few items. Notable among them is a report in the Washington Post of all places saying that AIPAC was born to rally American Jews to stand shoulder to shoulder behind Israeli “lies” about a massacre of Palestinians, back in 1953. And two angry pieces in the Jewish press decrying AIPAC’s blackout policy on coverage of its gatherings. First off, Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post that a Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal, is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints AIPAC as the NRA. An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel…. Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s slogan is “if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] in America.”.. Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance. And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters. Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic site saying that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to the two-state solution. AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in American politics and culture make that harder and harder… It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation. There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former West Point instructor, laments on the death of the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s role in that transformation. I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism. AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room. Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory, keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights. This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: “Why do they hate us?” Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece on “The dark roots” of AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.” The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors; but Eisenhower bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. The outcry was sharp and wide. Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident. Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954. And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along with its mouth shut). Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. .. It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy…. The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans. The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, angered by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending “off the record” sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries…. AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby…. The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the press policies are hurting that goal. The Atlanta Jewish Times chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy and saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was off the record. The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled “Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel” was this sign: “THIS SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.” Image removed by sender. Sign outside a panel on press freedom at AIPAC, foto in Atlanta Jewish Week. …AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because everything AIPAC does locally is off the record. It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the press, such as Stephens… We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s inside. In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under way, I believe, though it will take a while… Thanks to Donald Johnson, Todd Pierce, Adam Horowitz, John Whitbeck. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 980 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 338 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3013 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1025 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Mar 18 12:37:41 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:37:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_bad_press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_Post?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= In-Reply-To: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: The AIPACkers are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. Fab. Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 7:31 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ From: David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:47 PM Subject: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/getting-jewish-washington/ [Image removed by sender.] AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ mondoweiss.net In a sign of growing establishment distrust of the Israel lobby group AIPAC, several writers liken it to the NRA, and the Washington Post publishes an important article by Doug Rossinow saying that… US Politics Philip Weiss on March 16, 2018 39 Comments o [Image removed by sender. Decrease Text Size] o [Image removed by sender. Increase Text Size] o Adjust Font Size [Image removed by sender.] Doug Rossinow  One pleasurable surprise of the AIPAC policy conference in early March — the leading Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — was how much bad press the organization got. It’s becoming almost fashionable to criticize the lobby for its enforcement of lockstep political support for Israel in Washington, and for its Soviet-style policy on access to the press. These criticisms are finally showing up in the mainstream press. Reporters have been licensed by the injury mere high school students have done to another powerful lobby, the National Rifle Association. So maybe AIPAC is on the same path-to-pariah status, more than a decade after Walt and Mearsheimer published their book The Israel Lobby. Here are a few items. Notable among them is a report in the Washington Post of all places saying that AIPAC was born to rally American Jews to stand shoulder to shoulder behind Israeli “lies” about a massacre of Palestinians, back in 1953. And two angry pieces in the Jewish press decrying AIPAC’s blackout policy on coverage of its gatherings. First off, Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post that a Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal, is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints AIPAC as the NRA. An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel…. Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s slogan is “if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] in America.”.. Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance. And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters. Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic site saying that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to the two-state solution. AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in American politics and culture make that harder and harder… It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation. There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former West Point instructor, laments on the death of the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s role in that transformation. I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism. AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room. Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory, keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights. This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: “Why do they hate us?” Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece on “The dark roots” of AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.” The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors; but Eisenhower bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. The outcry was sharp and wide. Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident. Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954. And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along with its mouth shut). Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. .. It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy…. The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans. The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, angered by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending “off the record” sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries…. AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby…. The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the press policies are hurting that goal. The Atlanta Jewish Times chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy and saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was off the record. The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled “Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel” was this sign: “THIS SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.” [Image removed by sender.] Sign outside a panel on press freedom at AIPAC, foto in Atlanta Jewish Week. …AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because everything AIPAC does locally is off the record. It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the press, such as Stephens… We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s inside. In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under way, I believe, though it will take a while… Thanks to Donald Johnson, Todd Pierce, Adam Horowitz, John Whitbeck. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 980 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 338 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3013 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1025 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Mar 18 12:54:29 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 12:54:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_bad_press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_Post?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Right now as we speak the AIPACkers are trying to get us Americans into a needless war against Iran for the benefit of Israel. Just like the AIPACKers helped get us Americans into two needless wars against Iraq for the benefit of Israel. The AIPACkers are just a Gang of Warmongers for Israel. Fab Francis 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, March 18, 2018 7:38 AM To: 'David Johnson' Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ The AIPACkers are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. Fab. Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 7:31 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ From: David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:47 PM Subject: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/getting-jewish-washington/ [Image removed by sender.] AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ mondoweiss.net In a sign of growing establishment distrust of the Israel lobby group AIPAC, several writers liken it to the NRA, and the Washington Post publishes an important article by Doug Rossinow saying that… US Politics Philip Weiss on March 16, 2018 39 Comments o [Image removed by sender. Decrease Text Size] o [Image removed by sender. Increase Text Size] o Adjust Font Size [Image removed by sender.] Doug Rossinow  One pleasurable surprise of the AIPAC policy conference in early March — the leading Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — was how much bad press the organization got. It’s becoming almost fashionable to criticize the lobby for its enforcement of lockstep political support for Israel in Washington, and for its Soviet-style policy on access to the press. These criticisms are finally showing up in the mainstream press. Reporters have been licensed by the injury mere high school students have done to another powerful lobby, the National Rifle Association. So maybe AIPAC is on the same path-to-pariah status, more than a decade after Walt and Mearsheimer published their book The Israel Lobby. Here are a few items. Notable among them is a report in the Washington Post of all places saying that AIPAC was born to rally American Jews to stand shoulder to shoulder behind Israeli “lies” about a massacre of Palestinians, back in 1953. And two angry pieces in the Jewish press decrying AIPAC’s blackout policy on coverage of its gatherings. First off, Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post that a Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal, is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints AIPAC as the NRA. An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel…. Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s slogan is “if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] in America.”.. Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance. And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters. Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic site saying that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to the two-state solution. AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in American politics and culture make that harder and harder… It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation. There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former West Point instructor, laments on the death of the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s role in that transformation. I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism. AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room. Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory, keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights. This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: “Why do they hate us?” Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece on “The dark roots” of AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.” The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors; but Eisenhower bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. The outcry was sharp and wide. Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident. Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954. And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along with its mouth shut). Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. .. It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy…. The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans. The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, angered by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending “off the record” sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries…. AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby…. The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the press policies are hurting that goal. The Atlanta Jewish Times chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy and saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was off the record. The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled “Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel” was this sign: “THIS SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.” [Image removed by sender.] Sign outside a panel on press freedom at AIPAC, foto in Atlanta Jewish Week. …AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because everything AIPAC does locally is off the record. It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the press, such as Stephens… We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s inside. In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under way, I believe, though it will take a while… Thanks to Donald Johnson, Todd Pierce, Adam Horowitz, John Whitbeck. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 980 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 338 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3013 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1025 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Mar 18 14:06:14 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 14:06:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_bad_press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_Post?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: And ditto for the Gang of Die-hard NeoCon Warmongering Zionists at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy where Wexler at the Trump College of Law here is an “academic fellow.” The Foundation just put out a piece of warmongering Zionist propaganda blaming the Palestinian BDS Campaign on Iran. LOL! Fab D in BDS. Francis 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, March 18, 2018 7:54 AM To: 'David Johnson' Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ Right now as we speak the AIPACkers are trying to get us Americans into a needless war against Iran for the benefit of Israel. Just like the AIPACKers helped get us Americans into two needless wars against Iraq for the benefit of Israel. The AIPACkers are just a Gang of Warmongers for Israel. Fab Francis 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, March 18, 2018 7:38 AM To: 'David Johnson' > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ The AIPACkers are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. Fab. Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 7:31 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ From: David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:47 PM Subject: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/getting-jewish-washington/ [Image removed by sender.] AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ mondoweiss.net In a sign of growing establishment distrust of the Israel lobby group AIPAC, several writers liken it to the NRA, and the Washington Post publishes an important article by Doug Rossinow saying that… US Politics Philip Weiss on March 16, 2018 39 Comments o [Image removed by sender. Decrease Text Size] o [Image removed by sender. Increase Text Size] o Adjust Font Size [Image removed by sender.] Doug Rossinow  One pleasurable surprise of the AIPAC policy conference in early March — the leading Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — was how much bad press the organization got. It’s becoming almost fashionable to criticize the lobby for its enforcement of lockstep political support for Israel in Washington, and for its Soviet-style policy on access to the press. These criticisms are finally showing up in the mainstream press. Reporters have been licensed by the injury mere high school students have done to another powerful lobby, the National Rifle Association. So maybe AIPAC is on the same path-to-pariah status, more than a decade after Walt and Mearsheimer published their book The Israel Lobby. Here are a few items. Notable among them is a report in the Washington Post of all places saying that AIPAC was born to rally American Jews to stand shoulder to shoulder behind Israeli “lies” about a massacre of Palestinians, back in 1953. And two angry pieces in the Jewish press decrying AIPAC’s blackout policy on coverage of its gatherings. First off, Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post that a Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal, is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints AIPAC as the NRA. An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel…. Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s slogan is “if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] in America.”.. Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance. And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters. Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic site saying that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to the two-state solution. AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in American politics and culture make that harder and harder… It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation. There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former West Point instructor, laments on the death of the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s role in that transformation. I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism. AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room. Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory, keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights. This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: “Why do they hate us?” Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece on “The dark roots” of AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.” The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors; but Eisenhower bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. The outcry was sharp and wide. Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident. Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954. And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along with its mouth shut). Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. .. It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy…. The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans. The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, angered by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending “off the record” sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries…. AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby…. The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the press policies are hurting that goal. The Atlanta Jewish Times chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy and saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was off the record. The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled “Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel” was this sign: “THIS SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.” [Image removed by sender.] Sign outside a panel on press freedom at AIPAC, foto in Atlanta Jewish Week. …AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because everything AIPAC does locally is off the record. It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the press, such as Stephens… We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s inside. In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under way, I believe, though it will take a while… Thanks to Donald Johnson, Todd Pierce, Adam Horowitz, John Whitbeck. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 980 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 338 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3013 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1025 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Mar 18 14:48:09 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:48:09 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_bad_press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_Post?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <26125CD6-2223-4C69-93B7-01324667ACDA@gmail.com> : …Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post that a Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal, is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints AIPAC as the NRA. "An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel…. "Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s slogan is 'if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] in America'…" Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): "Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance." And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. "The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters." Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic site saying that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to the two-state solution. "AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in American politics and culture make that harder and harder… "It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation." There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former West Point instructor, laments on the death of the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s role in that transformation. "I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism. “AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room." Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. "The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory, keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights. "This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: 'Why do they hate us?’" Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece on “The dark roots” of AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.” The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors; but Eisenhower bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. "The outcry was sharp and wide. "Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident. Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” "Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954." And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along with its mouth shut). "Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. .. "It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy…. "The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. 'America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,' born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans." The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, angered by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” "Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending 'off the record' sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries…. "AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby…" "The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the press policies are hurting that goal. The Atlanta Jewish Times chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy and saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was off the record. "The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled 'Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel' was this sign: 'THIS SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.' "…AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because everything AIPAC does locally is off the record. "It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the press, such as Stephens… "We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s inside." In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under way, I believe, though it will take a while… ### From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Mar 18 15:03:43 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 15:03:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_bad_press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_Post?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= In-Reply-To: <26125CD6-2223-4C69-93B7-01324667ACDA@gmail.com> References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> <26125CD6-2223-4C69-93B7-01324667ACDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: AIPAC and ADL put me on their Enemies Lists for Blackballing and Blacklisting years ago when I helped a Jewish Professor Friend of mine free of charge who had been blackballed and blacklisted by AIPAC and ADL in order to get tenure. AIPAC and ADL still maintain and enforce those Enemies Lists Nationwide against professors--witness Norman Finkelstein at DePaul and Steven Salaita here. But AIPAC and ADL et al. can be defeated. I have done it myself--repeatedly. Just Two Gangs of Thugs. Fab. D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 9:48 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; peace Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ : …Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post that a Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal, is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints AIPAC as the NRA. "An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel…. "Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s slogan is 'if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] in America'…" Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): "Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance." And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. "The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters." Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic site saying that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to the two-state solution. "AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in American politics and culture make that harder and harder… "It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation." There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former West Point instructor, laments on the death of the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s role in that transformation. "I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism. “AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room." Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. "The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory, keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights. "This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: 'Why do they hate us?’" Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece on “The dark roots” of AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.” The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors; but Eisenhower bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. "The outcry was sharp and wide. "Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident. Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” "Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954." And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along with its mouth shut). "Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. .. "It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy…. "The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. 'America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,' born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans." The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, angered by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” "Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending 'off the record' sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries…. "AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby…" "The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the press policies are hurting that goal. The Atlanta Jewish Times chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy and saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was off the record. "The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled 'Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel' was this sign: 'THIS SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.' "…AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because everything AIPAC does locally is off the record. "It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the press, such as Stephens… "We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s inside." In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under way, I believe, though it will take a while… ### From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Mar 18 15:18:55 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 15:18:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_bad_press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_Post?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> <26125CD6-2223-4C69-93B7-01324667ACDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: And Killeen can stick his slur of "anti-Semitism" against the BDS Movement where the sun don't shine--just like Larry Summers. Fab. D in BDS Subject: The Common Ills: Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2013/12/prof-boyle-schools-harvard-president.html Sunday, December 29, 2013 Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor of international law. He's also the author of many books including, most recently, United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law. Professor Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Dec. 27, 2013 Dear President Faust: I notice your condemnation of the ASA Boycott against Israel in today's New York Times. I note for the record that Harvard has never once apologized to those of us Harvard Alums who participated in good faith in the Harvard Divestment/Disinvestment Campaign against Israel when your predecessor Larry Summers accused us of being anti-Semitic-- a charge which he refused to defend against me as related below. As a matter of fact, Harvard is so notoriously anti-Palestinian that the late, great Edward Said refused to accept Harvard's top chair in Comparative Literature when Harvard offered it to him. As a loyal Harvard alum I spent an entire evening with Edward at a Chinese Restaurant in Manhattan trying to convince Edward to take this Chair. I thought it would be good for Harvard to have Edward teaching there. As a lawyer and a law professor, I can be quite persuasive. But Edward would have none of my arguments. As Edward saw it, Harvard was so anti-Palestinian that Harvard would have thwarted his intellectual creativity to move there. So Edward stayed at Columbia. Of course Edward was right. And the anti-Palestinian tenor and orientation of Harvard has certainly gotten far worse since when Edward and I were both students at Harvard. Harvard should be doing something about its own longstanding bigotry and racism against the Palestinians. Not criticizing those of us trying to help the Palestinians suffering from Israeli persecution, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and outright genocide. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Harvard: JDMCL, AM, PHD, CFIA, Teaching Fellow Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA ************************************ sent by Francis Boyle - Jul 30, 2007 The Cowardice of Harvard's Larry Summers I'm not going to go through the subsequent history of the divestment/disinvestment movement, except to say that in the late summer of 2002 the President of Harvard, Larry Summers accused those of us Harvard alumni involved in the Harvard divestment campaign of being anti-Semitic. After he made these charges, WBUR Radio Station in Boston, which is a National Public Radio affiliate, called me up and said: "We would like you to debate Summers for one hour on these charges, live." And I said, "I'd be happy to do so." They then called up Summers and he refused to debate me. Summers did not have the courage, the integrity, or the principles to back up his scurrilous charges. Eventually Harvard fired Summers because of his attempt to impose his Neo-Conservative agenda on Harvard, and in particular his other scurrilous charge that women are dumber than men when it comes to math and science. Well as a Harvard alumnus I say: Good riddance to Larry Summers! (laughter). Debating Dershowitz WBUR then called me back and said, "Well, since Summers won't debate you, would you debate Alan Dershowitz?" And I said, "Sure." So we had a debate for one hour, live on the radio. And there is a link that you can hear this debate if you want to. I still think it's the best debate out there on this whole issue of Israeli apartheid. Again that would be WBUR Radio Station, Boston, 25 September 2002. The problem with the debate, of course, is that Dershowitz knows nothing about international law and human rights. So he immediately started out by saying "well, there's nothing similar to the apartheid regime in South Africa and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians." Well the problem with that is that Dershowitz did not know anything at all about even the existence of the Apartheid Convention. That is our second Handout for tonight. [See Handout 2 reprinted below.] The definition of apartheid is set out in the Apartheid Convention of 1973. And this is taken from my book Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law, Trial Materials on South Africa, published in 1987, that we used successfully to defend anti-apartheid resistors in the United States. If you take a look at the definition of apartheid here found in Article 2, you will see that Israel has inflicted each and every act of apartheid set out in Article 2 on the Palestinians, except an outright ban on marriages between Israelis and Palestinians. But even there they have barred Palestinians living in occupied Palestine who marry Israeli citizens from moving into Israel, and thus defeat the right of family reunification that of course the world supported when Jews were emigrating from the Soviet Union. Israel: An Apartheid State Again you don't have to take my word for it. There's an excellent essay today on Counterpunch.org by the leading Israeli human rights advocate Shulamit Aloni saying basically: "Yes we have an apartheid state in Israel." Indeed, there are roads in the West Bank for Jews only. Palestinians can't ride there and now they're introducing new legislation that Jews cannot even ride Palestinians in their cars. This lead my colleague and friend Professor John Dugard who is the U.N. Special rapporteur for human rights in Palestine to write an essay earlier this fall that you can get on Google, saying that in fact Israeli apartheid against the Palestinians is worse than the apartheid that the Afrikaners inflicted on the Blacks in South Africa. Professor Duguard should know. He was one of a handful of courageous, white, international lawyers living in South Africa at the time who publicly and internationally condemned apartheid against Blacks at risk to his own life. Indeed, when I was litigating anti-apartheid cases on South Africa, we used Professor Duguard's book on Human Rights and the South African Legal Order as the definitive work explaining what apartheid is all about. So Professor Duguard has recently made this statement. Of course President Carter has recently made this statement in his book that Israel is an apartheid state. And certainly if you look at that definition of the Apartheid Convention, right there in front of you, it's clear - there are objective criteria. Indeed if you read my Palestinian book I have a Bibliography at the end with the facts right there based on reputable human rights reports, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. Many of them were also compiled and discussed by my friend Professor Norman Finklestein in his book Beyond Chutzpah, which I'd encourage you to read. Francis A. Boyle ********************************** On Point Radio - Sep 25, 2007 broadcast Across the country, the push for divestment has spread to more than 40 campuses. The movement condemns Israel for human rights abuses against the Palestinians. Hundreds of big-name academics have signed on, but so far no university has moved to divest. The current debate isn't the first time divestment has been used on college campuses as a means to effect social and political change. In the 1980s, the South African divestment campaign helped end apartheid. Do you see parallels with the apartheid debate? Has Israel become a trendy target? Guests: Francis Boyle, professor of international law at The University of Illinois College of Law Alan Dershowitz, professor at Harvard Law School Taufiq Rahim, student at Princeton University francis a. boyle Posted by Common Ills at 1:30 PM 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: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:04 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' ; peace Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ AIPAC and ADL put me on their Enemies Lists for Blackballing and Blacklisting years ago when I helped a Jewish Professor Friend of mine free of charge who had been blackballed and blacklisted by AIPAC and ADL in order to get tenure. AIPAC and ADL still maintain and enforce those Enemies Lists Nationwide against professors--witness Norman Finkelstein at DePaul and Steven Salaita here. But AIPAC and ADL et al. can be defeated. I have done it myself--repeatedly. Just Two Gangs of Thugs. Fab. D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 9:48 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; peace Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ : …Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post that a Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal, is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints AIPAC as the NRA. "An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel…. "Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s slogan is 'if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] in America'…" Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): "Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance." And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. "The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters." Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic site saying that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to the two-state solution. "AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in American politics and culture make that harder and harder… "It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation." There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former West Point instructor, laments on the death of the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s role in that transformation. "I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism. “AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room." Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. "The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory, keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights. "This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: 'Why do they hate us?’" Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece on “The dark roots” of AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.” The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors; but Eisenhower bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. "The outcry was sharp and wide. "Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident. Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” "Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954." And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along with its mouth shut). "Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. .. "It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy…. "The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. 'America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,' born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans." The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, angered by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” "Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending 'off the record' sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries…. "AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby…" "The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the press policies are hurting that goal. The Atlanta Jewish Times chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy and saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was off the record. "The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled 'Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel' was this sign: 'THIS SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.' "…AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because everything AIPAC does locally is off the record. "It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the press, such as Stephens… "We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s inside." In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under way, I believe, though it will take a while… ### From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Mar 18 15:42:28 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 15:42:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_bad_press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_Post?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> <26125CD6-2223-4C69-93B7-01324667ACDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: And the University of Illinois is so notoriously anti-Palestinian that they illegally fired Steve Salaita, put him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, destroyed his entire academic career and neutered our Native American Studies Program that was set up in order to partially compensate for Chief Illiniwak. The University of Illiniwaks are just a Gang of Die-Hard Bigots and Racists against Palestinians and American Indians. Fab. D in BDS. 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: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:19 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' ; 'peace' Cc: 'David Johnson' ; 'Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)' Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ And Killeen can stick his slur of "anti-Semitism" against the BDS Movement where the sun don't shine--just like Larry Summers. Fab. D in BDS Subject: The Common Ills: Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2013/12/prof-boyle-schools-harvard-president.html Sunday, December 29, 2013 Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor of international law. He's also the author of many books including, most recently, United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law. Professor Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Dec. 27, 2013 Dear President Faust: I notice your condemnation of the ASA Boycott against Israel in today's New York Times. I note for the record that Harvard has never once apologized to those of us Harvard Alums who participated in good faith in the Harvard Divestment/Disinvestment Campaign against Israel when your predecessor Larry Summers accused us of being anti-Semitic-- a charge which he refused to defend against me as related below. As a matter of fact, Harvard is so notoriously anti-Palestinian that the late, great Edward Said refused to accept Harvard's top chair in Comparative Literature when Harvard offered it to him. As a loyal Harvard alum I spent an entire evening with Edward at a Chinese Restaurant in Manhattan trying to convince Edward to take this Chair. I thought it would be good for Harvard to have Edward teaching there. As a lawyer and a law professor, I can be quite persuasive. But Edward would have none of my arguments. As Edward saw it, Harvard was so anti-Palestinian that Harvard would have thwarted his intellectual creativity to move there. So Edward stayed at Columbia. Of course Edward was right. And the anti-Palestinian tenor and orientation of Harvard has certainly gotten far worse since when Edward and I were both students at Harvard. Harvard should be doing something about its own longstanding bigotry and racism against the Palestinians. Not criticizing those of us trying to help the Palestinians suffering from Israeli persecution, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and outright genocide. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Harvard: JDMCL, AM, PHD, CFIA, Teaching Fellow Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA ************************************ sent by Francis Boyle - Jul 30, 2007 The Cowardice of Harvard's Larry Summers I'm not going to go through the subsequent history of the divestment/disinvestment movement, except to say that in the late summer of 2002 the President of Harvard, Larry Summers accused those of us Harvard alumni involved in the Harvard divestment campaign of being anti-Semitic. After he made these charges, WBUR Radio Station in Boston, which is a National Public Radio affiliate, called me up and said: "We would like you to debate Summers for one hour on these charges, live." And I said, "I'd be happy to do so." They then called up Summers and he refused to debate me. Summers did not have the courage, the integrity, or the principles to back up his scurrilous charges. Eventually Harvard fired Summers because of his attempt to impose his Neo-Conservative agenda on Harvard, and in particular his other scurrilous charge that women are dumber than men when it comes to math and science. Well as a Harvard alumnus I say: Good riddance to Larry Summers! (laughter). Debating Dershowitz WBUR then called me back and said, "Well, since Summers won't debate you, would you debate Alan Dershowitz?" And I said, "Sure." So we had a debate for one hour, live on the radio. And there is a link that you can hear this debate if you want to. I still think it's the best debate out there on this whole issue of Israeli apartheid. Again that would be WBUR Radio Station, Boston, 25 September 2002. The problem with the debate, of course, is that Dershowitz knows nothing about international law and human rights. So he immediately started out by saying "well, there's nothing similar to the apartheid regime in South Africa and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians." Well the problem with that is that Dershowitz did not know anything at all about even the existence of the Apartheid Convention. That is our second Handout for tonight. [See Handout 2 reprinted below.] The definition of apartheid is set out in the Apartheid Convention of 1973. And this is taken from my book Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law, Trial Materials on South Africa, published in 1987, that we used successfully to defend anti-apartheid resistors in the United States. If you take a look at the definition of apartheid here found in Article 2, you will see that Israel has inflicted each and every act of apartheid set out in Article 2 on the Palestinians, except an outright ban on marriages between Israelis and Palestinians. But even there they have barred Palestinians living in occupied Palestine who marry Israeli citizens from moving into Israel, and thus defeat the right of family reunification that of course the world supported when Jews were emigrating from the Soviet Union. Israel: An Apartheid State Again you don't have to take my word for it. There's an excellent essay today on Counterpunch.org by the leading Israeli human rights advocate Shulamit Aloni saying basically: "Yes we have an apartheid state in Israel." Indeed, there are roads in the West Bank for Jews only. Palestinians can't ride there and now they're introducing new legislation that Jews cannot even ride Palestinians in their cars. This lead my colleague and friend Professor John Dugard who is the U.N. Special rapporteur for human rights in Palestine to write an essay earlier this fall that you can get on Google, saying that in fact Israeli apartheid against the Palestinians is worse than the apartheid that the Afrikaners inflicted on the Blacks in South Africa. Professor Duguard should know. He was one of a handful of courageous, white, international lawyers living in South Africa at the time who publicly and internationally condemned apartheid against Blacks at risk to his own life. Indeed, when I was litigating anti-apartheid cases on South Africa, we used Professor Duguard's book on Human Rights and the South African Legal Order as the definitive work explaining what apartheid is all about. So Professor Duguard has recently made this statement. Of course President Carter has recently made this statement in his book that Israel is an apartheid state. And certainly if you look at that definition of the Apartheid Convention, right there in front of you, it's clear - there are objective criteria. Indeed if you read my Palestinian book I have a Bibliography at the end with the facts right there based on reputable human rights reports, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. Many of them were also compiled and discussed by my friend Professor Norman Finklestein in his book Beyond Chutzpah, which I'd encourage you to read. Francis A. Boyle ********************************** On Point Radio - Sep 25, 2007 broadcast Across the country, the push for divestment has spread to more than 40 campuses. The movement condemns Israel for human rights abuses against the Palestinians. Hundreds of big-name academics have signed on, but so far no university has moved to divest. The current debate isn't the first time divestment has been used on college campuses as a means to effect social and political change. In the 1980s, the South African divestment campaign helped end apartheid. Do you see parallels with the apartheid debate? Has Israel become a trendy target? Guests: Francis Boyle, professor of international law at The University of Illinois College of Law Alan Dershowitz, professor at Harvard Law School Taufiq Rahim, student at Princeton University francis a. boyle Posted by Common Ills at 1:30 PM 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: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:04 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' ; peace Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ AIPAC and ADL put me on their Enemies Lists for Blackballing and Blacklisting years ago when I helped a Jewish Professor Friend of mine free of charge who had been blackballed and blacklisted by AIPAC and ADL in order to get tenure. AIPAC and ADL still maintain and enforce those Enemies Lists Nationwide against professors--witness Norman Finkelstein at DePaul and Steven Salaita here. But AIPAC and ADL et al. can be defeated. I have done it myself--repeatedly. Just Two Gangs of Thugs. Fab. D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 9:48 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; peace Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ : …Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post that a Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal, is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints AIPAC as the NRA. "An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel…. "Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s slogan is 'if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] in America'…" Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): "Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance." And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. "The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters." Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic site saying that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to the two-state solution. "AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in American politics and culture make that harder and harder… "It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation." There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former West Point instructor, laments on the death of the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s role in that transformation. "I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism. “AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room." Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. "The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory, keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights. "This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: 'Why do they hate us?’" Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece on “The dark roots” of AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.” The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors; but Eisenhower bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. "The outcry was sharp and wide. "Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident. Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” "Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954." And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along with its mouth shut). "Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. .. "It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy…. "The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. 'America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,' born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans." The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, angered by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” "Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending 'off the record' sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries…. "AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby…" "The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the press policies are hurting that goal. The Atlanta Jewish Times chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy and saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was off the record. "The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled 'Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel' was this sign: 'THIS SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.' "…AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because everything AIPAC does locally is off the record. "It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the press, such as Stephens… "We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s inside." In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under way, I believe, though it will take a while… ### From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun Mar 18 15:57:24 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:57:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_bad_press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_?= =?utf-8?b?UG9zdOKAmQ==?= In-Reply-To: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Both the Weiss article and the WP Rossinow article linked to in the Weiss article are worth reading. Since Jeff Bezos is of Lebanese origin, there may be some sort of underlying tolerance of dissidence there, I don't know. The difference between 1953, when there was a backlash against Israel's raid into what was then Jordan, and the present, is important to note. Until 1967, the U.S. was trying to secure its alliance with Saudi Arabia (post-British) in the midst of Arab nationalism, and Israel was seen as a disruptive force in that regard. In addition, Jewish-Americans were wary of being accused of disloyalty in the midst of the Cold War, and "socialist" Israel (which even had a Communist Party) was kept at a modest distance by liberal American Jews. Thus the origins of the Israel Lobby at this time. Presently, a half-century after the demise of Arab nationalism, Israel and the KSA are the primary U.S. allies in the post-Cold War, neoliberal era, in opposition to the Shi'a axis of evil. Whatever the support for the Palestinian cause, which has been growing for the past decade or more, the strategic partnership with Israel is likely stronger than ever at fundamental levels, including the relationship of the U of I with Israeli universities. Thus, for this support for Palestinian rights to result in anything, it will have to challenge the basic tenets of U.S. strategy in the Middle East, rather than just the Lobby itself; obviously not a small order. DG On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 7:30 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > *From:* David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:47 PM > *Subject:* AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers > and ‘Washington Post’ > > > AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and > ‘Washington Post’ > > > > http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/getting-jewish-washington/ > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and > ‘Washington Post’ > > > mondoweiss.net > > In a sign of growing establishment distrust of the Israel lobby group > AIPAC, several writers liken it to the NRA, and the Washington Post > publishes an important article by Doug Rossinow saying that… > > > > > > US Politics > > Philip Weiss on March 16, 2018 39 > Comments > > > o [image: Image removed by sender. Decrease Text Size] > > > o [image: Image removed by sender. Increase Text Size] > > > o Adjust Font Size > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > Doug Rossinow > >  > > One pleasurable surprise of the AIPAC policy conference in early March — > the leading Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs > Committee — was how much bad press the organization got. It’s becoming > almost fashionable to criticize the lobby for its enforcement of lockstep > political support for Israel in Washington, and for its Soviet-style policy > on access to the press. > > These criticisms are finally showing up in the mainstream press. Reporters > have been licensed by the injury mere high school students have done to > another powerful lobby, the National Rifle Association. So maybe AIPAC is > on the same path-to-pariah status, more than a decade after Walt and > Mearsheimer published their book *The Israel Lobby*. > > Here are a few items. Notable among them is a report in the Washington > Post of all places saying that AIPAC was born to rally American Jews to > stand shoulder to shoulder behind Israeli “lies” about a massacre of > Palestinians, back in 1953. And two angry pieces in the Jewish press > decrying AIPAC’s blackout policy on coverage of its gatherings. > > First off, Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post > that a > Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal > , is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who > voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints > AIPAC as the NRA. > > *An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he > is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a > kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but > being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal > believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of > the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of > American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away > from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel….* > > *Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s > slogan is “if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National > Rifle Association] in America.”..* > > Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that > the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): > > *Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not > because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, > but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t > like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The > candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance.* > > And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. > > *The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of > American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at > AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters.* > > Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic > site > saying > that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says > young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the > occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to > the two-state solution. > > *AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on > bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in > American politics and culture make that harder and harder…* > > *It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because > the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century > long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free > movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they > live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy > rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] > Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains > the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to > end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they > place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation.* > > There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former > West Point instructor, laments > on the death of > the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s > role in that transformation. > > *I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy > Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel > at > the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I > couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The > worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most > domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed > liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the > perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. > Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a > symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism.* > > *AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as > the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans > alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss > Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, > participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be > untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room > .* > > Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. > > *The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more > than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the > Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years > now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal > settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory > , keeping Arabs in limbo > without citizenship or meaningful civil rights.* > > *This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, > unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the > U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In > Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, > captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to > unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when > answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: “Why do they hate > us?”* > > Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece > on “The dark roots” > of > AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. > Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American > Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. > > Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses > Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a > united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that > politicians have had to respect.” > > The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his > political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of > course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors > ; but Eisenhower > bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya > massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more > than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a > Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” > > Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. > > *The outcry was sharp and wide.* > > *Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass > murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” > The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that > refuted Israeli lies about the incident.* > > Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters > prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” > > *Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, > American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control > effort in late 1953 and early 1954.* > > And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. > AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish > community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along > with its mouth > shut). > > *Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public > Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front > among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya > controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was > impressively broad. ..* > > *It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize > American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more > disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent > advocacy….* > > *The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has > always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s > sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. > “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” born in awful knowledge, has always existed > to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans.* > > The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful > knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! > > More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, > angered > by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting > sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. > From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” > > *Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel > inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the > room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of > sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to > keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If > members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending “off the > record” sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important > give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without > violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries….* > > *AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward > the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a > separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main > area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at > times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC > officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby….* > > The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of > promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the > press policies are hurting that goal. > > The *Atlanta Jewish Times* chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy > and > saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was > off the record. > > *The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March > 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled > “Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel” was this sign: “THIS > SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.”* > > *[image: Image removed by sender.]* > > *Sign outside a panel on press freedom at AIPAC, foto in Atlanta Jewish > Week.* > > *…AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz > Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York > Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because > everything AIPAC does locally is off the record.* > > *It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the > press, such as Stephens…* > > *We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an > aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s > inside.* > > In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to > criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under > way, I believe, though it will take a while… > > *Thanks to Donald Johnson, Todd Pierce, Adam Horowitz, John Whitbeck. * > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1025 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3013 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 338 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 980 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Mar 18 16:33:39 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:33:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_bad_press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_Post?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> <26125CD6-2223-4C69-93B7-01324667ACDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2D21BFB9-4C36-43BD-B40B-06A75F0EE56E@gmail.com> We should also note the cowardly acquiescence of our local ‘liberal’ legislators, state senator Scott Bennett and state representative Carol Ammons (both Democrats), to the Israeli government’s interference in the Illinois legislature, in support of its racist policies in the territories that it illegally occupies. Three years ago Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner signed into law the first-ever state action against boycotts of Israeli apartheid - a bill requiring Illinois to identify companies that boycott Israel for its discrimination against Palestinians - and then to withhold investing Illinois pension funds in those companies! Neither Bennett nor Ammons voted against the bill, which had been actively lobbied for by the Israeli consulate in Chicago. That a foreign government should be directing Illinois’ investment strategies is bad enough, but that it should be in support of racism, illegal occupation, and human rights abuses is outrageous. It has been observed that apartheid against Palestinians in the territories that Israel occupies is worse than the apartheid regime that existed in South Africa from 1948 to 1994. That system was based on the repression of the black (African, Coloured and Indian) majority of the population for the benefit of the politically and economically dominant group, Afrikaners. Bennett and Ammons would not have favored South African apartheid a generation ago. That they do so now, in Israel, is shameful. Another reason that the war-party Democrats should not be supported, on the state or national level. —CGE > On Mar 18, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > And the University of Illinois is so notoriously anti-Palestinian that they illegally fired Steve Salaita, put him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, destroyed his entire academic career and neutered our Native American Studies Program that was set up in order to partially compensate for Chief Illiniwak. The University of Illiniwaks are just a Gang of Die-Hard Bigots and Racists against Palestinians and American Indians. > Fab. > D in BDS. > > 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: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:19 AM > To: 'C G Estabrook' ; 'peace' > Cc: 'David Johnson' ; 'Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)' > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ > > And Killeen can stick his slur of "anti-Semitism" against the BDS Movement where the sun don't shine--just like Larry Summers. > Fab. > D in BDS > Subject: The Common Ills: Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice > > http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2013/12/prof-boyle-schools-harvard-president.html > > > Sunday, December 29, 2013 > > > > > Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice > > > > Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor of international law. He's also the author of many books including, most recently, United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law. > > > Professor Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice > > > > Dec. 27, 2013 > > > Dear President Faust: > > > I notice your condemnation of the ASA Boycott against Israel in today's New York Times. I note for the record that Harvard has never once apologized to those of us Harvard Alums who participated in good faith in the Harvard Divestment/Disinvestment Campaign against Israel when your predecessor Larry Summers accused us of being anti-Semitic-- a charge which he refused to defend against me as related below. As a matter of fact, Harvard is so notoriously anti-Palestinian that the late, great Edward Said refused to accept Harvard's top chair in Comparative Literature when Harvard offered it to him. As a loyal Harvard alum I spent an entire evening with Edward at a Chinese Restaurant in Manhattan trying to convince Edward to take this Chair. I thought it would be good for Harvard to have Edward teaching there. As a lawyer and a law professor, I can be quite persuasive. But Edward would have none of my arguments. As Edward saw it, Harvard was so anti-Palestinian that Harvard would have thwarted his intellectual creativity to move there. So Edward stayed at Columbia. Of course Edward was right. And the anti-Palestinian tenor and orientation of Harvard has certainly gotten far worse since when Edward and I were both students at Harvard. Harvard should be doing something about its own longstanding bigotry and racism against the Palestinians. Not criticizing those of us trying to help the Palestinians suffering from Israeli persecution, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and outright genocide. > > > > > Yours very truly, > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Professor of Law > > > > > Harvard: JDMCL, AM, PHD, CFIA, Teaching Fellow > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > > > ************************************ > > sent by Francis Boyle - Jul 30, 2007 > > > The Cowardice of Harvard's Larry Summers > > > > > I'm not going to go through the subsequent history of the divestment/disinvestment movement, except to say that in the late summer of 2002 the President of Harvard, Larry Summers accused those of us Harvard alumni involved in the Harvard divestment campaign of being anti-Semitic. > > After he made these charges, WBUR Radio Station in Boston, which is a National Public Radio affiliate, called me up and said: "We would like you to debate Summers for one hour on these charges, live." And I said, "I'd be happy to do so." They then called up Summers and he refused to debate me. > > Summers did not have the courage, the integrity, or the principles to back up his scurrilous charges. Eventually Harvard fired Summers because of his attempt to impose his Neo-Conservative agenda on Harvard, and in particular his other scurrilous charge that women are dumber than men when it comes to math and science. Well as a Harvard alumnus I say: Good riddance to Larry Summers! (laughter). > > Debating Dershowitz > > WBUR then called me back and said, "Well, since Summers won't debate you, would you debate Alan Dershowitz?" And I said, "Sure." So we had a debate for one hour, live on the radio. And there is a link that you can hear this debate if you want to. I still think it's the best debate out there on this whole issue of Israeli apartheid. Again that would be WBUR Radio Station, Boston, 25 September 2002. > > The problem with the debate, of course, is that Dershowitz knows nothing about international law and human rights. So he immediately started out by saying "well, there's nothing similar to the apartheid regime in South Africa and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians." > > Well the problem with that is that Dershowitz did not know anything at all about even the existence of the Apartheid Convention. That is our second Handout for tonight. [See Handout 2 reprinted below.] > > The definition of apartheid is set out in the Apartheid Convention of 1973. > > And this is taken from my book Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law, Trial Materials on South Africa, published in 1987, that we used successfully to defend anti-apartheid resistors in the United States. If you take a look at the definition of apartheid here found in Article 2, you will see that Israel has inflicted each and every act of apartheid set out in Article 2 on the Palestinians, except an outright ban on marriages between Israelis and Palestinians. But even there they have barred Palestinians living in occupied Palestine who marry Israeli citizens from moving into Israel, and thus defeat the right of family reunification that of course the world supported when Jews were emigrating from the Soviet Union. > > Israel: An Apartheid State > > Again you don't have to take my word for it. There's an excellent essay today on Counterpunch.org by the leading Israeli human rights advocate Shulamit Aloni saying basically: "Yes we have an apartheid state in Israel." Indeed, there are roads in the West Bank for Jews only. > > Palestinians can't ride there and now they're introducing new legislation that Jews cannot even ride Palestinians in their cars. > > This lead my colleague and friend Professor John Dugard who is the U.N. Special rapporteur for human rights in Palestine to write an essay earlier this fall that you can get on Google, saying that in fact Israeli apartheid against the Palestinians is worse than the apartheid that the Afrikaners inflicted on the Blacks in South Africa. Professor Duguard should know. > > He was one of a handful of courageous, white, international lawyers living in South Africa at the time who publicly and internationally condemned apartheid against Blacks at risk to his own life. Indeed, when I was litigating anti-apartheid cases on South Africa, we used Professor Duguard's book on Human Rights and the South African Legal Order as the definitive work explaining what apartheid is all about. > > So Professor Duguard has recently made this statement. Of course President Carter has recently made this statement in his book that Israel is an apartheid state. And certainly if you look at that definition of the Apartheid Convention, right there in front of you, it's clear - there are objective criteria. Indeed if you read my Palestinian book I have a Bibliography at the end with the facts right there based on reputable human rights reports, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. Many of them were also compiled and discussed by my friend Professor Norman Finklestein in his book Beyond Chutzpah, which I'd encourage you to read. > > Francis A. Boyle > > ********************************** > > On Point Radio - Sep 25, 2007 broadcast > > Across the country, the push for divestment has spread to more than 40 campuses. The movement condemns Israel for human rights abuses against the Palestinians. Hundreds of big-name academics have signed on, but so far no university has moved to divest. > > The current debate isn't the first time divestment has been used on college campuses as a means to effect social and political change. In the 1980s, the South African divestment campaign helped end apartheid. > > Do you see parallels with the apartheid debate? Has Israel become a trendy target? > > Guests: > > Francis Boyle, professor of international law at The University of Illinois College of Law > > Alan Dershowitz, professor at Harvard Law School > > Taufiq Rahim, student at Princeton University > > > > francis a. boyle > > > > > > Posted by Common Ills at 1:30 PM > > > > > > > > > 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: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:04 AM > To: 'C G Estabrook' ; peace > Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ > > AIPAC and ADL put me on their Enemies Lists for Blackballing and Blacklisting years ago when I helped a Jewish Professor Friend of mine free of charge who had been blackballed and blacklisted by AIPAC and ADL in order to get tenure. AIPAC and ADL still maintain and enforce those Enemies Lists Nationwide against professors--witness Norman Finkelstein at DePaul and Steven Salaita here. But AIPAC and ADL et al. can be defeated. I have done it myself--repeatedly. Just Two Gangs of Thugs. > Fab. > D in BDS. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 9:48 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A ; peace > Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ > > : > > …Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post that a Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal, is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints AIPAC as the NRA. > > "An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel…. > > "Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s slogan is 'if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] in America'…" > > Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): > > "Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance." > > And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. > > "The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters." > > Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic site saying that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to the two-state solution. > > "AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in American politics and culture make that harder and harder… > > "It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation." > > There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former West Point instructor, laments on the death of the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s role in that transformation. > > "I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism. > > “AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room." > > Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. > > "The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory, keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights. > > "This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: 'Why do they hate us?’" > > Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece on “The dark roots” of AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. > > Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.” > > The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors; but Eisenhower bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” > > Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. > > "The outcry was sharp and wide. > > "Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident. > > Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” > > "Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954." > > And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along with its mouth shut). > > "Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. .. > > "It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy…. > > "The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. 'America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,' born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans." > > The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! > > More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, angered by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” > > "Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending 'off the record' sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries…. > > "AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby…" > > "The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the press policies are hurting that goal. > > The Atlanta Jewish Times chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy and saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was off the record. > > "The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled 'Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel' was this sign: 'THIS SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.' > > "…AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because everything AIPAC does locally is off the record. > > "It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the press, such as Stephens… > > "We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s inside." > > In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under way, I believe, though it will take a while… > > ### > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Mar 18 16:48:21 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:48:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_bad_press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_Post?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: DG seems to me quite right. —CGE > On Mar 18, 2018, at 10:57 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Both the Weiss article and the WP Rossinow article linked to in the Weiss article are worth reading. Since Jeff Bezos is of Lebanese origin, there may be some sort of underlying tolerance of dissidence there, I don't know. > > The difference between 1953, when there was a backlash against Israel's raid into what was then Jordan, and the present, is important to note. Until 1967, the U.S. was trying to secure its alliance with Saudi Arabia (post-British) in the midst of Arab nationalism, and Israel was seen as a disruptive force in that regard. In addition, Jewish-Americans were wary of being accused of disloyalty in the midst of the Cold War, and "socialist" Israel (which even had a Communist Party) was kept at a modest distance by liberal American Jews. Thus the origins of the Israel Lobby at this time. > > Presently, a half-century after the demise of Arab nationalism, Israel and the KSA are the primary U.S. allies in the post-Cold War, neoliberal era, in opposition to the Shi'a axis of evil. > > Whatever the support for the Palestinian cause, which has been growing for the past decade or more, the strategic partnership with Israel is likely stronger than ever at fundamental levels, including the relationship of the U of I with Israeli universities. > > Thus, for this support for Palestinian rights to result in anything, it will have to challenge the basic tenets of U.S. strategy in the Middle East, rather than just the Lobby itself; obviously not a small order. > > DG > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 7:30 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From: David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:47 PM > Subject: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ > > AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ > > http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/getting-jewish-washington/ > > […] > > From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Mar 18 18:31:29 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 18:31:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: SNYTBR:Sunstein--Obama's Disinformation Tsar & Enabler 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, March 18, 2018 1:29 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: SNYTBR:Sunstein--Obama's Disinformation Tsar & Enabler Of course you can do what you want with your time. But I am not going to waste my time reading these two books by Obama's Disinformation Tsar and Enabler of Obama's war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, constitutional atrocities and impeachable offenses along with his wife HLS's Sam Our Problem From Hell Power. But on page 5 they have a review by Phil Kurland (of UChicago Law, back in the days when it was as good as HLS and YLS, though more conservative to be sure but not reactionary and ideological as it is today) of Raoul Berger's classic work on Impeachment, which I would strongly recommend. It is an excellent piece of scholarship, along with Berger's classic work on Executive Privilege, that debunks all the extravagant claims of such made by presidents from Nixon on up through Obama and now Trump. So if you were to spend your time reading anything, it would be those two books by Berger, then make up your own mind. Berger was a Research Professor when I was at HLS, so he did not teach students. I studied ConLaw with the late, great Paul Freund-RIP-who taught the plagiarist and opportunist Larry Tribe, who then taught ConLaw to Obama. Obviously something was lost in the process of transmission from Professor Freund to Obama and it was not Professor Freund's fault. Remember Larry's infamous letter to President Obama trashing Sotomayor in order to advance instead to the Supremes his Pet Poodle Kagan who ran interference for Larry's plagiarism as HLS Dean? In event, Sunstein is just a Propaganda Front-Man and Mouthpiece for Constitutional Bull-twaddle by the Democratic Party. Ditto for Larry Tribe-- poisoning and polluting and murdering our Children at the behest of Big Coal. Fab. ________________________________ From: Boyle, Francis Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:20 PM To: 'lschoenf at law.harvard.edu'; 'lschoenf at law.harvard.edu' Subject: RE: Professor Freund Exhibit Opening Importance: High Dear Friends: Thank you for notifying me of this important event. Just yesterday I started teaching my longstanding course on The Constitutional Law of U.S. Foreign Policy by informing my students that I was privileged to have studied Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School with the late and great Professor Paul Freund. I have started my course this way for the past 20+ years or so that I have taught it. The lessons of courage, integrity and principle that Professor Freund taught me shall always stay with me, and I do the best I can to convey his wisdom on to my students. I am very sorry I cannot attend your event because I will be teaching my course that very day. But I guess that is only appropriate for one of his students who went on to become a law professor. May God always hold him in the Palm of His Hand. RIP Professor Francis A. Boyle, HLS ''76 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle at law.uiuc.edu (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Harvard Law School Library [mailto:hlsa at law.harvard.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:01 PM To: Boyle, Francis Subject: Professor Freund Exhibit Opening This message is being sent to you because of your affiliation with Harvard University. ________________________________ Greetings, The Special Collections Department of the Harvard Law School Library is pleased to announce a new exhibit opening this fall. Balancing the Truth: Paul Freund 1908-1992, will celebrate the life and career of Professor Freund, Harvard's preeminent constitutional law scholar and teacher. The exhibit will feature materials from the Paul Freund Papers, as well as photographs and objects. The exhibit will open on October 17, 2006, with a reception from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m., featuring remarks by Harvard Law School Professors Andy Kaufman and Laurence H. Tribe at 5:15 p.m. The exhibit will run through February 2007. All are welcome to attend. No RSVP necessary. At the reception we will have a notebook containing reminisces of Professor Freund available for viewing. Toward that end we are asking former students, colleagues, and friends to share any quotes, tributes or anecdotes they may have of him. If you are interested in contributing a recollection to the exhibit, please send your reminisces either by hard copy or email to Lesley Schoenfeld. Be sure to note your name, class year and connection to Professor Freund. Please feel free to forward this message to anyone you know who may interested in sharing their memories of Professor Freund. We hope to see you in October. Sincerely, Edwin Moloy Curatorial Assistant for Manuscripts Special Collections Harvard Law School Library Langdell Hall Cambridge, MA 02138 Please send recollections to: Lesley Schoenfeld Harvard Law School Library Special Collections Langdell Hall 572 Cambridge, MA 02138 lschoenf at law.harvard.edu For further information, please contact Lesley Schoenfeld at (617) 495-5689 or lschoenf at law.harvard.edu Harvard respects your privacy. Please see our privacy statement for more information. http://www.haa.harvard.edu/help/html/jprivacy.html If you require further assistance in opting out of emails, please contact University Alumni Records at aro at harvard.edu. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Mar 18 14:19:09 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 14:19:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Iran JCPOA:UK Radio Interview (Tuesday) 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: Sunday, March 18, 2018 9:16 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Iran JCPOA:UK Radio Interview (Tuesday) As people on this list well know, I am no Obama supporter who betrayed the Legacy of the Harvard Law School that I once knew and went there to learn about the peaceful settlement of international disputes. But what Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and Secretary of Energy Moniz said about the JCPOA with Iran is correct. What we are hearing now is outright warmongering propaganda against Iran. Fab. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Iran.mp3 Type: audio/mpeg Size: 19660375 bytes Desc: Iran.mp3 URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Mar 18 21:14:52 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 21:14:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: 15 Years On: The Genocidal Maniac Returns to the Scene of Its Crimes. 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, March 18, 2018 4:12 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: 15 Years On: The Genocidal Maniac Returns to the Scene of Its Crimes. From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 1:38 PM To: Killeacle > Subject: The Genocidal Maniac Returns to the Scene of its Previous Crimes U.S.-U.K. GENOCIDE AGAINST IRAQ 1990-2012 KILLED 3.3 MILLION, INCLUDING 750,000 CHILDREN By Sherwood Ross Approximately 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children, were "exterminated" by economic sanctions and/or illegal wars conducted by the U.S. and Great Britain between 1990 and 2012, an eminent international legal authority says. The slaughter fits the classic definition of Genocide Convention Article II of, "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part," says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and who in 1991 filed a class-action complaint with the UN against President George H.W. Bush. The U.S. and U.K. "obstinately insisted" that their sanctions remain in place until after the "illegal" Gulf War II aggression perpetrated by President George W. Bush and UK's Tony Blair in March, 2003, "not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children" but "to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people," Boyle said. In an address last Nov. 22 to The International Conference on War-affected Children in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Boyle tallied the death toll on Iraq by U.S.-U.K. actions as follows: # The slaughter of 200,000 Iraqis by President Bush in his illegal 1991 Gulf War I. # The deaths of 1.4 million Iraqis as a result of the illegal 2003 war of aggression ordered by President Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Blair. # The deaths of 1.7 million Iraqis "as a direct result" of the genocidal sanctions. Boyle's class-action complaint demanded an end to all economic sanctions against Iraq; criminal proceedings for genocide against President George H.W. Bush; monetary compensation to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths, physical and mental injury; and for shipping massive humanitarian relief supplies to that country. The "grossly hypocritical" UN refused to terminate the sanctions, Boyle pointed out, even though its own Food and Agricultural Organization's Report estimated that by 1995 the sanctions had killed 560,000 Iraqi children during the previous five years. Boyle noted that then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was interviewed on CBS-TV on May 12, 1996, in response to a question by Leslie Stahl if the price of half a million dead children was worth it, and replied, "we (the U.S. government) think the price is worth it." Albright's shocking response provides "proof positive of the genocidal intent by the U.S. government against Iraq" under the Genocide Convention, Boyle said, adding that the government of Iraq today could still bring legal action against the U.S. and the U.K. in the International Court of Justice. He said the U.S.-U.K. genocide also violated the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its Additional Protocol 1 of 1977. Boyle, who was stirred to take action pro bono by Mothers in Iraq after the economic sanctions had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August, 1990, in response to pressure from the Bush Senior Administration. He is the author of numerous books on international affairs, including "Destroying World Order" (Clarity Press.) # (Sherwood Ross is a columnist, broadcast commentator and public relations consultant "for good causes." He formerly reported for major dailies and wire services and is the author of "Gruening of Alaska"(Best). Reach him at sherwoodross10 at gmail.com From: Clarity Press, Inc. [mailto:clarity at islandnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:32 PM To: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu Subject: Media Monitors reviews Boyle/Destroying World Order "Not surprisingly, the mainstream American media did not give Boyle's book anything near the coverage it deserves. But one day, his expert witness testimony, along with others, could be used in a court of law, or by historians, to identify who is/was behind this pure evil. It may take years, but that day will surely come.." Mohamed Elmasry, Professor of Engineering, Media Monitors Network, January 11, 2006. For the full article, go to www.mediamonitors.net DESTROYING WORLD ORDER: U.S. Imperialism in the Middle East Before and After September 11 by Francis A. Boyle Since the war in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom, Americans have been surprised to learn that much of the world now views the United States itself as a major threat to global peace. American international legal expert Francis A. Boyle examines the imperial dimensions of U.S. policy in the Middle East, past and present, which may help to account for these views. [http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/images/b0024.jpg]Boyle's hard-hitting analysis reveals a history of American intervention which has led to havoc in the region and destabilization of the international system as a whole. He examines U.S. assistance to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war, U.S. conduct of the 1990 Persian Gulf War and the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in relation to their violation of the of the laws of neutrality, humanitarian law, the laws of war--and the law of the U.S. Constitution. By the presidency of George W. Bush, U.S. policy had evolved to a public assertion of the right to preemptive strike, and its actual implementation. The concluding chapter provides a guide to impeaching President George W. Bush for lying in leading the nation to war. ABOUT FRANCIS A. BOYLE Francis A. Boyle is a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served as Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign and is author of, inter alia, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations 1898-1921, and The Bosnian People Charge Genocide. Francis A. Boyle holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University. CLARITY PRESS, INC. http://www.claritypress.com ISBN: 0-932863-40-X Paper $14.95 2004 Table of contents, synopsis and reviews available at: http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/b0024.htm Available from: SCB Distributors,15608 South New Century Drive, Gardena, CA. 90248 victor at scbdistributors.com Toll-free 800-729-6423* Tel: 1-310-532-9400 * Fax: 1-310-532-7001 or through www.amazon.com<%20http:/whatcounts.com/t?ctl=108AC39:3E1524B> or Ingram or Fernwood Books in Canada. Lindsay at fernwoodbooks.ca To remove: clarity at islandnet.com Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Mar 18 22:47:59 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:47:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [globenet] Fw: April 1-7: DRONE RESISTANCE WEEK at CREECH AFB In-Reply-To: <1DFD0B63005947939359B4E3CAA9CE24@BrucePC> References: <1DFD0B63005947939359B4E3CAA9CE24@BrucePC> Message-ID: At least we did our part against Killer Koh before the Trump Law School ten days before Killary went the way of history. Good riddance to them all! Fab. “…particularly to the drone assassinations, “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children.” Chomsky {now 10,000+ people} Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 5:36 PM To: GN List Serve Subject: [globenet] Fw: April 1-7: DRONE RESISTANCE WEEK at CREECH AFB From: Toby Blomé Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 4:42 PM To: Toby Blome Subject: April 1-7: DRONE RESISTANCE WEEK at CREECH AFB April 1-7: DRONE RESISTANCE WEEK at CREECH AFB Mark your calendar: Sept. 30-Oct. 6, SHUT DOWN CREECH: Mass Mobilization to STOP KILLER DRONES. [cid:A82D9A94F5804551A88270310A95D72B at BrucePC] Join CODEPINK, Veterans for Peace, and other activists for a week of resistance in the "killer drone fields” of Creech Air Force Base! With this week’s 50th anniversary of the My Lai Massacre, where the U.S. military slaughtered over 500 villagers in Vietnam, it is a time to reflect. The U.S. Killer Drone Program is as covert as ever, but continues to brutally kill people in the poorest communities of the world, as they go about their daily lives, driving on a road, praying in a mosque, eating with their family, studying in school, attending a wedding party or funeral. The ongoing U.S. drone attacks represent modern day mini-My Lai massacres…relentless and barbaric, “hunting" people who have no ability to defend themselves. As we approach the 50th anniversary of Martin L. King Jr.’s assassination, April 4, I am reminded of his words of truth: “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world: my own country...” Sadly, it has only gotten worse. We refuse to adapt to it. Join us for all or part of the week of peaceful nonviolent resistance. Stay in the Goddess Temple guest house or bring your tent and gear and sleep under the beautiful Nevada desert skies. Collaborate with activists, and join our daily am & pm vigils during rush hour commute, when thousands of military flood into and out of Creech AFB, a key command center of the U.S. killer drone program. The day hours between vigils allow opportunities for desert walks, camaraderie with other peacemakers, and nature retreats in the beautiful desert….an opportunity for replenishing our souls and brainstorming inspirations for resistance. Contacts: ratherbenyckeling at comcast.net or EastbayCodepink at gmail.com Not too late to join us, and hope to see you there! Maggie, Eleanor, Cecile, Ann Wright, GG, Michael Kerr, Pamela, Mary Dean, Renay, Susan Witka, and Toby __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Global Network" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ Visit Your Group [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DSC03990 2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1213742 bytes Desc: DSC03990 2.jpg URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Mar 19 15:10:48 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:10:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Corbyn Smeared as 'Russian Stooge' for Requesting Evidence on Poisoned Spy In-Reply-To: <00A6F2D0-31E1-40C0-86F5-ADBB4B88EBC2@igc.org> References: <00A6F2D0-31E1-40C0-86F5-ADBB4B88EBC2@igc.org> Message-ID: <007b01d3bf94$76c05ea0$64411be0$@comcast.net> Corbyn Smeared as 'Russian Stooge' for Requesting Evidence on Poisoned Spy http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21380:Corbyn-Smeared-as-%27Russian-Stooge%27-for-Requesting-Evidence-on-Poisoned-Spy The Real News March 16, 2018 Corbyn Smeared as 'Russian Stooge' for Requesting Evidence on Poisoned Spy While harshly condemning the Salisbury nerve agent attack, the Labour Party's leftist leader requested evidence that the Russian government carried it out. A deluge of smears followed. BEN NORTON: The leftist leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party is under attack, simply because he calmly called for an investigation in line with international law. On March 4, a former Russian spy who had been a double agent for the British government was found unconscious in Salisbury, England. Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia had reportedly been poisoned, and were hospitalized in critical condition. A week later, the United Kingdom’s Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May claimed the Russian-made nerve agent Novichok had been used in the attack. She said the Russian government was likely behind the attack, although she also raised the possibility that Russia had lost control of the nerve agent and it was used by another actor. While the British government’s assessment initially was not certain, all nuance was immediately thrown out of the window. The Kremlin was accused of an attempted assassination. Prime Minister May expelled 23 Russian diplomats. The United States, France, and Germany joined in blaming Russia, and called for a punitive response. While the right-wing Blairite faction of the Labour Party immediately sided with the Tory government, the opposition’s leftist leader Jeremy Corbyn called for careful research, and warned against overreaction. Corbyn condemned the attack in harsh terms, but stressed that any response must be “based on clear evidence.” JEREMY CORBYN: The attack in Salisbury was an appalling act of violence. Nerve agents are abominable if used in any war. It is utterly reckless to use them in a civilian environment. Our response as a country must be guided by the rule of law, support for international agreements and respect for human rights. Our response must be decisive, proportionate and based on clear evidence.​ BEN NORTON: When Corbyn presented a series of simple questions, merely asking what steps the government has taken to collect evidence for its claims, he was loudly booed by members of the House of Commons. JEREMY CORBYN: If the government believe that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military-grade nerve agent, what action is being taken through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact that the police are working with the OPCW. Has the prime minister taken the necessary steps under the chemical weapons convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under Article IX(2)? How has she responded to the Russian government’s request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack to run their own tests? Has high-resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent, and has that revealed any evidence as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators? BEN NORTON: Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly been accused of threatening and even killing political opponents, former spies, and journalists. And Jeremy Corbyn never ruled out the possibility that the Kremlin is behind the poison attack, which could certainly be the case. But simply because he asked for evidence before jumping to conclusions that could have dangerous global repercussions, Corbyn has been pilloried by the British government, his political rivals, and the corporate media. Simply for asking for calm and for evidence, Corbyn was repeatedly smeared as a “Putin puppet” and a “Kremlin stooge.” Corbyn’s neoliberal opponents inside Labour used the controversy to try to further undermine his leadership, which he earned overwhelmingly from the rank-and-file in a landslide election. Few people came to Corbyn’s defense. Nevertheless, Wales' first minister Carwyn Jones broke through the echo chamber, and told the BBC that the attacks on Corbyn have been unfair. CARWYN JONES: I think Jeremy Corbyn, in fairness, has been unfairly maligned. He condemned what happened very strongly, I thought. You heard him say yesterday, I think the response from the prime minister is proportionate and robust and it has my support. BEN NORTON: Corbyn outlined his thoughts in greater detail a nuanced op-ed published in The Guardian on March 15. Corbyn forcefully denounced the attack as “barbaric and beyond reckless.” And the leftist opposition leader made it clear, “Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption.” “However,” Corbyn added, “that does not mean we should resign ourselves to a ‘new cold war’ of escalating arms spending, proxy conflicts across the globe and a McCarthyite intolerance of dissent.” The leftist opposition leader, who had been a key figure in the movement against the invasion of Iraq, reminded readers of the lies that were spun in the lead-up to that war. Given the possibility that organized crime networks could have been involved in the attack, Corbyn also noted that the British government’s “capacity to deal with outrages from Russia is compromised by the tidal wave of ill-gotten cash that Russian oligarchs have laundered through London” since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This echoed similar remarks he made earlier in the House of Commons. JEREMY CORBYN: We must do more to address the dangers posed by the state’s relationship with unofficial mafia-like groups and corrupt oligarchs. We must also expose the flows of ill-gotten cash between the Russian state and billionaires who become stupendously rich by looting their country and subsequently use London to protect their wealth. BEN NORTON: The Labour leader also reminded critics of what happened in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Despite Corbyn’s qualified language and cautious positions, he faced a bitter attack from hawkish rivals, who portray careful nuance as apologism for the Kremlin. In today’s extreme right-wing, nationalistic political climate, even asking basic questions before taking drastic action is frowned upon. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Workers Conference Committee" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to national-workers-conference-committee+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to national-workers-conference-committee at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/national-workers-conference-committee/00A6F2D0-31E1-40C0-86F5-ADBB4B88EBC2%40igc.org . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 65068 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 19 15:13:53 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:13:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Corbyn Smeared as 'Russian Stooge' for Requesting Evidence on Poisoned Spy In-Reply-To: <007b01d3bf94$76c05ea0$64411be0$@comcast.net> References: <00A6F2D0-31E1-40C0-86F5-ADBB4B88EBC2@igc.org> <007b01d3bf94$76c05ea0$64411be0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Reminds one of the “good ole days” when anyone criticizing the government, for the most most minor issues, was labeled a “communist.” Woody Allen’s film, creep though he maybe, “The Front” captured this era in Hollywood, very well. On Mar 19, 2018, at 08:10, David Johnson via Peace-discuss > wrote: Corbyn Smeared as 'Russian Stooge' for Requesting Evidence on Poisoned Spy http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21380:Corbyn-Smeared-as-%27Russian-Stooge%27-for-Requesting-Evidence-on-Poisoned-Spy The Real News March 16, 2018 Corbyn Smeared as 'Russian Stooge' for Requesting Evidence on Poisoned Spy While harshly condemning the Salisbury nerve agent attack, the Labour Party's leftist leader requested evidence that the Russian government carried it out. A deluge of smears followed. BEN NORTON: The leftist leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party is under attack, simply because he calmly called for an investigation in line with international law. On March 4, a former Russian spy who had been a double agent for the British government was found unconscious in Salisbury, England. Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia had reportedly been poisoned, and were hospitalized in critical condition. A week later, the United Kingdom’s Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May claimed the Russian-made nerve agent Novichok had been used in the attack. She said the Russian government was likely behind the attack, although she also raised the possibility that Russia had lost control of the nerve agent and it was used by another actor. While the British government’s assessment initially was not certain, all nuance was immediately thrown out of the window. The Kremlin was accused of an attempted assassination. Prime Minister May expelled 23 Russian diplomats. The United States, France, and Germany joined in blaming Russia, and called for a punitive response. While the right-wing Blairite faction of the Labour Party immediately sided with the Tory government, the opposition’s leftist leader Jeremy Corbyn called for careful research, and warned against overreaction. Corbyn condemned the attack in harsh terms, but stressed that any response must be “based on clear evidence.” JEREMY CORBYN: The attack in Salisbury was an appalling act of violence. Nerve agents are abominable if used in any war. It is utterly reckless to use them in a civilian environment. Our response as a country must be guided by the rule of law, support for international agreements and respect for human rights. Our response must be decisive, proportionate and based on clear evidence.​ BEN NORTON: When Corbyn presented a series of simple questions, merely asking what steps the government has taken to collect evidence for its claims, he was loudly booed by members of the House of Commons. JEREMY CORBYN: If the government believe that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military-grade nerve agent, what action is being taken through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact that the police are working with the OPCW. Has the prime minister taken the necessary steps under the chemical weapons convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under Article IX(2)? How has she responded to the Russian government’s request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack to run their own tests? Has high-resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent, and has that revealed any evidence as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators? BEN NORTON: Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly been accused of threatening and even killing political opponents, former spies, and journalists. And Jeremy Corbyn never ruled out the possibility that the Kremlin is behind the poison attack, which could certainly be the case. But simply because he asked for evidence before jumping to conclusions that could have dangerous global repercussions, Corbyn has been pilloried by the British government, his political rivals, and the corporate media. Simply for asking for calm and for evidence, Corbyn was repeatedly smeared as a “Putin puppet” and a “Kremlin stooge.” Corbyn’s neoliberal opponents inside Labour used the controversy to try to further undermine his leadership, which he earned overwhelmingly from the rank-and-file in a landslide election. Few people came to Corbyn’s defense. Nevertheless, Wales' first minister Carwyn Jones broke through the echo chamber, and told the BBC that the attacks on Corbyn have been unfair. CARWYN JONES: I think Jeremy Corbyn, in fairness, has been unfairly maligned. He condemned what happened very strongly, I thought. You heard him say yesterday, I think the response from the prime minister is proportionate and robust and it has my support. BEN NORTON: Corbyn outlined his thoughts in greater detail a nuanced op-ed published in The Guardian on March 15. Corbyn forcefully denounced the attack as “barbaric and beyond reckless.” And the leftist opposition leader made it clear, “Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption.” “However,” Corbyn added, “that does not mean we should resign ourselves to a ‘new cold war’ of escalating arms spending, proxy conflicts across the globe and a McCarthyite intolerance of dissent.” The leftist opposition leader, who had been a key figure in the movement against the invasion of Iraq, reminded readers of the lies that were spun in the lead-up to that war. Given the possibility that organized crime networks could have been involved in the attack, Corbyn also noted that the British government’s “capacity to deal with outrages from Russia is compromised by the tidal wave of ill-gotten cash that Russian oligarchs have laundered through London” since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This echoed similar remarks he made earlier in the House of Commons. JEREMY CORBYN: We must do more to address the dangers posed by the state’s relationship with unofficial mafia-like groups and corrupt oligarchs. We must also expose the flows of ill-gotten cash between the Russian state and billionaires who become stupendously rich by looting their country and subsequently use London to protect their wealth. BEN NORTON: The Labour leader also reminded critics of what happened in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Despite Corbyn’s qualified language and cautious positions, he faced a bitter attack from hawkish rivals, who portray careful nuance as apologism for the Kremlin. In today’s extreme right-wing, nationalistic political climate, even asking basic questions before taking drastic action is frowned upon. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Workers Conference Committee" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to national-workers-conference-committee+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to national-workers-conference-committee at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/national-workers-conference-committee/00A6F2D0-31E1-40C0-86F5-ADBB4B88EBC2%40igc.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Mar 19 15:54:54 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:54:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_bad_press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_Post?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> <26125CD6-2223-4C69-93B7-01324667ACDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: From today's NYT by Ronald Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress: "...The leadership of the Jewish world always honors the choices made by the Israeli voter and acts in concert with Israel's democratically elected {Sic!} government ..." As I was saying, more loyal to Israel than to the United States. A Fifth Column indeed. QED. Fab D in BDS. 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: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:42 AM To: C G Estabrook ; peace Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ And the University of Illinois is so notoriously anti-Palestinian that they illegally fired Steve Salaita, put him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, destroyed his entire academic career and neutered our Native American Studies Program that was set up in order to partially compensate for Chief Illiniwak. The University of Illiniwaks are just a Gang of Die-Hard Bigots and Racists against Palestinians and American Indians. Fab. D in BDS. 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: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:19 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' ; 'peace' Cc: 'David Johnson' ; 'Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)' Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ And Killeen can stick his slur of "anti-Semitism" against the BDS Movement where the sun don't shine--just like Larry Summers. Fab. D in BDS Subject: The Common Ills: Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2013/12/prof-boyle-schools-harvard-president.html Sunday, December 29, 2013 Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor of international law. He's also the author of many books including, most recently, United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law. Professor Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Dec. 27, 2013 Dear President Faust: I notice your condemnation of the ASA Boycott against Israel in today's New York Times. I note for the record that Harvard has never once apologized to those of us Harvard Alums who participated in good faith in the Harvard Divestment/Disinvestment Campaign against Israel when your predecessor Larry Summers accused us of being anti-Semitic-- a charge which he refused to defend against me as related below. As a matter of fact, Harvard is so notoriously anti-Palestinian that the late, great Edward Said refused to accept Harvard's top chair in Comparative Literature when Harvard offered it to him. As a loyal Harvard alum I spent an entire evening with Edward at a Chinese Restaurant in Manhattan trying to convince Edward to take this Chair. I thought it would be good for Harvard to have Edward teaching there. As a lawyer and a law professor, I can be quite persuasive. But Edward would have none of my arguments. As Edward saw it, Harvard was so anti-Palestinian that Harvard would have thwarted his intellectual creativity to move there. So Edward stayed at Columbia. Of course Edward was right. And the anti-Palestinian tenor and orientation of Harvard has certainly gotten far worse since when Edward and I were both students at Harvard. Harvard should be doing something about its own longstanding bigotry and racism against the Palestinians. Not criticizing those of us trying to help the Palestinians suffering from Israeli persecution, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and outright genocide. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Harvard: JDMCL, AM, PHD, CFIA, Teaching Fellow Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA ************************************ sent by Francis Boyle - Jul 30, 2007 The Cowardice of Harvard's Larry Summers I'm not going to go through the subsequent history of the divestment/disinvestment movement, except to say that in the late summer of 2002 the President of Harvard, Larry Summers accused those of us Harvard alumni involved in the Harvard divestment campaign of being anti-Semitic. After he made these charges, WBUR Radio Station in Boston, which is a National Public Radio affiliate, called me up and said: "We would like you to debate Summers for one hour on these charges, live." And I said, "I'd be happy to do so." They then called up Summers and he refused to debate me. Summers did not have the courage, the integrity, or the principles to back up his scurrilous charges. Eventually Harvard fired Summers because of his attempt to impose his Neo-Conservative agenda on Harvard, and in particular his other scurrilous charge that women are dumber than men when it comes to math and science. Well as a Harvard alumnus I say: Good riddance to Larry Summers! (laughter). Debating Dershowitz WBUR then called me back and said, "Well, since Summers won't debate you, would you debate Alan Dershowitz?" And I said, "Sure." So we had a debate for one hour, live on the radio. And there is a link that you can hear this debate if you want to. I still think it's the best debate out there on this whole issue of Israeli apartheid. Again that would be WBUR Radio Station, Boston, 25 September 2002. The problem with the debate, of course, is that Dershowitz knows nothing about international law and human rights. So he immediately started out by saying "well, there's nothing similar to the apartheid regime in South Africa and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians." Well the problem with that is that Dershowitz did not know anything at all about even the existence of the Apartheid Convention. That is our second Handout for tonight. [See Handout 2 reprinted below.] The definition of apartheid is set out in the Apartheid Convention of 1973. And this is taken from my book Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law, Trial Materials on South Africa, published in 1987, that we used successfully to defend anti-apartheid resistors in the United States. If you take a look at the definition of apartheid here found in Article 2, you will see that Israel has inflicted each and every act of apartheid set out in Article 2 on the Palestinians, except an outright ban on marriages between Israelis and Palestinians. But even there they have barred Palestinians living in occupied Palestine who marry Israeli citizens from moving into Israel, and thus defeat the right of family reunification that of course the world supported when Jews were emigrating from the Soviet Union. Israel: An Apartheid State Again you don't have to take my word for it. There's an excellent essay today on Counterpunch.org by the leading Israeli human rights advocate Shulamit Aloni saying basically: "Yes we have an apartheid state in Israel." Indeed, there are roads in the West Bank for Jews only. Palestinians can't ride there and now they're introducing new legislation that Jews cannot even ride Palestinians in their cars. This lead my colleague and friend Professor John Dugard who is the U.N. Special rapporteur for human rights in Palestine to write an essay earlier this fall that you can get on Google, saying that in fact Israeli apartheid against the Palestinians is worse than the apartheid that the Afrikaners inflicted on the Blacks in South Africa. Professor Duguard should know. He was one of a handful of courageous, white, international lawyers living in South Africa at the time who publicly and internationally condemned apartheid against Blacks at risk to his own life. Indeed, when I was litigating anti-apartheid cases on South Africa, we used Professor Duguard's book on Human Rights and the South African Legal Order as the definitive work explaining what apartheid is all about. So Professor Duguard has recently made this statement. Of course President Carter has recently made this statement in his book that Israel is an apartheid state. And certainly if you look at that definition of the Apartheid Convention, right there in front of you, it's clear - there are objective criteria. Indeed if you read my Palestinian book I have a Bibliography at the end with the facts right there based on reputable human rights reports, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. Many of them were also compiled and discussed by my friend Professor Norman Finklestein in his book Beyond Chutzpah, which I'd encourage you to read. Francis A. Boyle ********************************** On Point Radio - Sep 25, 2007 broadcast Across the country, the push for divestment has spread to more than 40 campuses. The movement condemns Israel for human rights abuses against the Palestinians. Hundreds of big-name academics have signed on, but so far no university has moved to divest. The current debate isn't the first time divestment has been used on college campuses as a means to effect social and political change. In the 1980s, the South African divestment campaign helped end apartheid. Do you see parallels with the apartheid debate? Has Israel become a trendy target? Guests: Francis Boyle, professor of international law at The University of Illinois College of Law Alan Dershowitz, professor at Harvard Law School Taufiq Rahim, student at Princeton University francis a. boyle Posted by Common Ills at 1:30 PM 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: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:04 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' ; peace Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ AIPAC and ADL put me on their Enemies Lists for Blackballing and Blacklisting years ago when I helped a Jewish Professor Friend of mine free of charge who had been blackballed and blacklisted by AIPAC and ADL in order to get tenure. AIPAC and ADL still maintain and enforce those Enemies Lists Nationwide against professors--witness Norman Finkelstein at DePaul and Steven Salaita here. But AIPAC and ADL et al. can be defeated. I have done it myself--repeatedly. Just Two Gangs of Thugs. Fab. D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 9:48 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; peace Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ : …Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post that a Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal, is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints AIPAC as the NRA. "An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel…. "Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s slogan is 'if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] in America'…" Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): "Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance." And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. "The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters." Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic site saying that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to the two-state solution. "AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in American politics and culture make that harder and harder… "It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation." There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former West Point instructor, laments on the death of the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s role in that transformation. "I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism. “AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room." Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. "The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory, keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights. "This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: 'Why do they hate us?’" Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece on “The dark roots” of AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.” The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors; but Eisenhower bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. "The outcry was sharp and wide. "Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident. Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” "Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954." And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along with its mouth shut). "Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. .. "It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy…. "The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. 'America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,' born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans." The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, angered by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” "Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending 'off the record' sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries…. "AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby…" "The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the press policies are hurting that goal. The Atlanta Jewish Times chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy and saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was off the record. "The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled 'Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel' was this sign: 'THIS SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.' "…AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because everything AIPAC does locally is off the record. "It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the press, such as Stephens… "We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s inside." In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under way, I believe, though it will take a while… ### From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Mar 19 16:33:07 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:33:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_o?= =?utf-8?q?f_bad_press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_Post?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZ?= References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> <26125CD6-2223-4C69-93B7-01324667ACDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: And since Israel has been warmongering against Iran for quite some time, according to the President of the World Jewish Congress himself, "...The leadership of the Jewish world...acts in concert with Israel's...government" mongering for war against Iran for quite some time. A Fifth Column indeed. More loyal to Israel than they are to the United States. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:55 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' ; 'peace' Cc: 'David Johnson' ; 'Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)' Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ From today's NYT by Ronald Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress: "...The leadership of the Jewish world always honors the choices made by the Israeli voter and acts in concert with Israel's democratically elected {Sic!} government ..." As I was saying, more loyal to Israel than to the United States. A Fifth Column indeed. QED. Fab D in BDS. 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: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:42 AM To: C G Estabrook ; peace Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ And the University of Illinois is so notoriously anti-Palestinian that they illegally fired Steve Salaita, put him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, destroyed his entire academic career and neutered our Native American Studies Program that was set up in order to partially compensate for Chief Illiniwak. The University of Illiniwaks are just a Gang of Die-Hard Bigots and Racists against Palestinians and American Indians. Fab. D in BDS. 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: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:19 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' ; 'peace' Cc: 'David Johnson' ; 'Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)' Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ And Killeen can stick his slur of "anti-Semitism" against the BDS Movement where the sun don't shine--just like Larry Summers. Fab. D in BDS Subject: The Common Ills: Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2013/12/prof-boyle-schools-harvard-president.html Sunday, December 29, 2013 Prof Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor of international law. He's also the author of many books including, most recently, United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law. Professor Boyle Schools Harvard President Faust About Prejudice Dec. 27, 2013 Dear President Faust: I notice your condemnation of the ASA Boycott against Israel in today's New York Times. I note for the record that Harvard has never once apologized to those of us Harvard Alums who participated in good faith in the Harvard Divestment/Disinvestment Campaign against Israel when your predecessor Larry Summers accused us of being anti-Semitic-- a charge which he refused to defend against me as related below. As a matter of fact, Harvard is so notoriously anti-Palestinian that the late, great Edward Said refused to accept Harvard's top chair in Comparative Literature when Harvard offered it to him. As a loyal Harvard alum I spent an entire evening with Edward at a Chinese Restaurant in Manhattan trying to convince Edward to take this Chair. I thought it would be good for Harvard to have Edward teaching there. As a lawyer and a law professor, I can be quite persuasive. But Edward would have none of my arguments. As Edward saw it, Harvard was so anti-Palestinian that Harvard would have thwarted his intellectual creativity to move there. So Edward stayed at Columbia. Of course Edward was right. And the anti-Palestinian tenor and orientation of Harvard has certainly gotten far worse since when Edward and I were both students at Harvard. Harvard should be doing something about its own longstanding bigotry and racism against the Palestinians. Not criticizing those of us trying to help the Palestinians suffering from Israeli persecution, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and outright genocide. Yours very truly, Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Harvard: JDMCL, AM, PHD, CFIA, Teaching Fellow Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA ************************************ sent by Francis Boyle - Jul 30, 2007 The Cowardice of Harvard's Larry Summers I'm not going to go through the subsequent history of the divestment/disinvestment movement, except to say that in the late summer of 2002 the President of Harvard, Larry Summers accused those of us Harvard alumni involved in the Harvard divestment campaign of being anti-Semitic. After he made these charges, WBUR Radio Station in Boston, which is a National Public Radio affiliate, called me up and said: "We would like you to debate Summers for one hour on these charges, live." And I said, "I'd be happy to do so." They then called up Summers and he refused to debate me. Summers did not have the courage, the integrity, or the principles to back up his scurrilous charges. Eventually Harvard fired Summers because of his attempt to impose his Neo-Conservative agenda on Harvard, and in particular his other scurrilous charge that women are dumber than men when it comes to math and science. Well as a Harvard alumnus I say: Good riddance to Larry Summers! (laughter). Debating Dershowitz WBUR then called me back and said, "Well, since Summers won't debate you, would you debate Alan Dershowitz?" And I said, "Sure." So we had a debate for one hour, live on the radio. And there is a link that you can hear this debate if you want to. I still think it's the best debate out there on this whole issue of Israeli apartheid. Again that would be WBUR Radio Station, Boston, 25 September 2002. The problem with the debate, of course, is that Dershowitz knows nothing about international law and human rights. So he immediately started out by saying "well, there's nothing similar to the apartheid regime in South Africa and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians." Well the problem with that is that Dershowitz did not know anything at all about even the existence of the Apartheid Convention. That is our second Handout for tonight. [See Handout 2 reprinted below.] The definition of apartheid is set out in the Apartheid Convention of 1973. And this is taken from my book Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law, Trial Materials on South Africa, published in 1987, that we used successfully to defend anti-apartheid resistors in the United States. If you take a look at the definition of apartheid here found in Article 2, you will see that Israel has inflicted each and every act of apartheid set out in Article 2 on the Palestinians, except an outright ban on marriages between Israelis and Palestinians. But even there they have barred Palestinians living in occupied Palestine who marry Israeli citizens from moving into Israel, and thus defeat the right of family reunification that of course the world supported when Jews were emigrating from the Soviet Union. Israel: An Apartheid State Again you don't have to take my word for it. There's an excellent essay today on Counterpunch.org by the leading Israeli human rights advocate Shulamit Aloni saying basically: "Yes we have an apartheid state in Israel." Indeed, there are roads in the West Bank for Jews only. Palestinians can't ride there and now they're introducing new legislation that Jews cannot even ride Palestinians in their cars. This lead my colleague and friend Professor John Dugard who is the U.N. Special rapporteur for human rights in Palestine to write an essay earlier this fall that you can get on Google, saying that in fact Israeli apartheid against the Palestinians is worse than the apartheid that the Afrikaners inflicted on the Blacks in South Africa. Professor Duguard should know. He was one of a handful of courageous, white, international lawyers living in South Africa at the time who publicly and internationally condemned apartheid against Blacks at risk to his own life. Indeed, when I was litigating anti-apartheid cases on South Africa, we used Professor Duguard's book on Human Rights and the South African Legal Order as the definitive work explaining what apartheid is all about. So Professor Duguard has recently made this statement. Of course President Carter has recently made this statement in his book that Israel is an apartheid state. And certainly if you look at that definition of the Apartheid Convention, right there in front of you, it's clear - there are objective criteria. Indeed if you read my Palestinian book I have a Bibliography at the end with the facts right there based on reputable human rights reports, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. Many of them were also compiled and discussed by my friend Professor Norman Finklestein in his book Beyond Chutzpah, which I'd encourage you to read. Francis A. Boyle ********************************** On Point Radio - Sep 25, 2007 broadcast Across the country, the push for divestment has spread to more than 40 campuses. The movement condemns Israel for human rights abuses against the Palestinians. Hundreds of big-name academics have signed on, but so far no university has moved to divest. The current debate isn't the first time divestment has been used on college campuses as a means to effect social and political change. In the 1980s, the South African divestment campaign helped end apartheid. Do you see parallels with the apartheid debate? Has Israel become a trendy target? Guests: Francis Boyle, professor of international law at The University of Illinois College of Law Alan Dershowitz, professor at Harvard Law School Taufiq Rahim, student at Princeton University francis a. boyle Posted by Common Ills at 1:30 PM 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: Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:04 AM To: 'C G Estabrook' ; peace Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ AIPAC and ADL put me on their Enemies Lists for Blackballing and Blacklisting years ago when I helped a Jewish Professor Friend of mine free of charge who had been blackballed and blacklisted by AIPAC and ADL in order to get tenure. AIPAC and ADL still maintain and enforce those Enemies Lists Nationwide against professors--witness Norman Finkelstein at DePaul and Steven Salaita here. But AIPAC and ADL et al. can be defeated. I have done it myself--repeatedly. Just Two Gangs of Thugs. Fab. D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 9:48 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; peace Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ : …Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post that a Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal, is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints AIPAC as the NRA. "An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel…. "Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s slogan is 'if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] in America'…" Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): "Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance." And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. "The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters." Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic site saying that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to the two-state solution. "AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in American politics and culture make that harder and harder… "It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation." There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former West Point instructor, laments on the death of the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s role in that transformation. "I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism. “AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room." Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. "The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory, keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights. "This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: 'Why do they hate us?’" Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece on “The dark roots” of AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.” The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors; but Eisenhower bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. "The outcry was sharp and wide. "Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident. Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” "Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954." And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along with its mouth shut). "Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. .. "It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy…. "The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. 'America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,' born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans." The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, angered by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” "Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending 'off the record' sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries…. "AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby…" "The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the press policies are hurting that goal. The Atlanta Jewish Times chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy and saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was off the record. "The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled 'Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel' was this sign: 'THIS SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.' "…AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because everything AIPAC does locally is off the record. "It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the press, such as Stephens… "We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s inside." In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under way, I believe, though it will take a while… ### From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 03:06:45 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:06:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in IL-13 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F0C9B40-9690-4872-987D-1CD93784CA38@gmail.com> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama administration - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against the administration’s wars. —CGE > On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace wrote: > > Robert, > > I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! > > Niloofar > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace wrote: > https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 > > I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. > I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. > But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. > First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. > I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. > Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. > Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. > Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. > > _______________________ From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 04:11:02 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 23:11:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary election (4) References: <8D99A2C0-5365-4935-828B-93A6812C39A4@gmail.com> Message-ID: > David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. > > The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html ]. > > Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama administration - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against the administration’s wars. —CGE > > >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace > wrote: >> >> Robert, >> >> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >> >> Niloofar >> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace > wrote: >> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >> >> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. >> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. >> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. >> >> _______________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 04:44:24 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 23:44:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_of_bad_?= =?utf-8?q?press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_Post=E2=80=99?= In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <0F132D0F-D927-43B3-BA48-F0DE5F18D8D5@gmail.com> {From an interview with Noam Chomsky that took place on February 28 in his office at the University of Arizona’s Department of Linguistics in Tucson, Arizona.} [President Trump has] lined up closely with Saudi Arabia and with Israel, which is basically an alliance, and he is bitterly opposed to Iran. [U.S. Ambassador] Nicky Haley spoke at the UN about Iranian violations of the accords. However, the US is violating them all the time. Nobody talks about this. The accord is explicit in terms of the requirement that the signatories do nothing with Iran’s commercial relations with the outside. The US is doing that constantly. Even under the Obama administration, there were radical violations of the agreements. Trump is trying everything that he can to destroy the accords. You probably saw this morning the Europeans [are] trying to offer some conciliatory measures to keep Trump from pulling out entirely. This will probably fail. I don’t think there is a coherent foreign policy. He’s been very critical of Pakistan. Pakistan is reacting by stepping up bombings by the Taliban in Afghanistan. There is a significant likelihood that real hostilities will break up between Israel and Hezbollah, which will probably mean the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. Israel will bombard Lebanon, which will mean the destruction of Lebanon. Israel is committed to their Dahiya doctrine, as they call it, which means they will go to war against any provocation. And it could just blow up the Iranian installations which are not too far from the Israeli border. Israel won’t allow anything near its borders. So, I think that is a very volatile and dangerous situation. Some observers, such as the knowledgeable analyst Nicholas Noe, are predicting, with a degree of certainty, that a serious war could happen. That is an ugly situation. And, of course in Yemen the U.S. and Israel with British backing are just destroying the country. They are blaming Iran, but it’s basically U.S. and Saudi bombings. So that situation is extremely dangerous and vulnerable. On the other side, Turkey is attacking Syria in order to keep any Kurdish groups as far as they can from their borders. You may have seen this morning that [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan told a six-year-old girl she would be honored if she was “martyred.” I can’t imagine what is going on in their minds. They are very unpredictable and dangerous people. Similarly, in Israel, [Israel Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is in serious trouble and it’s possible that he will try to salvage his situation by undertaking some violent act. All very dangerous! Lebanon will likely be a major victim. Q: Do you predict that we will have another violent war in the Middle-East? Chomsky: If there is another war, it will be even worse than the last one. The reason is that Hezbollah by now, according to reports at least, has a very significant missile capacity which Israel won’t be able to stop. If they start hitting Israeli targets, Israel will just go “all out” without any restraint. They might go as far as bombing Iran. [...] Chomsky: The Europeans are trying almost desperately to save something [of the Iran deal]. I doubt very much that Iran will accept the new proposals that they announced. It seems very unlikely. I am sure that the European negotiators know that Iran can’t [accept] them. If the U.S. also reject them, which is very possible, one conceivable outcome is that the U.S. would just withdraw, and the rest of the P5+1 will maintain some kind of relationship with Iran. They don’t want to break their relationship with the U.S. either. So, they are in a very difficult situation. They don’t want to abandon Iran and on the other hand, they are very frightened about the U.S. for good reason. Russia and China will maintain a relationship with Iran, but they can’t compensate for Western relations. And Iran, of course, has plenty of internal problems. Not just social and political, but also ecological and climatic concerns. Q: President Trump tasked Brad Pascale to run his political campaign for 2020. Do you think [Trump] has a chance to be re-elected in 2020? Chomsky: I think has a very good chance. His popular base is fanatic. They are just dedicated to him. He could be God, as far as they are concerned. They are immobile no matter what happens. A lot of them are evangelical Christians. The secular state doesn’t mean anything to them. They are working for Jesus, and Jesus says support Trump. That’s probably 25% of the American population. The very rich support Trump. The Trump administration operates on two planes. On one plane, Trump’s role is to attract media attention to make sure he is in the headlines every day. He is the first thing to see on the television every day. That’s why he is doing one crazy thing after another. It’s not what it looks like. The media criticizes Trump, which fires up his base, because they regard themselves as under attack by the liberal media. So, he plays that game. Underneath, the real villains Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are busy dismantling every aspect of the government that might be of benefit to the general population. They are serving their real constituency, the rich and the corporate sector, with abject dedication to sheer robbery. The tax bill was a massive gift to the super rich, with a few pennies to the others just to keep them quiet. Ryan and McConnell want to have a huge deficit so that gives the pretext to dismantling social security, Medicaid, Medicare, and food stamps—anything that benefits the general population. In the meantime, keep the base fired up with white nationalism, racism, religious extremism, and so on. It is a very dangerous situation. Also, as you probably saw around the country, it is a very violent country. There are heavily armed militias all over the place. They are better armed than the state police. Angry people ready to go to war. If Trump hadn’t won the election, we might have had a civil war. ### > On Mar 18, 2018, at 7:54 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Right now as we speak the AIPACkers are trying to get us Americans into a needless war against Iran for the benefit of Israel. Just like the AIPACKers helped get us Americans into two needless wars against Iraq for the benefit of Israel. The AIPACkers are just a Gang of Warmongers for Israel. > Fab […] > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 7:38 AM > To: 'David Johnson' > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ > > The AIPACkers are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. Fab. […] > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 7:31 AM > To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ > > From: David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:47 PM > Subject: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ > > […] > One pleasurable surprise of the AIPAC policy conference in early March — the leading Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — was how much bad press the organization got. It’s becoming almost fashionable to criticize the lobby for its enforcement of lockstep political support for Israel in Washington, and for its Soviet-style policy on access to the press. > > These criticisms are finally showing up in the mainstream press. Reporters have been licensed by the injury mere high school students have done to another powerful lobby, the National Rifle Association. So maybe AIPAC is on the same path-to-pariah status, more than a decade after Walt and Mearsheimer published their book The Israel Lobby. > > Here are a few items. Notable among them is a report in the Washington Post of all places saying that AIPAC was born to rally American Jews to stand shoulder to shoulder behind Israeli “lies” about a massacre of Palestinians, back in 1953. And two angry pieces in the Jewish press decrying AIPAC’s blackout policy on coverage of its gatherings. > > First off, Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post that a Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal, is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints AIPAC as the NRA. > > An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel…. > > Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s slogan is “if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] in America.”.. > > Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): > > Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance. > > And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. > > The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters. > > Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic site saying that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to the two-state solution. > > AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in American politics and culture make that harder and harder… > > It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation. > > There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former West Point instructor, laments on the death of the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s role in that transformation. > > I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism. > > AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room. > > Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. > > The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory, keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights. > > This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: “Why do they hate us?” > > Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece on “The dark roots” of AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. > > Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.” > > The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors; but Eisenhower bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” > > Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. > > The outcry was sharp and wide. > > Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident. > > Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” > > Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954. > > And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along with its mouth shut). > > Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. .. > It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy…. > > The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans. > > The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! > > More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, angered by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” > > Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending “off the record” sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries…. > > AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby…. > > The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the press policies are hurting that goal. > > The Atlanta Jewish Times chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy and saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was off the record. > > The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled “Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel” was this sign: “THIS SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.” > > > Sign outside a panel on press freedom at AIPAC, foto in Atlanta Jewish Week. > > …AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because everything AIPAC does locally is off the record. > > It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the press, such as Stephens… > > We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s inside. > > In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under way, I believe, though it will take a while… > > Thanks to Donald Johnson, Todd Pierce, Adam Horowitz, John Whitbeck. > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Mar 20 12:15:13 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:15:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary election (4) In-Reply-To: References: <8D99A2C0-5365-4935-828B-93A6812C39A4@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carl I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need. Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. On Mar 19, 2018, at 21:11, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama administration - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against the administration’s wars. —CGE On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace > wrote: Robert, I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! Niloofar On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace > wrote: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. _______________________ _______________________________________________ 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 Mar 20 12:33:21 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:33:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?AIPAC_is_suddenly_getting_a_lot_of_bad_?= =?utf-8?q?press=2C_in_Jewish_papers_and_=E2=80=98Washington_Post=E2=80=99?= In-Reply-To: <0F132D0F-D927-43B3-BA48-F0DE5F18D8D5@gmail.com> References: <000f01d3beb4$f8af38e0$ea0daaa0$@comcast.net> <0F132D0F-D927-43B3-BA48-F0DE5F18D8D5@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yeah, it does not look good at all. But if Killary Klinton had been elected, we would be in a major war right now somewhere for sure. We dodged a bullet on November 8,2016--no thanks to the Trump College of Law who invited Killer Koh in here to campaign for his Boss Killary. But how much longer can we keep dodging bullets? fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 11:44 PM To: Boyle, Francis A ; David Green ; Karen Aram Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ {From an interview with Noam Chomsky that took place on February 28 in his office at the University of Arizona’s Department of Linguistics in Tucson, Arizona.} [President Trump has] lined up closely with Saudi Arabia and with Israel, which is basically an alliance, and he is bitterly opposed to Iran. [U.S. Ambassador] Nicky Haley spoke at the UN about Iranian violations of the accords. However, the US is violating them all the time. Nobody talks about this. The accord is explicit in terms of the requirement that the signatories do nothing with Iran’s commercial relations with the outside. The US is doing that constantly. Even under the Obama administration, there were radical violations of the agreements. Trump is trying everything that he can to destroy the accords. You probably saw this morning the Europeans [are] trying to offer some conciliatory measures to keep Trump from pulling out entirely. This will probably fail. I don’t think there is a coherent foreign policy. He’s been very critical of Pakistan. Pakistan is reacting by stepping up bombings by the Taliban in Afghanistan. There is a significant likelihood that real hostilities will break up between Israel and Hezbollah, which will probably mean the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. Israel will bombard Lebanon, which will mean the destruction of Lebanon. Israel is committed to their Dahiya doctrine, as they call it, which means they will go to war against any provocation. And it could just blow up the Iranian installations which are not too far from the Israeli border. Israel won’t allow anything near its borders. So, I think that is a very volatile and dangerous situation. Some observers, such as the knowledgeable analyst Nicholas Noe, are predicting, with a degree of certainty, that a serious war could happen. That is an ugly situation. And, of course in Yemen the U.S. and Israel with British backing are just destroying the country. They are blaming Iran, but it’s basically U.S. and Saudi bombings. So that situation is extremely dangerous and vulnerable. On the other side, Turkey is attacking Syria in order to keep any Kurdish groups as far as they can from their borders. You may have seen this morning that [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan told a six-year-old girl she would be honored if she was “martyred.” I can’t imagine what is going on in their minds. They are very unpredictable and dangerous people. Similarly, in Israel, [Israel Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is in serious trouble and it’s possible that he will try to salvage his situation by undertaking some violent act. All very dangerous! Lebanon will likely be a major victim. Q: Do you predict that we will have another violent war in the Middle-East? Chomsky: If there is another war, it will be even worse than the last one. The reason is that Hezbollah by now, according to reports at least, has a very significant missile capacity which Israel won’t be able to stop. If they start hitting Israeli targets, Israel will just go “all out” without any restraint. They might go as far as bombing Iran. [...] Chomsky: The Europeans are trying almost desperately to save something [of the Iran deal]. I doubt very much that Iran will accept the new proposals that they announced. It seems very unlikely. I am sure that the European negotiators know that Iran can’t [accept] them. If the U.S. also reject them, which is very possible, one conceivable outcome is that the U.S. would just withdraw, and the rest of the P5+1 will maintain some kind of relationship with Iran. They don’t want to break their relationship with the U.S. either. So, they are in a very difficult situation. They don’t want to abandon Iran and on the other hand, they are very frightened about the U.S. for good reason. Russia and China will maintain a relationship with Iran, but they can’t compensate for Western relations. And Iran, of course, has plenty of internal problems. Not just social and political, but also ecological and climatic concerns. Q: President Trump tasked Brad Pascale to run his political campaign for 2020. Do you think [Trump] has a chance to be re-elected in 2020? Chomsky: I think has a very good chance. His popular base is fanatic. They are just dedicated to him. He could be God, as far as they are concerned. They are immobile no matter what happens. A lot of them are evangelical Christians. The secular state doesn’t mean anything to them. They are working for Jesus, and Jesus says support Trump. That’s probably 25% of the American population. The very rich support Trump. The Trump administration operates on two planes. On one plane, Trump’s role is to attract media attention to make sure he is in the headlines every day. He is the first thing to see on the television every day. That’s why he is doing one crazy thing after another. It’s not what it looks like. The media criticizes Trump, which fires up his base, because they regard themselves as under attack by the liberal media. So, he plays that game. Underneath, the real villains Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are busy dismantling every aspect of the government that might be of benefit to the general population. They are serving their real constituency, the rich and the corporate sector, with abject dedication to sheer robbery. The tax bill was a massive gift to the super rich, with a few pennies to the others just to keep them quiet. Ryan and McConnell want to have a huge deficit so that gives the pretext to dismantling social security, Medicaid, Medicare, and food stamps—anything that benefits the general population. In the meantime, keep the base fired up with white nationalism, racism, religious extremism, and so on. It is a very dangerous situation. Also, as you probably saw around the country, it is a very violent country. There are heavily armed militias all over the place. They are better armed than the state police. Angry people ready to go to war. If Trump hadn’t won the election, we might have had a civil war. ### > On Mar 18, 2018, at 7:54 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Right now as we speak the AIPACkers are trying to get us Americans into a needless war against Iran for the benefit of Israel. Just like the AIPACKers helped get us Americans into two needless wars against Iraq for the benefit of Israel. The AIPACkers are just a Gang of Warmongers for Israel. > Fab […] > > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 7:38 AM > To: 'David Johnson' > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ > > The AIPACkers are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. Fab. […] > > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 7:31 AM > To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ > > From: David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:47 PM > Subject: AIPAC is suddenly getting a lot of bad press, in Jewish papers and ‘Washington Post’ > > […] > One pleasurable surprise of the AIPAC policy conference in early March — the leading Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — was how much bad press the organization got. It’s becoming almost fashionable to criticize the lobby for its enforcement of lockstep political support for Israel in Washington, and for its Soviet-style policy on access to the press. > > These criticisms are finally showing up in the mainstream press. Reporters have been licensed by the injury mere high school students have done to another powerful lobby, the National Rifle Association. So maybe AIPAC is on the same path-to-pariah status, more than a decade after Walt and Mearsheimer published their book The Israel Lobby. > > Here are a few items. Notable among them is a report in the Washington Post of all places saying that AIPAC was born to rally American Jews to stand shoulder to shoulder behind Israeli “lies” about a massacre of Palestinians, back in 1953. And two angry pieces in the Jewish press decrying AIPAC’s blackout policy on coverage of its gatherings. > > First off, Gershon Baskin reports in the Jerusalem Post that a Maryland insurgent Democrat, Dr. Jerome Segal, is taking on Senator Ben Cardin, who voted against the Iran deal, because he is so pro-AIPAC. Baskin paints AIPAC as the NRA. > > An interesting aspect of [Jerome] Segal’s candidacy is not only that he is challenging Senator Cardin, but that he is taking on AIPAC. Cardin is a kind of AIPAC “poster boy,” not only representing what AIPAC wants, but being on the front line of acting on behalf of AIPAC in the Senate. Segal believes that he will take the votes that supported Bernie Sanders (35% of the Democratic voters) and gain many other votes because the broad flow of American Jewish opinion is toward his Jewish Peace Lobby’s ideas and away from AIPAC’s blind support of Israel…. > > Segal presents himself as David to Cardin and AIPAC’s Goliath. Segal’s slogan is “if we beat AIPAC in Maryland, we can beat the NRA [National Rifle Association] in America.”.. > > Baskin is frank about AIPAC’s power (though he says, mistakenly imho, that the NRA is more powerful (Dems run against the NRA)): > > Many members of Congress are simply afraid to ever challenge AIPAC, not because AIPAC puts so much money in the campaigns of everyone it supports, but because AIPAC’s strategy is also to target candidates that it doesn’t like and put huge amounts of money into their challengers’ campaigns. The candidates that AIPAC wants out usually don’t stand a chance. > > And AIPAC is vulnerable because it has become the Trump lobby. > > The AIPAC show of last week does not reflect the majority view of American Jewry. I believe that most of the thousands of participants at AIPAC were in fact Trump supporters. > > Peter Beinart also says AIPAC is vulnerable, in a piece at the Atlantic site saying that AIPAC faces a “struggle to avoid the fate of the NRA.” Beinart says young Dems are alienated by AIPAC’s achievement: blocking criticism of the occupation. While rightwing Republicans are alienated by its lip service to the two-state solution. > > AIPAC is conducting a remarkable experiment. It’s doubling down on bipartisanship and ideological diversity even as tectonic shifts in American politics and culture make that harder and harder… > > It’s fascinating to watch, and it’s likely to fail…. It will fail because the thing about Israel that young liberals admire least is its half-century long policy of denying Palestinians in the West Bank basic rights like free movement, due process, and citizenship in the country in which they live—and entrenching that denial by building settlements where Jews enjoy rights that their Palestinian neighbors are denied. [AIPAC CEO Howard] Kohr’s endorsement of the two-state solution notwithstanding, AIPAC remains the most powerful force in American politics opposing pressure on Israel to end the occupation. Thus, young liberals can only embrace AIPAC if they place their support for Israel ahead of their opposition to its occupation. > > There’s more of the NRA theme at Truthdig. Maj. Danny Sjursen, a former West Point instructor, laments on the death of the antiwar Democratic liberal congressperson, and rightly sees the lobby’s role in that transformation. > > I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully attended a panel at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn’t help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party. The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and more. But she—a supposed liberal—and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America’s warfare state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats’ reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger disease in the party—tacit militarism. > > AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings—well attended by mainstream Democrats and Republicans alike—serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu’s ring and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don’t dare utter the word “Palestinian.” That’d be untoward—Palestinians are the unacknowledged elephants in the room. > > Sjursen laments Israel’s shadow over the U.S. image in the world. > > The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America’s failed project in the Middle East, should be the last group “liberals” pander to…. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided, occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign Palestinian territory, keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights. > > This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly damages the U.S. military’s reputation on the “Arab street.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered U.S. support for Israel and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: “Why do they hate us?” > > Speaking of war crimes, The Washington Post published an important piece on “The dark roots” of AIPAC, by Doug Rossinow, a teacher of history at the University of Oslo. Rossinow says that AIPAC has its origins in the 1953 effort by American Jews to explain away a massacre of Palestinians. > > Rossinow describes AIPAC as “a huge factor in U.S. policy” and endorses Gideon Levy’s picture of the group as a “Jewish lobby” — it “welded a united front of American Jews in support of Israel, a unity that politicians have had to respect.” > > The original leader of the lobby group, I.L. “Si” Kenen, found most of his political friends among liberal Democrats, Rossinow writes. Truman had of course endorsed the Jewish state, pushed by major Zionist donors; but Eisenhower bucked Israel on several occasions, including during the famous Qibya massacre in the West Bank in 1953 — when Ariel Sharon’s troops killed “more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel.” > > Back then, Israel didn’t get away with human rights violations. > > The outcry was sharp and wide. > > Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — “slouching . . . smoking and joking.” The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident. > > Qibya was the genesis of AIPAC, Rossinow asserts, as Israel supporters prepared “for any future shocks coming out of Israel.” > > Aware Israel’s reputation in the United States had been tarnished, American Jewish supporters of Israel scrambled to mount a damage-control effort in late 1953 and early 1954. > > And Jewish solidarity was key. Stalinist orthodoxy needed to be enforced. AIPAC’s predecessor did what the lobby does today, redlines the Jewish community (and even Americans for Peace Now marches along with its mouth shut). > > Even before AZCPA [AIPAC predecessor, American Zionist Council for Public Affairs] appeared, Kenen and others labored to construct a united front among American Jewish groups in support of Israel amid the Qibya controversy. AZCPA strengthened that Jewish united front, which was impressively broad. .. > It showed that there was nothing Israel might do that would jeopardize American Jewish support. Indeed, to some in the Jewish community, the more disturbing Israeli behavior was, the more Israel needed their ardent advocacy…. > > The perception that AIPAC represents a consensus among American Jews has always been a key to its political influence, which explains the group’s sometimes seemingly outsized opposition to Jewish dissent from its line. “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” born in awful knowledge, has always existed to make Israeli realities and priorities palatable to Americans. > > The worse things got, the louder were the Jewish voices. Denying “awful knowledge.” Imagine, that was in the Washington Post! > > More dissent. The editors of the Jewish Week, angered by AIPAC’s stiffnecked policy on the press attending the most interesting sessions at the policy conference, refused to attend the conference. From “Why We Won’t Be at the AIPAC conference.” > > Lobby leaders said that speakers and panelists at the conference may feel inhibited in expressing their views if members of the press were in the room. We countered that a conference with 20,000 attendees, and dozens of sessions with many hundreds of delegates, is by nature not conducive to keeping secrets, especially in the age of instant tweets and texts. If members of the press agreed to the ground rules of attending “off the record” sessions, it would allow the media to get a sense of the important give-and-take that takes place in these informative sessions without violating journalistic or AIPAC boundaries…. > > AIPAC has a long history of being wary of and less than friendly toward the press. Members of the press enter the AIPAC convention through a separate entrance and must be accompanied by staff to proceed to the main area where sessions are held — and even accompanied to the rest rooms at times. Such treatment doesn’t foster trust and mutual respect. AIPAC officials say the press is overly critical in its coverage of the lobby…. > > The editors also say that Israel is under fire, and so “AIPAC’s mandate of promoting bipartisan support for Israel is more vital than ever.” But the press policies are hurting that goal. > > The Atlanta Jewish Times chimes in, deploring AIPAC’s policy and saying it was unable to cover an AIPAC gathering in Atlanta because it was off the record. > > The perfect image of AIPAC’s wrongheaded attitude emerged Sunday, March 4, the first day of the Washington conference. Outside a session titled “Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in Israel” was this sign: “THIS SESSION IS OFF THE RECORD AND CLOSED TO THE PRESS.” > > > Sign outside a panel on press freedom at AIPAC, foto in Atlanta Jewish Week. > > …AIPAC recently held its annual Atlanta community event at Mercedes-Benz Stadium with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Bret Stephens of The New York Times speaking. But you didn’t see any coverage in the AJT because everything AIPAC does locally is off the record. > > It’s particularly aggravating when the speaker is a fellow member of the press, such as Stephens… > > We suspect AIPAC just likes to maintain a sense of mystery that brings an aura of power and perhaps increases people’s desire to pay to see what’s inside. > > In sum, the atmosphere is changing for AIPAC. People are more willing to criticize it in the press. A sea change in establishment attitudes is under way, I believe, though it will take a while… > > Thanks to Donald Johnson, Todd Pierce, Adam Horowitz, John Whitbeck. > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Mar 20 13:04:02 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:04:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Building the Iron Wall Message-ID: <003001d3c04b$eb8553a0$c28ffae0$@comcast.net> Mar 18, 2018 https://www.truthdig.com/wp-content/themes/am2/assets/images/print.svg Building the Iron Wall * https://smhttp-ssl-62992.nexcesscdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Fish-Hedg es-Truth-3-18-18-1-850x712.jpgMr. Fish / Truthdig Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, along with 18 members of the House of Representatives-15 Republicans and three Democrats-has sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanding that the Qatari-run Al-Jazeera television network register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The letter was issued after Al-Jazeera said it planned to air a documentary by a reporter who went undercover to look into the Israel lobby in the United States. The action by the senator and the House members follows the decision by the Justice Department to force RT America to register as a foreign agent and the imposition of algorithms by Facebook, Google and Twitter that steer traffic away from left-wing, anti-war and progressive websites, including Truthdig. It also follows December's abolition of net neutrality. The letter asks the Justice Department to investigate "reports that Al Jazeera infiltrated American non-profit organizations." It says that the "content produced by this network often directly undermines American interests with favorable coverage of U.S. State Department-designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, including Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's branch in Syria." "American citizens deserve to know whether the information and news media they consume is impartial, or if it is deceptive propaganda pushed by foreign nations," the letter reads. The ominous assault on the final redoubts of a free press, through an attempt to brand dissidents, independent journalists and critics of corporate power and imperialism as agents of a foreign power, has begun. FARA, until recently, was a little-used regulation, passed in 1938 to combat Nazi propaganda. The journalists Max Blumenthal and Ali Abunimah do a good job of addressing the issue in this clip on The Real News Network. Those who challenge the dominant corporate narrative already struggle on the margins of the media landscape. The handful of independent websites and news outlets, including this one, and a few foreign-run networks such as Al-Jazeera and RT America, on which I host a show, " On Contact," are the few platforms left that examine corporate power and empire, the curtailment of our civil liberties, lethal police violence and the ecocide carried out by the fossil fuel and animal agriculture industries, as well as cover the war crimes committed by Israel and the U.S. military in the Middle East. Shutting down these venues would ensure that the critics who speak through them, and oppressed peoples such as the Palestinians, have no voice left. I witnessed and was at times the victim of black propaganda campaigns when I was a foreign correspondent. False accusations are made anonymously and then amplified by a compliant press. The anonymous site PropOrNot, replicating this tactic, in 2016 published a blacklist of 199 sites that it alleged, with no evidence, "reliably echo Russian propaganda." More than half of those sites were far-right, conspiracy-driven ones. But about 20 of the sites were progressive, anti-war and left-wing. They included AlterNet, Black Agenda Report, Democracy Now!, Naked Capitalism, Truthdig, Truthout, CounterPunch and the World Socialist Web Site. PropOrNot charged that these sites disseminated "fake news" on behalf of Russia, and the allegations became front-page news in The Washington Post in a story headlined "Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during the election, experts say." Washington Post reporter Craig Timberg wrote in that article that the goal of "a sophisticated Russian propaganda effort," according to "independent researchers who have tracked the operation," was "punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy." To date, no one has exposed who operates PropOrNot or who is behind the website. But the damage done by this black propaganda campaign and the subsequent announcement by Google and other organizations such as Facebook last April that they had put in filters to elevate "more authoritative content" and marginalize "blatantly misleading, low quality, offensive or downright false information" have steadily diverted readers away from some sites. The Marxist World Socialist Web Site, for example, has seen its traffic decline by 75 percent. AlterNet's search traffic is down 71 percent, Consortium News is down 72 percent, and Global Research and Truthdig have seen declines. And the situation appears to be growing worse as the algorithms are refined. Jeff Bezos, the owner of The Washington Post and the founder and CEO of Amazon, has, like Google and some other major Silicon Valley corporations, close ties with the federal security and surveillance apparatus. Bezos has a $600 million contract with the CIA. The lines separating technology-based entities such as Google and Amazon and the government's security and surveillance apparatus are often nonexistent. The goal of corporations such as Google and Facebook is profit, not the dissemination of truth. And when truth gets in the way of profit, truth is sacrificed. Google, Facebook, Twitter, The New York Times, The Washington Post, BuzzFeed News, Agence France-Presse and CNN have all imposed or benefited from the algorithms or filters-overseen by human "evaluators." When an internet user types a word in a Google search it is called an "impression" by the industry. These impressions direct the persons making the searches to websites that use the words or address the issues associated with them. Before the algorithms were put in place last April, searches for terms such as "imperialism" or "inequality" directed internet users mostly to left-wing, progressive and anti-war sites. Now they are directed primarily to mainstream sites such as The Washington Post. If you type in "World Socialist Web Site," which has been hit especially hard by the algorithms, you will be directed to the site-but you have to ask for it by name. Searches for associated words such as "socialist" or "socialism" are unlikely to bring up a list in which the World Socialist Web Site appears near the top. There are 10,000 "evaluators" at Google, many of them former employees at counterterrorism agencies, who determine the "quality" and veracity of websites. They have downgraded sites such as Truthdig, and with the abolition of net neutrality can further isolate those sites on the internet. The news organizations and corporations imposing and benefiting from this censorship have strong links to the corporate establishment and the Democratic Party. They do not question corporate capitalism, American imperialism or rising social inequality. They dutifully feed the anti-Russia hysteria. An Al-Jazeera report on this censorship begins at 14:07 in this link. The corporate oligarchs, lacking a valid response to the discrediting of their policies of economic pillage and endless war, have turned to the blunt instrument of censorship and to a new version of red baiting. They do not intend to institute reforms or restore an open society. They do not intend to address the social inequality behind the political insurgencies in the two major political parties and the hatred of the corporate state that spans the political spectrum. They intend to impose a cone of silence and the state-sanctioned uniformity of opinion that characterizes all totalitarian regimes. This is what the use of FARA, the imposition of algorithms and the attempt to blame Trump's election on Russian interference is about. Critics and investigative journalists who expose the inner workings of corporate power are branded enemies of the state in the service of a foreign power. The corporate-controlled media, meanwhile, presents the salacious, the trivial and the absurd as news while fanning the obsession over Russia. This is one of the most ominous moments in American history. The complicity in this witch hunt by self-identified liberal organizations, including The New York Times and MSNBC, will come back to haunt them. When the voices for truth are erased, they will be next. The steps to tyranny are always small, incremental and often barely noticed, as Milton Mayer wrote in "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945." By the time a population wakes up, it is too late. He noted: But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join you, never comes. That's the difficulty. If the last and the worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked. If, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in '43 had come immediately after the "German Firm" stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in '33. But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D. And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying "Jew swine," collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you lived in-your nation, your people-is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way. Despots, despite their proclaimed ideological, national and religious differences, speak the same language. Amoral, devoid of empathy and addicted to power and personal enrichment, they are building a world where all who criticize them are silenced, where their populations are rendered compliant by fear, constant surveillance and the loss of basic liberties and where they and their corporate enablers are the undisputed masters. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that the Qatari government is seeking to improve relations with the Trump administration by forging alliances with right-wing Jewish organizations in the United States. It has promised Jewish leaders, the paper reported, not to air the Al-Jazeera documentary about the Israel lobby. Al-Jazeera in 2016 shut down Al-Jazeera America, which broadcast to U.S. audiences. With no broadcaster in the U.S., the program would have reached few American viewers even if Al-Jazeera had put it on the air. Haaretz reported that Jewish organizational leaders who have visited Qatar in recent months include Mort Klein of the Zionist Organization of America; Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Jack Rosen of the American Jewish Congress; Rabbi Menachem Genack of the Orthodox Union; Martin Oliner of the Religious Zionists of America; and attorney Alan Dershowitz. "What these leaders share is that none of them are considered critics of the right-wing Netanyahu government in Israel or the Trump administration in Washington," Haaretz correspondent Amir Tibon wrote in the newspaper. The despotism of the United States and the despotism of Israel have found an ally in the despotism of Qatar. Professed beliefs are meaningless. Israel is bonded with the regime in Saudi Arabia and the Christian right in the United States, each of which is virulently anti-Semitic. Dissidents, including Jewish and Israeli dissidents, are attacked as "self-hating Jews" or anti-Semites only because they are dissidents. The word "traitor" or "anti-Semite" has no real meaning. It is used not to describe a reality but to turn someone into a pariah. The iron wall is rising. It will cement into place a global system of corporate totalitarianism, one in which the old vocabulary of human rights and democracy is empty and where any form of defiance means you are an enemy of the state. This totalitarianism is being formed incrementally. It begins by silencing the demonized. It ends by silencing everyone. "You walk into the room with your pencil in your hand," Bob Dylan sang in "Ballad of a Thin Man." "You see somebody naked and you say, 'Who is that man?' You try so hard but you don't understand just what you will say when you get home. Because something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 174 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 60188 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Mar 20 13:27:25 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:27:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Building the Iron Wall In-Reply-To: <003001d3c04b$eb8553a0$c28ffae0$@comcast.net> References: <003001d3c04b$eb8553a0$c28ffae0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: and attorney Alan Dershowitz The Cruzer was behind me at HLS. According to that war criminal Dirty Dershowitz, the Cruzer was his top student-LOL on that! While running for President, the Cruzer bragged about how he went all the way to the US Supreme Court in order to establish the God-Given Right of Texas to execute Mexican Citizens in violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Optional Protocol thereto, the United Nations Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice. That's Dirty Dersh's top student at Harvard Law School for you. I was the one who had originally recommended that World Court Lawsuit to the Mexican government and drafted the Memorandum for them on it and then how to get it enforced in United States Courts.But by then the right wing reactionary Roberts had become the Chief Justice-again, behind me at Harvard Law School. I would not send my dog to. I like my dog. And here comes HLS Pompeo. Fab. Harvard Law School Is a Neo-Con Cesspool After Deans Clark and Kagan I would not send my dog to I like my dog Nor my kids Nor others' kids I like them too To learn torture And become torturers To learn war crimes And become war criminals To learn kangaroo courts And become kangaroos To learn drones And become droners To learn murder And become murderers To learn assassinations And become assassins To trash the Constitution And International Law Human Rights too This is not the HLS I entered In 1971 A pox upon their house! Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 8:04 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] Building the Iron Wall Mar 18, 2018 [https://www.truthdig.com/wp-content/themes/am2/assets/images/print.svg] Building the Iron Wall * [https://smhttp-ssl-62992.nexcesscdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Fish-Hedges-Truth-3-18-18-1-850x712.jpg]Mr. Fish / Truthdig Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, along with 18 members of the House of Representatives-15 Republicans and three Democrats-has sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanding that the Qatari-run Al-Jazeera television network register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The letter was issued after Al-Jazeera said it planned to air a documentary by a reporter who went undercover to look into the Israel lobby in the United States. The action by the senator and the House members follows the decision by the Justice Department to force RT America to register as a foreign agent and the imposition of algorithms by Facebook, Google and Twitter that steer traffic away from left-wing, anti-war and progressive websites, including Truthdig. It also follows December's abolition of net neutrality. The letter asks the Justice Department to investigate "reports that Al Jazeera infiltrated American non-profit organizations." It says that the "content produced by this network often directly undermines American interests with favorable coverage of U.S. State Department-designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, including Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's branch in Syria." "American citizens deserve to know whether the information and news media they consume is impartial, or if it is deceptive propaganda pushed by foreign nations," the letter reads. The ominous assault on the final redoubts of a free press, through an attempt to brand dissidents, independent journalists and critics of corporate power and imperialism as agents of a foreign power, has begun. FARA, until recently, was a little-used regulation, passed in 1938 to combat Nazi propaganda. The journalists Max Blumenthal and Ali Abunimah do a good job of addressing the issue in this clip on The Real News Network. Those who challenge the dominant corporate narrative already struggle on the margins of the media landscape. The handful of independent websites and news outlets, including this one, and a few foreign-run networks such as Al-Jazeera and RT America, on which I host a show, "On Contact," are the few platforms left that examine corporate power and empire, the curtailment of our civil liberties, lethal police violence and the ecocide carried out by the fossil fuel and animal agriculture industries, as well as cover the war crimes committed by Israel and the U.S. military in the Middle East. Shutting down these venues would ensure that the critics who speak through them, and oppressed peoples such as the Palestinians, have no voice left. I witnessed and was at times the victim of black propaganda campaigns when I was a foreign correspondent. False accusations are made anonymously and then amplified by a compliant press. The anonymous site PropOrNot, replicating this tactic, in 2016 published a blacklist of 199 sites that it alleged, with no evidence, "reliably echo Russian propaganda." More than half of those sites were far-right, conspiracy-driven ones. But about 20 of the sites were progressive, anti-war and left-wing. They included AlterNet, Black Agenda Report, Democracy Now!, Naked Capitalism, Truthdig, Truthout, CounterPunch and the World Socialist Web Site. PropOrNot charged that these sites disseminated "fake news" on behalf of Russia, and the allegations became front-page news in The Washington Post in a story headlined "Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during the election, experts say." Washington Post reporter Craig Timberg wrote in that article that the goal of "a sophisticated Russian propaganda effort," according to "independent researchers who have tracked the operation," was "punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy." To date, no one has exposed who operates PropOrNot or who is behind the website. But the damage done by this black propaganda campaign and the subsequent announcement by Google and other organizations such as Facebook last April that they had put in filters to elevate "more authoritative content" and marginalize "blatantly misleading, low quality, offensive or downright false information" have steadily diverted readers away from some sites. The Marxist World Socialist Web Site, for example, has seen its traffic decline by 75 percent. AlterNet's search traffic is down 71 percent, Consortium News is down 72 percent, and Global Research and Truthdig have seen declines. And the situation appears to be growing worse as the algorithms are refined. Jeff Bezos, the owner of The Washington Post and the founder and CEO of Amazon, has, like Google and some other major Silicon Valley corporations, close ties with the federal security and surveillance apparatus. Bezos has a $600 million contract with the CIA. The lines separating technology-based entities such as Google and Amazon and the government's security and surveillance apparatus are often nonexistent. The goal of corporations such as Google and Facebook is profit, not the dissemination of truth. And when truth gets in the way of profit, truth is sacrificed. Google, Facebook, Twitter, The New York Times, The Washington Post, BuzzFeed News, Agence France-Presse and CNN have all imposed or benefited from the algorithms or filters-overseen by human "evaluators." When an internet user types a word in a Google search it is called an "impression" by the industry. These impressions direct the persons making the searches to websites that use the words or address the issues associated with them. Before the algorithms were put in place last April, searches for terms such as "imperialism" or "inequality" directed internet users mostly to left-wing, progressive and anti-war sites. Now they are directed primarily to mainstream sites such as The Washington Post. If you type in "World Socialist Web Site," which has been hit especially hard by the algorithms, you will be directed to the site-but you have to ask for it by name. Searches for associated words such as "socialist" or "socialism" are unlikely to bring up a list in which the World Socialist Web Site appears near the top. There are 10,000 "evaluators" at Google, many of them former employees at counterterrorism agencies, who determine the "quality" and veracity of websites. They have downgraded sites such as Truthdig, and with the abolition of net neutrality can further isolate those sites on the internet. The news organizations and corporations imposing and benefiting from this censorship have strong links to the corporate establishment and the Democratic Party. They do not question corporate capitalism, American imperialism or rising social inequality. They dutifully feed the anti-Russia hysteria. An Al-Jazeera report on this censorship begins at 14:07 in this link. The corporate oligarchs, lacking a valid response to the discrediting of their policies of economic pillage and endless war, have turned to the blunt instrument of censorship and to a new version of red baiting. They do not intend to institute reforms or restore an open society. They do not intend to address the social inequality behind the political insurgencies in the two major political parties and the hatred of the corporate state that spans the political spectrum. They intend to impose a cone of silence and the state-sanctioned uniformity of opinion that characterizes all totalitarian regimes. This is what the use of FARA, the imposition of algorithms and the attempt to blame Trump's election on Russian interference is about. Critics and investigative journalists who expose the inner workings of corporate power are branded enemies of the state in the service of a foreign power. The corporate-controlled media, meanwhile, presents the salacious, the trivial and the absurd as news while fanning the obsession over Russia. This is one of the most ominous moments in American history. The complicity in this witch hunt by self-identified liberal organizations, including The New York Times and MSNBC, will come back to haunt them. When the voices for truth are erased, they will be next. The steps to tyranny are always small, incremental and often barely noticed, as Milton Mayer wrote in "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945." By the time a population wakes up, it is too late. He noted: But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join you, never comes. That's the difficulty. If the last and the worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked. If, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in '43 had come immediately after the "German Firm" stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in '33. But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D. And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying "Jew swine," collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you lived in-your nation, your people-is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way. Despots, despite their proclaimed ideological, national and religious differences, speak the same language. Amoral, devoid of empathy and addicted to power and personal enrichment, they are building a world where all who criticize them are silenced, where their populations are rendered compliant by fear, constant surveillance and the loss of basic liberties and where they and their corporate enablers are the undisputed masters. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that the Qatari government is seeking to improve relations with the Trump administration by forging alliances with right-wing Jewish organizations in the United States. It has promised Jewish leaders, the paper reported, not to air the Al-Jazeera documentary about the Israel lobby. Al-Jazeera in 2016 shut down Al-Jazeera America, which broadcast to U.S. audiences. With no broadcaster in the U.S., the program would have reached few American viewers even if Al-Jazeera had put it on the air. Haaretz reported that Jewish organizational leaders who have visited Qatar in recent months include Mort Klein of the Zionist Organization of America; Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Jack Rosen of the American Jewish Congress; Rabbi Menachem Genack of the Orthodox Union; Martin Oliner of the Religious Zionists of America; and attorney Alan Dershowitz. "What these leaders share is that none of them are considered critics of the right-wing Netanyahu government in Israel or the Trump administration in Washington," Haaretz correspondent Amir Tibon wrote in the newspaper. The despotism of the United States and the despotism of Israel have found an ally in the despotism of Qatar. Professed beliefs are meaningless. Israel is bonded with the regime in Saudi Arabia and the Christian right in the United States, each of which is virulently anti-Semitic. Dissidents, including Jewish and Israeli dissidents, are attacked as "self-hating Jews" or anti-Semites only because they are dissidents. The word "traitor" or "anti-Semite" has no real meaning. It is used not to describe a reality but to turn someone into a pariah. The iron wall is rising. It will cement into place a global system of corporate totalitarianism, one in which the old vocabulary of human rights and democracy is empty and where any form of defiance means you are an enemy of the state. This totalitarianism is being formed incrementally. It begins by silencing the demonized. It ends by silencing everyone. "You walk into the room with your pencil in your hand," Bob Dylan sang in "Ballad of a Thin Man." "You see somebody naked and you say, 'Who is that man?' You try so hard but you don't understand just what you will say when you get home. Because something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 181 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 60188 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Mar 20 13:31:57 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:31:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary election (4) In-Reply-To: References: <8D99A2C0-5365-4935-828B-93A6812C39A4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <006101d3c04f$d1f6fb10$75e4f130$@comcast.net> David Gill is not only the ONLY anti-war Democrat running for congress in the 13th District, he is also the ONLY candidate of the four ( Londrigan, Jones, Ebel the other three ) who is NOT a Neo-liberal. Gill opposes ; imperialist U.S. wars / bloated military budget, NAFTA / Trans Pacific Partnership etc., mass incarceration, surveillance state / loss of civil liberties and privacy. Gill supports ; Medicare for All, legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of all illegal drugs, $ 15 per hour minimum wage NOW, and free publicly financed post high school education for all as well as the abolishment of all existing student debt. NONE of the other candidates agree with Gill on the above issues except for Ebel on Medicare for All but that was only recently, which makes me doubt Ebel’s sincerity on the issue. In light of the above facts, it is pretty obvious who the REAL anti-war and anti- corporate DNC / DCCC candidate is. It is simply amazing how Bob Naiman has picked her to endorse. She is not only a war monger and a neo-liberal but is not that intelligent or knowledgeable. In answer to a question at one of the forums I attended, that being ( asked of all of the candidates ) if she had accepted any corporate or lobbyist donations, her reply was ; “ No of course not, that is illegal “ . You could see people in the audience looking at each other and snickering. Then again, Naiman supported Sam Rosenberg against Carol Ammons and Anne Callis against David Green and George Gollin, so what do you expect. He almost always endorses the DNC / DCCC supported candidate. David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 7:15 AM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary election (4) Carl I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need. Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. On Mar 19, 2018, at 21:11, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” [ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama administration - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against the administration’s wars. —CGE On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace wrote: Robert, I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! Niloofar On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace wrote: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. _______________________ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 13:55:06 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary election (4) In-Reply-To: References: <8D99A2C0-5365-4935-828B-93A6812C39A4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <58408CB4-74EF-4467-B8A6-6AF9D8B2E760@gmail.com> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in office. Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against Russia and China. —CGE > On Mar 20, 2018, at 7:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > >> Carl >> >> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. However, >> Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need. >> >> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >> >> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. On Mar 19, 2018, at 21:11, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>> >>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html ]. >>> >>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama administration - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace > wrote: >>>> >>>> Robert, >>>> >>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>> >>>> Niloofar >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace > wrote: >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>> >>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. >>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>> >>>> _______________________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue Mar 20 14:09:44 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:09:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary election (4) In-Reply-To: <58408CB4-74EF-4467-B8A6-6AF9D8B2E760@gmail.com> References: <8D99A2C0-5365-4935-828B-93A6812C39A4@gmail.com> <58408CB4-74EF-4467-B8A6-6AF9D8B2E760@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency pressure, please name one. And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer nonsense. On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:55, C G Estabrook > wrote: No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in office. Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against Russia and China. —CGE On Mar 20, 2018, at 7:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Carl I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need. Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. On Mar 19, 2018, at 21:11, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama administration - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against the administration’s wars. —CGE On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace > wrote: Robert, I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! Niloofar On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace > wrote: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. _______________________ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 14:17:56 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 09:17:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary election (4) In-Reply-To: <006101d3c04f$d1f6fb10$75e4f130$@comcast.net> References: <8D99A2C0-5365-4935-828B-93A6812C39A4@gmail.com> <006101d3c04f$d1f6fb10$75e4f130$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <9C1002A7-53D7-4114-A1A5-1537298153E1@gmail.com> 'Just Foreign Policy’ has not always been just a Democratic party front group, but it comes pretty close. It’s shameful that Bob Naiman refuses to back the only antiwar candidate (David Gill) in today’s election, but not out of character. Recall his awful behavior in the presidential election, as described on CounterPunch for August 19, 2016: ============================== …[Green presidential candidate Jill Stein] easily swatted down the smear now being furiously spread by the Clintonoids that she is opposed to childhood vaccinations and that she is “anti-science.” It’s a ludicrous charge against a physician and one that has no basis in fact, as Stein forcefully demonstrated. Still, I hope this assault doesn’t discourage Stein and Baraka from at some point offering a critical analysis of the economic and political uses of science in the service of war and profit. One of the chief purveyors of this bilge of misinformation is a previously obscure fellow named Robert Naiman, who runs a nearly invisible group called Just Foreign Policy. Naiman was caught red-handed (so to speak) when his junk mail made its way to the inbox of John Stauber, author of Toxic Sludge is Good for You and a leading expert on the politics of propaganda and disinformation. Stauber knows a smear when he sees one. Here’s the text of the email Naiman circulated among his coterie of conflicted progressives at GameChangersSalon: From: Robert Naiman‪ If you have a lot of Facebook friends, you may have recently noticed a high level of activity on your Facebook feed by Jill Stein acolytes. If so, you may find the following links useful to throw them off their game. No warranty, express or implied. You don’t have to prove that Jill Stein is an anti-science conspiracy theorist. You just have to say, “There are unanswered questions about whether Jill Stein is an anti-science conspiracy theorist.” There’s Nothing Green About Jill Stein’s Vaccine Stance http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/07/29/theres-nothing-green-about-jill-steins-vaccine-stance/#35b3a40b6465 Jill Stein on vaccines: People have ‘real questions’ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/29/jill-stein-on-vaccines-people-have-real-questions/ Jill Stein Promotes Homeopathy, Panders On Vaccines http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/07/jill-stein-promotes-homeopathy-panders-on-vaccines/ Jill Stein Worries Wi-Fi Is Dangerous For Kids http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/08/jill-stein-worries-wi-fi-is-dangerous-for-kids/ === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org You’d think Jill Stein was a card-carrying member of the Flat Earth Society. In fact, Stein graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, graduated from Harvard Medical School, practiced internal medicine at Beth Israel Hospital for 25 years and taught medicine at Harvard Medical School. In other words, Stein is an unlikely suspect for ratting out a modern-day Galileo. The same cannot be said for the current Democratic administration whose vicious crackdown on whistleblowers, many of them scientists, has been part of a concerted and unrelenting campaign to snuff out internal dissent. It so happens that Naiman, an alleged peace activist, is also the board president for the liberal website Truthout. Veteran readers of CounterPunch will recall Truthout from John Pilger’s acrid account of his head-on collision with their editors, who peevishly tried to cleanse his essay, “A World War Has Begun: Break the Silence,” of passages which might prove uncomfortable for the Democratic Party establishment. In a nasty email exchange with longtime Green organizer Kevin Zeese, who is now co-director of Popular Resistance, a group which grew out of the Occupy movement, Naiman sunk even further into the slime and threatened to expose Jill Stein as “a Trotskyite cancer.” On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: Oh, is today my day to be harassed by Green Party thugs? I’ll make you a deal: call off your dogs and I won’t further expose Jill Stein as a Trokskyite cancer. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org Slandering Stein and the Greens for being “Trotskyites” (or “Trokskyites,” in Naiman’s quaint verbiage) is as intellectually vapid as it is vile. Everyone knows that most of Leon’s former disciples in the US have long since morphed into neocons and thus can be spotted in Georgetown cafes polishing their resumés for slots on Hillary’s foreign policy team. “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein,” John Stauber told me. “These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary lied America into attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a damned Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance.” The hypocrisy of the Clintonoids is almost as audacious as their dissemination of lies about Jill Stein. Of course, their champion, the “pro-science” Hillary Clinton, ignores scientific facts and assessments whenever such considerations prove to be an even minor inconvenience to the headlong pursuit of her corporate agenda (cf, fracking). “People may wonder why suddenly everyone was saying Jill Stein is anti-vax — now we know it was a coordinated campaign,” Zeese told me. “Obviously, it also happens in the media because all of a sudden multiple news outlets were reporting the same thing. Had Stein said something that all these media outlets saw and ‘reported’ on — no, she had not said anything anti-vax, but they were coordinated. It was a planned slander attack.” Despite Clinton’s apparent lead in the polls, there’s a palpable sense of desperation in the air, as if her support is so soft that Hillary could sink another 10 points in the wake of one more email dump from Wikileaks or Guccifer 2.0. This explains why her surrogates are reaching so deeply into their bag of dirty tricks. The red-baiting of Stein and Baraka is a perfect expression of the Clinton machine’s political and moral bankruptcy. ========================================================== —CGE > On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:31 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > David Gill is not only the ONLY anti-war Democrat running for congress in the 13th District, he is also the ONLY candidate of the four ( Londrigan, Jones, Ebel the other three ) who is NOT a Neo-liberal. > > Gill opposes ; imperialist U.S. wars / bloated military budget, NAFTA / Trans Pacific Partnership etc., mass incarceration, surveillance state / loss of civil liberties and privacy. > Gill supports ; Medicare for All, legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of all illegal drugs, $ 15 per hour minimum wage NOW, and free publicly financed post high school education for all as well as the abolishment of all existing student debt. > > NONE of the other candidates agree with Gill on the above issues except for Ebel on Medicare for All but that was only recently, which makes me doubt Ebel’s sincerity on the issue. > > In light of the above facts, it is pretty obvious who the REAL anti-war and anti- corporate DNC / DCCC candidate is. > > It is simply amazing how Bob Naiman has picked her to endorse. She is not only a war monger and a neo-liberal but is not that intelligent or knowledgeable. In answer to a question at one of the forums I attended, that being ( asked of all of the candidates ) if she had accepted any corporate or lobbyist donations, her reply was ; “ No of course not, that is illegal “ . You could see people in the audience looking at each other and snickering. > Then again, Naiman supported Sam Rosenberg against Carol Ammons and Anne Callis against David Green and George Gollin, so what do you expect. He almost always endorses the DNC / DCCC supported candidate. > > David J. > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 7:15 AM > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary election (4) > >> Carl >> >> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. However, >> Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need. >> >> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >> >> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. On Mar 19, 2018, at 21:11, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>> >>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>> >>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama administration - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace wrote: >>> >>> Robert, >>> >>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>> >>> Niloofar >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace wrote: >>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>> >>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. >>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. >>> >>> _______________________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Tue Mar 20 23:38:27 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:38:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary election (4) Message-ID: The mainline party Democrats here in Champaign County appear to have accomplished a nearly statistically impossible task with the primary ballot. It seemed as if their favored candidate was listed first for every race. Certainly not in alphabetical order. They could teach Chicago a thing or two. Or does Chicago do this now too.!? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Tue, Mar 20, 2018 9:18 AMTo: David Johnson;Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;Karen Aram;niloofar.peace at gmail.com;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary election (4) 'Just Foreign Policy’ has not always been just a Democratic party front group, but it comes pretty close. It’s shameful that Bob Naiman refuses to back the only antiwar candidate (David Gill) in today’s election, but not out of character. Recall his awful behavior in the presidential election, as described on CounterPunch for August 19, 2016: ============================== …[Green presidential candidate Jill Stein] easily swatted down the smear now being furiously spread by the Clintonoids that she is opposed to childhood vaccinations and that she is “anti-science.” It’s a ludicrous charge against a physician and one that has no basis in fact, as Stein forcefully demonstrated. Still, I hope this assault doesn’t discourage Stein and Baraka from at some point offering a critical analysis of the economic and political uses of science in the service of war and profit. One of the chief purveyors of this bilge of misinformation is a previously obscure fellow named Robert Naiman, who runs a nearly invisible group called Just Foreign Policy. Naiman was caught red-handed (so to speak) when his junk mail made its way to the inbox of John Stauber, author of Toxic Sludge is Good for You and a leading expert on the politics of propaganda and disinformation. Stauber knows a smear when he sees one. Here’s the text of the email Naiman circulated among his coterie of conflicted progressives at GameChangersSalon: From: Robert Naiman‪ If you have a lot of Facebook friends, you may have recently noticed a high level of activity on your Facebook feed by Jill Stein acolytes. If so, you may find the following links useful to throw them off their game. No warranty, express or implied. You don’t have to prove that Jill Stein is an anti-science conspiracy theorist. You just have to say, “There are unanswered questions about whether Jill Stein is an anti-science conspiracy theorist.” There’s Nothing Green About Jill Stein’s Vaccine Stance http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/07/29/theres-nothing-green-about-jill-steins-vaccine-stance/#35b3a40b6465 Jill Stein on vaccines: People have ‘real questions’ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/29/jill-stein-on-vaccines-people-have-real-questions/ Jill Stein Promotes Homeopathy, Panders On Vaccines http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/07/jill-stein-promotes-homeopathy-panders-on-vaccines/ Jill Stein Worries Wi-Fi Is Dangerous For Kids http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/08/jill-stein-worries-wi-fi-is-dangerous-for-kids/ === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org You’d think Jill Stein was a card-carrying member of the Flat Earth Society. In fact, Stein graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, graduated from Harvard Medical School, practiced internal medicine at Beth Israel Hospital for 25 years and taught medicine at Harvard Medical School. In other words, Stein is an unlikely suspect for ratting out a modern-day Galileo. The same cannot be said for the current Democratic administration whose vicious crackdown on whistleblowers, many of them scientists, has been part of a concerted and unrelenting campaign to snuff out internal dissent. It so happens that Naiman, an alleged peace activist, is also the board president for the liberal website Truthout. Veteran readers of CounterPunch will recall Truthout from John Pilger’s acrid account of his head-on collision with their editors, who peevishly tried to cleanse his essay, “A World War Has Begun: Break the Silence,” of passages which might prove uncomfortable for the Democratic Party establishment. In a nasty email exchange with longtime Green organizer Kevin Zeese, who is now co-director of Popular Resistance, a group which grew out of the Occupy movement, Naiman sunk even further into the slime and threatened to expose Jill Stein as “a Trotskyite cancer.” On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Robert Naiman  wrote: Oh, is today my day to be harassed by Green Party thugs? I’ll make you a deal: call off your dogs and I won’t further expose Jill Stein as a Trokskyite cancer. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org Slandering Stein and the Greens for being “Trotskyites” (or “Trokskyites,” in Naiman’s quaint verbiage) is as intellectually vapid as it is vile. Everyone knows that most of Leon’s former disciples in the US have long since morphed into neocons and thus can be spotted in Georgetown cafes polishing their resumés for slots on Hillary’s foreign policy team. “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein,” John Stauber told me. “These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary lied America into attacking Iraq.  So there it is, Hillary is his champion while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a damned Communist.  Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance.” The hypocrisy of the Clintonoids is almost as audacious as their dissemination of lies about Jill Stein. Of course, their champion, the “pro-science” Hillary Clinton, ignores scientific facts and assessments whenever such considerations prove to be an even minor inconvenience to the headlong pursuit of her corporate agenda (cf, fracking). “People may wonder why suddenly everyone was saying Jill Stein is anti-vax — now we know it was a coordinated campaign,” Zeese told me. “Obviously, it also happens in the media because all of a sudden multiple news outlets were reporting the same thing. Had Stein said something that all these media outlets saw and ‘reported’ on — no, she had not said anything anti-vax, but they were coordinated. It was a planned slander attack.” Despite Clinton’s apparent lead in the polls, there’s a palpable sense of desperation in the air, as if her support is so soft that Hillary could sink another 10 points in the wake of one more email dump from Wikileaks or Guccifer 2.0. This explains why her surrogates are reaching so deeply into their bag of dirty tricks. The red-baiting of Stein and Baraka is a perfect expression of the Clinton machine’s political and moral bankruptcy. ========================================================== —CGE On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:31 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss > wrote: David Gill is not only the ONLY anti-war Democrat running for congress in the 13th District, he is also the ONLY candidate of the four ( Londrigan, Jones, Ebel  the other three ) who is NOT a Neo-liberal.   Gill opposes ; imperialist U.S. wars / bloated military budget, NAFTA / Trans Pacific Partnership etc., mass incarceration, surveillance state / loss of civil liberties and privacy.  Gill supports ; Medicare for All, legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of all illegal drugs, $ 15 per hour minimum wage NOW, and free publicly financed post high school education for all as well as the abolishment of all existing student debt.   NONE of the other candidates agree with Gill on the above issues except for Ebel on Medicare for All but that was only recently, which makes me doubt Ebel’s sincerity on the issue.   In light of the above facts, it is pretty obvious who the REAL anti-war and anti- corporate DNC / DCCC candidate is.   It is simply amazing how Bob Naiman has picked her to endorse. She is not only a war monger and a neo-liberal but is not that intelligent or knowledgeable. In answer to a question at one of the forums I attended, that being ( asked of all of the candidates ) if she had accepted any corporate or lobbyist donations, her reply was ; “ No of course not, that is illegal “ . You could see people in the audience looking at each other and snickering. Then again, Naiman supported Sam Rosenberg against Carol Ammons and Anne Callis against David Green and George Gollin, so what do you expect. He almost always endorses the DNC / DCCC supported candidate.   David J.    From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 7:15 AM To: C G Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary election (4)   Carl   I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. However,  Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need.     Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect.    Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. On Mar 19, 2018, at 21:11, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote:   David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama administration - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against the administration’s wars. —CGE On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace > wrote: Robert, I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! Niloofar On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace > wrote: https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November.  But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it.  I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk.  Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her.  Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November.  Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. _______________________   _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Mar 21 00:03:10 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:03:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US Smooths Israel's Path to Annexing West Bank Message-ID: A journalist of high credibility predicts more bloodshed and horror for the Palestinian people. * DONATE * ARCHIVES * ABOUT * BOOKS * PODCASTS * FAQS [Facebook][Twitter][Google+][Reddit][Email] MARCH 20, 2018 US Smooths Israel’s Path to Annexing West Bank by JONATHAN COOK FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail[https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2017/09/atoa-print-icon.png] [https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2018/03/Screen-Shot-2018-03-19-at-8.58.36-PM.png] Photo by http://moty66.ipernity.com | CC BY 2.0 Seemingly unrelated events all point to a tectonic shift in which Israel has begun preparing the ground to annex the occupied Palestinian territories. Last week, during an address to students in New York, Israel’s education minister Naftali Bennett publicly disavowed even the notion of a Palestinian state. “We are done with that,” he said. “They have a Palestinian state in Gaza.” Later in Washington, Bennett, who heads Israel’s settler movement, said Israel would manage the fallout from annexing the West Bank, just as it had with its annexation of the Syrian Golan in 1980. International opposition would dissipate, he said. “After two months it fades away and 20 years later and 40 years later, [the territory is] still ours.” Back home, Israel has proven such words are not hollow. The parliament passed a law last month that brings three academic institutions, including Ariel University, all located in illegal West Bank settlements, under the authority of Israel’s Higher Education Council. Until now, they were overseen by a military body. The move marks a symbolic and legal sea change. Israel has effectively expanded its civilian sovereignty into the West Bank. It is a covert but tangible first step towards annexation. In a sign of how the idea of annexation is now entirely mainstream, Israeli university heads mutely accepted the change, even though it exposes them both to intensified action from the growing international boycott (BDS) movement and potentially to European sanctions on scientific co-operation. Additional bills extending Israeli law to the settlements are in the pipeline. In fact, far-right justice minister Ayelet Shaked has insisted that those drafting new legislation indicate how it can also be applied in the West Bank. According to Peace Now, she and Israeli law chiefs are devising new pretexts to seize Palestinian territory. She has called the separation between Israel and the occupied territories required by international law “an injustice that has lasted 50 years”. After the higher education law passed, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his party Israel would “act intelligently” to extend unnoticed its sovereignty into the West Bank. “This is a process with historic consequences,” he said. That accords with a vote by his Likud party’s central committee in December that unanimously backed annexation. The government is already working on legislation to bring some West Bank settlements under Jerusalem municipal control – annexation via the back door. This month officials gave themselves additional powers to expel Palestinians from Jerusalem for “disloyalty”. Yousef Jabareen, a Palestinian member of the Israeli parliament, warned that Israel had accelerated its annexation programme from “creeping to running”. Notably, Netanyahu has said the government’s plans are being co-ordinated with the Trump administration. It was a statement he later retracted under pressure. But all evidence suggests that Washington is fully on board, so long as annexation is done by stealth. The US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, a long-time donor to the settlements, told Israel’s Channel 10 TV recently: “The settlers aren’t going anywhere”. Settler leader Yaakov Katz, meanwhile, thanked Donald Trump for a dramatic surge in settlement growth over the past year. Figures show one in 10 Israeli Jews is now a settler. He called the White House team “people who really like us, love us”, adding that the settlers were “changing the map”. The US is preparing to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in May, not only pre-empting a final-status issue but tearing out the beating heart from a Palestinian state. The thrust of US strategy is so well-known to Palestinian leaders – and in lockstep with Israel – that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is said to have refused to even look at the peace plan recently submitted to him. Reports suggest it will award Israel all of Jerusalem as its capital. The Palestinians will be forced to accept outlying villages as their own capital, as well as a land “corridor” to let them pray at Al Aqsa and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. As the stronger side, Israel will be left to determine the fate of the settlements and its borders – a recipe for it to carry on with slow-motion annexation. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat has warned that Trump’s “ultimate deal” will limit a Palestinian state to Gaza and scraps of the West Bank – much as Bennett prophesied in New York. Which explains why last week the White House hosted a meeting of European and Arab states to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. US officials have warned the Palestinian leadership, who stayed away, that a final deal will be settled over their heads if necessary. This time the US peace plan is not up for negotiation; it is primed for implementation. With a Palestinian “state” effectively restricted to Gaza, the humanitarian catastrophe there – one the United Nations has warned will make the enclave uninhabitable in a few years – needs to be urgently addressed. But the White House summit also sidelined the UN refugee agency UNRWA, which deals with Gaza’s humanitarian situation. The Israeli right hates UNRWA because its presence complicates annexation of the West Bank. And with Fatah and Hamas still at loggerheads, it alone serves to unify the West Bank and Gaza. That is why the Trump administration recently cut US funding to UNRWA – the bulk of its budget. The White House’s implicit goal is to find a new means to manage Gaza’s misery. What is needed now is someone to arm-twist the Palestinians. Mike Pompeo’s move from the CIA to State Department, Trump may hope, will produce the strongman needed to bulldoze the Palestinians into submission. A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by:JONATHAN COOK Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is http://www.jonathan-cook.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 03:03:45 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 22:03:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day Message-ID: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. —CGE From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 21 03:11:19 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 03:11:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> Message-ID: So you vote for Davis, and pray for a miracle. If you have some “inside” information that Davis is opposing war, please do share. I won’t vote for either candidate, they are both pro-war, just as our two party system is “both pro-war.” Any suggestion that an “anti-war organization/group” support a candidate that is pro war, is sheer nonsense and deserves the ridicule it will receive. > On Mar 20, 2018, at 20:03, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). > > But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. > > Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. > > Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. > > —CGE > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 03:18:26 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 22:18:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control of the House. They won’t use it well. > On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:10 PM, David Johnson wrote: > > Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. > I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race and the Governor's race. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Cc: peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day > > Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). > > But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. > > Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. > > Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. > > —CGE > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 04:05:05 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:05:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> Message-ID: My first speculative reaction to the close race between Rauner & Ives is that a lot of Ives supporters will probably sit it out in November; Rauner has offended the Trump base. My non-empirical prediction is that Pritzker will win handily as a result. DG On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:18 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control > of the House. They won’t use it well. > > > > On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:10 PM, David Johnson < > davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what > seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, > we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. > > I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race > and the Governor's race. > > > > David J. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] > On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM > > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > > Cc: peace > > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day > > > > Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the > 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been > beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in > Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). > > > > But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and > should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote > for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. > > > > Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war > candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his > mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of > Libya. > > > > Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical > war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE > should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his > predecessor's example. > > > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 11:47:48 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:47:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Primary election day Message-ID: <5ab24668.1c69fb81.2646.f9f7@mx.google.com> This discussion belongs on the peace-discuss list, not peace. Please stop misusing the peace list.  Anyone responding to a misdirected discussion should also edit who the email is addressed to. null -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Mar 21 11:53:41 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:53:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?FW=3A_Trump=92s_CIA_Pick_Well-Su?= =?windows-1252?q?ited_to_Project_More_Aggressive_Foreign_Policies_-_Sputn?= =?windows-1252?q?ik_International?= 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, March 21, 2018 6:52 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Trump’s CIA Pick Well-Suited to Project More Aggressive Foreign Policies - Sputnik International https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201803211062746511-trump-haspel-aggressive-policies/ THE TORTURE QUESTION If confirmed by the Senate, Haspel would also face the unprecedented handicap that in many nations throughout the world, she could be arrested and charged with war crimes and other offenses because of her own record, University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle cautioned. "Wherever Haspel travels in the world today she would be subject to prosecution for war crimes, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and the Convention Against Torture," Boyle claimed. "All the legal arguments applicable to [former CIA Director George] Tenet apply to her as well. Succinctly put, torture during war time is a war crime," he said. Secret Polish CIA Prison © AP Photo/ US Watchdogs Urge Senate to Screen Gina Haspel's 'Torture' Background The scale and repeated nature of Haspel’s involvement in such abuses was so widespread and consistent that she would likely face even more serious charges outside the United States, Boyle advised. "In this case, where her CIA torture and enforced disappearances of human beings is both widespread and systematic they constitute a crime against humanity," he said. "We International Lawyers will keep track of her foreign travels and try to get her prosecuted on these grounds wherever she might go." From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Mar 21 12:05:17 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:05:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <002501d3c10c$e1195b20$a34c1160$@comcast.net> Neither will the Republicans. -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:18 PM To: David Johnson Cc: peace; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control of the House. They won’t use it well. > On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:10 PM, David Johnson wrote: > > Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. > I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race and the Governor's race. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Cc: peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day > > Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). > > But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. > > Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. > > Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. > > —CGE > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 12:16:39 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:16:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <002501d3c10c$e1195b20$a34c1160$@comcast.net> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> <002501d3c10c$e1195b20$a34c1160$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <785F7543-43FE-40AF-BBCD-D1B5839D4729@gmail.com> But with Russiagate, the Democrats are probably more dangerous on war. > On Mar 21, 2018, at 7:05 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Neither will the Republicans. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:18 PM > To: David Johnson > Cc: peace; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day > > We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control of the House. They won’t use it well. > > >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:10 PM, David Johnson wrote: >> >> Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. >> I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race and the Governor's race. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM >> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Cc: peace >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day >> >> Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). >> >> But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. >> >> Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. >> >> Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. >> >> —CGE >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Mar 21 12:19:22 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:19:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <785F7543-43FE-40AF-BBCD-D1B5839D4729@gmail.com> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> <002501d3c10c$e1195b20$a34c1160$@comcast.net> <785F7543-43FE-40AF-BBCD-D1B5839D4729@gmail.com> Message-ID: <004401d3c10e$d8594bb0$890be310$@comcast.net> They're both equally fucked up on that issue, and in addition the Republicans are worse in regards to austerity and attacks on Unions and social programs. David J. -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 7:17 AM To: David Johnson Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day But with Russiagate, the Democrats are probably more dangerous on war. > On Mar 21, 2018, at 7:05 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Neither will the Republicans. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:18 PM > To: David Johnson > Cc: peace; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day > > We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control of the House. They won’t use it well. > > >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:10 PM, David Johnson wrote: >> >> Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. >> I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race and the Governor's race. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM >> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Cc: peace >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day >> >> Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). >> >> But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. >> >> Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. >> >> Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. >> >> —CGE >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 12:24:11 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:24:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <5ab24668.1c69fb81.2646.f9f7@mx.google.com> References: <5ab24668.1c69fb81.2646.f9f7@mx.google.com> Message-ID: The problem is not too much antiwar discussion. Shouldn’t we be trying to reach as many people as possible? Most computers have a ‘delete' button. > On Mar 21, 2018, at 6:47 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: > > This discussion belongs on the peace-discuss list, not peace. > Please stop misusing the peace list. > > Anyone responding to a misdirected discussion should also edit who the email is addressed to. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 12:29:40 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:29:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <004401d3c10e$d8594bb0$890be310$@comcast.net> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> <002501d3c10c$e1195b20$a34c1160$@comcast.net> <785F7543-43FE-40AF-BBCD-D1B5839D4729@gmail.com> <004401d3c10e$d8594bb0$890be310$@comcast.net> Message-ID: But the Democratic party is leading the charge for Eurasian war, owing to their fear that Trump might revert to what he said about doing deals with Xi and Putin. > On Mar 21, 2018, at 7:19 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > They're both equally fucked up on that issue, and in addition the Republicans are worse in regards to austerity and attacks on Unions and social programs. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 7:17 AM > To: David Johnson > Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day > > But with Russiagate, the Democrats are probably more dangerous on war. > > >> On Mar 21, 2018, at 7:05 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Neither will the Republicans. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:18 PM >> To: David Johnson >> Cc: peace; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day >> >> We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control of the House. They won’t use it well. >> >> >>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:10 PM, David Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. >>> I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race and the Governor's race. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM >>> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> Cc: peace >>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day >>> >>> Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). >>> >>> But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. >>> >>> Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. >>> >>> Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. >>> >>> —CGE >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 21 12:30:13 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:30:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <004401d3c10e$d8594bb0$890be310$@comcast.net> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> <002501d3c10c$e1195b20$a34c1160$@comcast.net> <785F7543-43FE-40AF-BBCD-D1B5839D4729@gmail.com> <004401d3c10e$d8594bb0$890be310$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Trumps Cabinet appointments made immediately after the election should have been an epiphany for anyone who had even the slightest inclination that Trump would do anything of benefit for anyone other than the super elite.The fact that there exist different factions, of super elites, is of minor consequence to the survival of humanity when it comes to war or “climate change,” as one does little and the other nothing at all. > On Mar 21, 2018, at 05:19, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > They're both equally fucked up on that issue, and in addition the Republicans are worse in regards to austerity and attacks on Unions and social programs. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 7:17 AM > To: David Johnson > Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day > > But with Russiagate, the Democrats are probably more dangerous on war. > > >> On Mar 21, 2018, at 7:05 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Neither will the Republicans. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:18 PM >> To: David Johnson >> Cc: peace; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day >> >> We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control of the House. They won’t use it well. >> >> >>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:10 PM, David Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. >>> I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race and the Governor's race. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM >>> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> Cc: peace >>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day >>> >>> Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). >>> >>> But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. >>> >>> Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. >>> >>> Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. >>> >>> —CGE >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 21 12:33:14 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:33:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> <002501d3c10c$e1195b20$a34c1160$@comcast.net> <785F7543-43FE-40AF-BBCD-D1B5839D4729@gmail.com> <004401d3c10e$d8594bb0$890be310$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Carl, you know very well, that foreign policy continues, regardless of who is in power. Those behind the scenes, pull the strings. Both Party’s are guilty. It wasn’t the Democrat Party who invaded Iraq, and Afghanistan in 2003, it was the Republican Party. The Democrats then expanded from two to eight. > On Mar 21, 2018, at 05:29, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > But the Democratic party is leading the charge for Eurasian war, owing to their fear that Trump might revert to what he said about doing deals with Xi and Putin. > > >> On Mar 21, 2018, at 7:19 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> They're both equally fucked up on that issue, and in addition the Republicans are worse in regards to austerity and attacks on Unions and social programs. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 7:17 AM >> To: David Johnson >> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day >> >> But with Russiagate, the Democrats are probably more dangerous on war. >> >> >>> On Mar 21, 2018, at 7:05 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Neither will the Republicans. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:18 PM >>> To: David Johnson >>> Cc: peace; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day >>> >>> We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control of the House. They won’t use it well. >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:10 PM, David Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. >>>> I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race and the Governor's race. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM >>>> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>> Cc: peace >>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day >>>> >>>> Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). >>>> >>>> But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. >>>> >>>> Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. >>>> >>>> Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 12:37:45 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:37:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8FA61AA2-361A-49CE-827F-A3CEAEA74816@gmail.com> That’s probably right, but it’s not clear to me what voters are thinking, or what information they’re voting on/ E.g., in our gerrymandered IL-13 CD, Londrigan got 24,000 votes: Jones got half that; Gill got 8,000; and Ebel 7,000. Why? Londrigan? > On Mar 20, 2018, at 11:05 PM, David Green wrote: > > My first speculative reaction to the close race between Rauner & Ives is that a lot of Ives supporters will probably sit it out in November; Rauner has offended the Trump base. My non-empirical prediction is that Pritzker will win handily as a result. > > DG > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:18 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control of the House. They won’t use it well. > > > > On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:10 PM, David Johnson > wrote: > > > > Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. > > I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race and the Governor's race. > > > > David J. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM > > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ) > > Cc: peace > > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day > > > > Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). > > > > But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. > > > > Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. > > > > Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. > > > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 12:53:50 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:53:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> <002501d3c10c$e1195b20$a34c1160$@comcast.net> <785F7543-43FE-40AF-BBCD-D1B5839D4729@gmail.com> <004401d3c10e$d8594bb0$890be310$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <85B58585-1608-42E0-932E-C8A2B5F9E740@gmail.com> When you suggest there’s no difference between the parties, I think you're ignoring the Russiagate phenomenon - the Democrat/war-party push for war - and the real reason the establishment panicked at the sight of Trump. It was not just that he won, but also that he won in part because he suggested a change in policy from the vicious neoliberalism and neoconservatism of the Obama and Bush administrations. It apparently takes a foreigner to see the matter clearly. John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire...” —CGE > On Mar 21, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl, you know very well, that foreign policy continues, regardless of who is in power. Those behind the scenes, pull the strings. Both Party’s are guilty. It wasn’t the Democrat Party who invaded Iraq, and Afghanistan in 2003, it was the Republican Party. The Democrats then expanded from two to eight. > > >> On Mar 21, 2018, at 05:29, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> But the Democratic party is leading the charge for Eurasian war, owing to their fear that Trump might revert to what he said about doing deals with Xi and Putin. >> >> >>> On Mar 21, 2018, at 7:19 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> They're both equally fucked up on that issue, and in addition the Republicans are worse in regards to austerity and attacks on Unions and social programs. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 7:17 AM >>> To: David Johnson >>> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day >>> >>> But with Russiagate, the Democrats are probably more dangerous on war. >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 21, 2018, at 7:05 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Neither will the Republicans. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:18 PM >>>> To: David Johnson >>>> Cc: peace; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day >>>> >>>> We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control of the House. They won’t use it well. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:10 PM, David Johnson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. >>>>> I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race and the Governor's race. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM >>>>> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>> Cc: peace >>>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day >>>>> >>>>> Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). >>>>> >>>>> But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. >>>>> >>>>> Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. >>>>> >>>>> Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 13:18:15 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:18:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Today's WaPo on Illinois, and the monster under the bed Message-ID: <75EC8541-28FB-48E5-980A-6ED7D525FAE8@gmail.com> [It was not ‘purity’ (or ‘tribalism’) that the electorate is demanding but an end to neoliberal and neoconservative policies (more war and more austerity). The political establishment is struggling desperately to contain the real monster under the bed - populism - described as a view that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice.” That view is of course accurate.] [washingtonpost.com ] The Republican governor of Illinois, Bruce Rauner, held off a primary challenge Tuesday from a largely unknown state representative on his right by just three points. A seven-term Democratic congressman from the Chicago suburbs, Dan Lipinski, beat a first-time candidate challenging him from the left by less than two points, or about 1,500 votes. The powerful chairman of the Cook County Democratic Party went down, Bobby Kennedy’s son lost in the Democratic gubernatorial primary and a slate of candidates endorsed by Bernie Sanders won. The second primary night of the year, in the country’s fifth most populous state, showcased how angry the electorate remains in this Age of Disruption. The political establishments in both parties face restive grass-roots activists who are demanding more fealty to orthodoxy, from abortion to immigration. Two years after Donald Trump slayed every avatar of the establishment on his path to the presidency, the machines continue to crumble, more dynasties are ending and each party is becoming increasingly tribal. Rauner lost support from the religious right by expanding access to abortion for Medicaid recipients last September. The governor also angered the nativists who are ascendant in the GOP by signing a bill that prohibits cops from detaining people they suspect of being undocumented immigrants without a warrant. “He has betrayed, literally, the core values of the Republican platform,” challenger Jeanne Ives said in her stump speech. Lipinski earned the enmity of women’s groups by refusing to budge from his staunchly antiabortion views. He opposed Obamacare, supported a 20-week ban on abortions and voted for religious freedom bills that many liberals see as giving license for discrimination against the LGBT community. Challenger Marie Newman, who has a transgender daughter, referred to Lipinski as a “Trump Democrat.” “I know what’s in his heart, and it’s called hate,” she said. NARAL Pro-Choice America and Emily’s List went all in for Newman and a few of the incumbent’s liberal House colleagues campaigned against him, including Rep. Jan Schakowsky from a nearby district. Lipinski was dragged across the finish line by a field program paid for by Susan B. Anthony List. The antiabortion group waded into a Democratic primary for the first time in a decade and flooded the district with 70 canvassers for the final four days. -- Turnout statewide surged among Democrats but was lackluster on the Republican side. About twice as many Democrats voted as Republicans. It’s another proof point of an enthusiasm gap that continues to benefit the left as the midterms approach. -- Rauner’s close call is reminiscent of what happened in Virginia last June to Ed Gillespie. The former chairman of the Republican National Committee only beat firebrand Corey Stewart in the GOP primary by one point, despite a massive fundraising advantage and overwhelming institutional support. The unexpected vulnerability foreshadowed Gillespie’s struggles to unite the right in the fall. It’s bigger than social issues. Illinois didn’t have a budget for two years and its credit rating got downgraded to nearly junk status when Rauner was unable to cut a deal with the Democrats who control the state legislature. Just as national Republicans use Nancy Pelosi as a foil, the governor has tried to blame all his problems on Democratic House Speaker Mike Madigan. It has not worked. Polls show Rauner is about as popular in his state as Trump, who lost the Land of Lincoln by 17 points in 2016. “Ives embraced Trump as part of her campaign, while Rauner said he and the president are not ‘particularly close,’” Amber Phillips notes. Seeing internal polls that showed him in trouble, Rauner last week decided to veto a gun-control compromise bill and announced it on conservative radio in the more rural and conservative downstate Illinois. He also tried to attack his opponent from the right on television, which didn’t pass the laugh test and likely elevated her profile. National Review declared yesterday that “Rauner Deserves to Lose.” “To those of you around the state who wanted to send me a message, let me be clear: I have heard you,” Rauner said in a victory speech, which began hours later than planned on account of the photo finish. -- Like Ives against Rauner, Newman channeled the anger of the liberal base against Lipinski – sometimes caustically. Even as the numbers moved against her last night, for instance, she declined to concede. She told her supporters that she “would like Mr. Lipinski to have a very painful evening, so we’re going to wait.” The labor unions stuck with Lipinski because he’s been an ally, and most of the business community backed him because he’s brought home the bacon. But make no mistake: The congressman’s narrow win is not a vindication of his style of politics. It’s a Pyrrhic victory that shows an era coming to an end. In the last round of reapportionment, the district was carefully drawn to include heavily Catholic suburbs so that Lipinski could hold the seat – which he inherited from his father, Bill, who held it for 22 years until 2005. It’s easy to see him retiring rather than face an even bigger onslaught from a stronger challenger in 2020. Outside of ruby red states like West Virginia and North Dakota, the Blue Dogs have become an endangered species. Even then, Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) won the special election last December by promising to protect the Affordable Care Act and speaking out against a 20-week abortion ban. -- A Pew Research Study, which coincidentally was published yesterday, highlights the degree to which the two parties continue a seismic, long-term sorting out: “The share of Democratic voters describing their political views as liberal has increased steadily since 2000. Currently, nearly half of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters (46%) say they are liberal, while 37% identify as moderates and 15% say they are conservatives. A decade ago, more Democrats described their views as moderate (44%) than liberal (28%), while 23% said they were conservative. … Conservatives have long constituted the majority among Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters. Roughly two-thirds of Republicans (68%) characterize their views as conservative, while 27% are moderates and 4% are liberals. While there has been little change in Republicans’ self-described ideology in recent years, the share calling themselves conservatives rose from 58% in 2000 to 65% eight years later.” College graduates, women, minorities and millennials continue moving toward Democrats while Republicans consolidate gains among less-educated whites, especially men. Pew, with a survey sample of 10,000 Americans, found that 56 percent of women identify with the Democrats, up four points from 2015; 58 percent of college graduates affiliate with Democrats, the highest number recorded since 1992; and 59 percent of millennials lean Democratic, compared with 48 percent of both Generation Xers and baby boomers. -- Lipinski is now virtually assured reelection because the only Republican who ran is a Holocaust denier who has been involved in anti-Semitic and racist groups since the 1970s. The Illinois GOP and the National Republican Congressional Committee both disavowed their nominee, Arthur Jones, and said he will get no support. -- There were five other results in Illinois that ought to scare entrenched establishmentarians in both parties: 1. It won’t get much coverage outside the Windy City, but voters resoundingly rejected Chicago-style machine politics. The chairman of the Cook County Democratic Party, who has long been one of the most powerful figures in the state, lost reelection to another term as county assessor. To give you a sense of what a huge deal this is, the Chicago Tribune is treating Joe Berrios’s downfall as the biggest story of the night. It’s the banner headline across the top of this morning’s front page. The party boss got a dismal 34 percent of the vote: “The momentum for [Fritz] Kaegi, a mutual fund asset manager from Oak Park, was built on his pledge to make the property tax assessment system fairer,” Hal Dardick, Ray Long and Joe Mahr report. “That theme was bolstered by ‘The Tax Divide,’ a series by the Chicago Tribune and ProPublica Illinois that found assessments under Berrios shifted an outsize portion of the property tax burden from the wealthy to the poor, with minority communities being hit particularly hard. Kaegi also railed against the ‘Democratic Machine’ … pointing to Berrios’ history of taking campaign contributions from property tax appeal attorneys who seek reductions in assessments from both his office and the Board of Review where he was previously a commissioner. He also pointed to Berrios’ hiring of relatives and friends.” The Daley machine that Milton Rakove so vividly chronicled in his 1976 classic book “Don’t Make No Waves” is no more. “The old machine style is no match for a campaign powered by the people of Cook County,” Kaegi said in a triumphant victory speech last night. 2. Tuesday was a good day for self-funders: J.B. Pritzker, a billionaire heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, spent $70 million to win the Democratic primary for governor. Rauner, a longtime private equity executive, has already pumped $50 million of his own money into getting reelected. Their combined wealth guarantees that the general will be one of the most expensive races of 2018, if not ever. The Daily Herald frames it as a “CASH OF THE TITANS” on this morning’s front page: “Multimillionaire will face multibillionaire in November’s election.” 3. But it was a bad day for political dynasties: Pritzker was the front-runner to win the six-way Democratic primary, but his 20-point margin of victory was unexpectedly huge. Chicago developer Chris Kennedy, the son of the martyred Robert F. Kennedy, entered the contest to great fanfare and waged an aggressive campaign, but he only managed to garner 24 percent. His failure comes two years after the son of a president and the wife of a president went down in flames to Trump. 4. Another humiliation for Pat Quinn: The former Democratic governor lost to Rauner in 2014. He made a comeback bid by running for attorney general. But he lost in the primary to state Sen. Kwame Raoul. Some guys just don’t know when to hang it up. Quinn was a particularly ineffective governor, and his loss is another data point to underscore the hostility toward the powers that be. {Jesus "Chuy" Garcia celebrates winning the Democratic primary in the 4th Congressional District. (Max Herman/Chicago Sun-Times via AP)} 5. Bernie is getting another ally in Congress. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, a hard-left liberal who almost toppled Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel in 2015, easily won the primary to succeed retiring Rep. Luis Gutiérrez in a heavily Hispanic district. Garcia supported Sanders’s 2016 campaign, and the Vermont senator returned the favor by flying in to stump with him. Garcia pulled 66 percent in a three-way primary. “What has made Chuy's campaign so powerful is that he's not just working hard to win an election, he's building a grassroots movement to support a slate of exciting new candidates who are taking on the political establishment,” Sanders said in a statement. The senator noted that Garcia ran on a slate with several other candidates who also won, including 28-year-old Alma Anaya, who ran to replace him on the Cook County Board of Supervisors; Beatriz Frausto-Sandoval, an immigration attorney running to serve as a Cook County Circuit Court judge; and 26-year-old high school counselor Aaron Ortiz, who won a state House primary. Sanders, mulling another run for president, met with all of them in Chicago a few weeks ago. “No one person can take on the political elite on their own. We must stand together,” he said. “That is exactly what Chuy and his slate of candidates did today.” ...President Trump talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin as they attend the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting. (Mikhail Klimentyev/AFP/Getty) -- "DO NOT CONGRATULATE:" Trump called Vladimir Putin to congratulate him on his reelection to a fourth term, ignoring specific warnings from his national security advisers, who included a section in his briefing materials in all-caps. Carol D. Leonnig, David Nakamura and Josh Dawsey report: “Trump also chose not to heed talking points from aides instructing him to condemn Putin about the recent poisoning of a former Russian spy in the United Kingdom. ... Trump told reporters that he had offered his well wishes on Putin’s new six-year term during a conversation on a range of topics, including arms control and the security situations in Syria and North Korea. [Sarah Huckabee Sanders] told reporters that [the poisoning] case was not discussed. ‘We’ll probably be meeting in the not-too-distant future,’ Trump said of Putin, though Sanders emphasized that nothing was planned. ... It was not clear whether Trump read the notes, administration officials said. Trump, who initiated the call, opened it with the congratulations for Putin ... " • Trump’s tone earned a swift rebuke from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who wrote on Twitter: “An American president does not lead the Free World by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections. And by doing so with Vladimir Putin, [Trump] insulted every Russian citizen who was denied the right to vote in a free and fair election.” • Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) was less critical however, noting that Trump has congratulated other totalitarian leaders. “I wouldn’t read much into it,” he said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Mar 21 13:32:04 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:32:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <8FA61AA2-361A-49CE-827F-A3CEAEA74816@gmail.com> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> <8FA61AA2-361A-49CE-827F-A3CEAEA74816@gmail.com> Message-ID: <006101d3c119$00d971f0$028c55d0$@comcast.net> My analysis for what it is worth ; Listed in order of the most votes received Londrigan – Durbin and the DNC-DCCC backed candidate with the most money. I received half a dozen glossy mailers from her. Jones – Mike and Lisa Madigan backed candidate with the 2nd most amount of money. Also backed by State of Illinois AFL-CIO President Michael Carrigan ( a real piece of shit ) who endorsed both Jones and Pritzger immediately at the beginning of the primary campaign season with NO vote from the rank and file of any of the AFL-CIO Unions as to whom the members wanted. Gill – had the least amount of money but had an advantage over Ebel because Gill knows the entire district because of his previous run in 2012 when he came within ½ of 1 % of beating Davis in a three way race. Gill worked the entire district hard, in between his full time job as an emergency room Physician. The DNC and the Madigans hate Gill because of Gill’s ; opposition to the wars and NAFTA as well as his support of single payer and the fact that he ran as an independent in 2016. They conducted a whisper smear campaign against him within groups that would have been inclined to vote for Gill. I encountered this TWICE locally. The Union bureaucracy both local and state wide were the main perpetrators of this. But also PDA refused to support Gill and the upper middle class liberals refused to support him because they thought Gill’s support of current Illinois gun laws was a cardinal sin, more important than the fact that Gill supported; single payer, opposed NAFTA, supported free post high school education and Legalization of marijuana, supported financial transactions tax, and opposed the wars and the bloated military budget – Ah what priorities. I also heard a comment from one upper middle class liberal that : “ most people I have talked to ( other middle class liberals ) think that Gill is old news and we need someone fresh and new “. ??? Did they think they were buying new clothing or something. That had to be one of the most superficial political criteria I have heard in a long time. Ebel – The darling of the upper middle class liberals despite his blatant neo-liberal economic positions and his clear unapologetic pro-war views. Had more money than Gill but received fewer votes. His main base of support was in Champaign Urbana. Did state his support for single payer LATER in the campaign. Also, I don’t know what the percentage is but the number of votes totaled for all of the candidates is pretty low for the number of eligible voters that are in the district. So again low voter turnout played a key role as well in addition to the amount of money each candidate had. David J. From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 7:38 AM To: David Green Cc: David Johnson; peace; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day That’s probably right, but it’s not clear to me what voters are thinking, or what information they’re voting on/ E.g., in our gerrymandered IL-13 CD, Londrigan got 24,000 votes: Jones got half that; Gill got 8,000; and Ebel 7,000. Why? Londrigan? On Mar 20, 2018, at 11:05 PM, David Green wrote: My first speculative reaction to the close race between Rauner & Ives is that a lot of Ives supporters will probably sit it out in November; Rauner has offended the Trump base. My non-empirical prediction is that Pritzker will win handily as a result. DG On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:18 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control of the House. They won’t use it well. > On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:10 PM, David Johnson wrote: > > Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. > I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race and the Governor's race. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Cc: peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day > > Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). > > But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. > > Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. > > Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. > > —CGE > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 13:56:59 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 08:56:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois elections Message-ID: Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in the March 20 primary for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district. In this gerrymandered district, Londrigan got 24,000 votes: Jones got half that; Gill got 8,000; and Ebel 7,000. But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate’ on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. Control of the House of Representatives shouldn’t be turned over to the Democrats - wretched as the Republicans are - because the Democrats have allied with the war party, terrified of Trump’s musings (which helped him win) on peace and non-intervention in the campaign (which he so far has not followed up in office). It apparently takes a foreigner to see the matter clearly. John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire...” ### From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 14:03:40 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:03:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <006101d3c119$00d971f0$028c55d0$@comcast.net> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> <8FA61AA2-361A-49CE-827F-A3CEAEA74816@gmail.com> <006101d3c119$00d971f0$028c55d0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <320E756B-25F9-4707-B37D-36A714AC273A@gmail.com> A clear and informative account. Thanks. > On Mar 21, 2018, at 8:32 AM, David Johnson wrote: > > My analysis for what it is worth ; > > Listed in order of the most votes received > > Londrigan – Durbin and the DNC-DCCC backed candidate with the most money. I received half a dozen glossy mailers from her. > > Jones – Mike and Lisa Madigan backed candidate with the 2nd most amount of money. Also backed by State of Illinois AFL-CIO President Michael Carrigan ( a real piece of shit ) who endorsed both Jones and Pritzger immediately at the beginning of the primary campaign season with NO vote from the rank and file of any of the AFL-CIO Unions as to whom the members wanted. > > Gill – had the least amount of money but had an advantage over Ebel because Gill knows the entire district because of his previous run in 2012 when he came within ½ of 1 % of beating Davis in a three way race. Gill worked the entire district hard, in between his full time job as an emergency room Physician. The DNC and the Madigans hate Gill because of Gill’s ; opposition to the wars and NAFTA as well as his support of single payer and the fact that he ran as an independent in 2016. They conducted a whisper smear campaign against him within groups that would have been inclined to vote for Gill. I encountered this TWICE locally. The Union bureaucracy both local and state wide were the main perpetrators of this. But also PDA refused to support Gill and the upper middle class liberals refused to support him because they thought Gill’s support of current Illinois gun laws was a cardinal sin, more important than the fact that Gill supported; single payer, opposed NAFTA, supported free post high school education and Legalization of marijuana, supported financial transactions tax, and opposed the wars and the bloated military budget – Ah what priorities. I also heard a comment from one upper middle class liberal that : “ most people I have talked to ( other middle class liberals ) think that Gill is old news and we need someone fresh and new “. ??? Did they think they were buying new clothing or something. That had to be one of the most superficial political criteria I have heard in a long time. > > Ebel – The darling of the upper middle class liberals despite his blatant neo-liberal economic positions and his clear unapologetic pro-war views. Had more money than Gill but received fewer votes. His main base of support was in Champaign Urbana. Did state his support for single payer LATER in the campaign. > > Also, I don’t know what the percentage is but the number of votes totaled for all of the candidates is pretty low for the number of eligible voters that are in the district. So again low voter turnout played a key role as well in addition to the amount of money each candidate had. > > David J. > > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 7:38 AM > To: David Green > Cc: David Johnson; peace; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day > > That’s probably right, but it’s not clear to me what voters are thinking, or what information they’re voting on/ > > E.g., in our gerrymandered IL-13 CD, Londrigan got 24,000 votes: Jones got half that; Gill got 8,000; and Ebel 7,000. Why? > > Londrigan? > > > > On Mar 20, 2018, at 11:05 PM, David Green wrote: > > My first speculative reaction to the close race between Rauner & Ives is that a lot of Ives supporters will probably sit it out in November; Rauner has offended the Trump base. My non-empirical prediction is that Pritzker will win handily as a result. > > DG > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:18 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control of the House. They won’t use it well. > > > > On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:10 PM, David Johnson wrote: > > > > Can't say that I agree with your analysis about Davis Carl, but what seems almost certain is that with the election of Londrigan and Pritzger, we will have two more years of Davis and 4 more years of Rauner. > > I will be voting for none of the above in the 13th Congressional race and the Governor's race. > > > > David J. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04 PM > > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > > Cc: peace > > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day > > > > Both the only anti-war candidate, David Gill, and the candidate of the 'intelligence community' [CIA et al.], pro-war Jon Ebel, seem to have been beaten in today's election for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Illinois' 13th Congressional district (with about 14% of the vote, each). > > > > But the winner, DNC candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, is pro-war - and should be opposed. It seems the only way to do that is to support (and vote for) the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. > > > > Davis' predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, was elected as a pro-war candidate. (I ran against him as a Green.) But in office, Tim changed his mind, and went so far as to join a suit against the illegal invasion of Libya. > > > > Given that we must oppose the Democratic party's continuing hysterical war provocations against Russia (and China) - from 'Russiagate on - AWARE should support Davis against a pro-war Democrat and urge him to follow his predecessor's example. > > > > —CGE > > From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Mar 21 14:06:31 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:06:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] interesting historical fact about the 13th district Message-ID: <007d01d3c11d$d08e37b0$71aaa710$@comcast.net> interesting historical fact about the 13th district In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections the district supported Bush over Gore and then Kerry by a 55% to 45 % margin both times. In 2008, the year of the highest historical turnout for the district, Obama beat McCain by 54% to 46 %. In 2012 , a year of a much lower voter turnout than 2008, Romney barely beat Obama by less than 1 % of the vote In 2016 , Trump beat Clinton by 6 % of the vote. In 2012 Davis beat Gill by less than 1 % of the vote in a three way race with a so called " progressive independent " who came out of know where to run and agreed with every single position Gill supported and ended up with 7 % of the vote. The DNC/DCCC gave Gill no get out the vote money or staff because Gill refused to back away from his opposition to NAFTA and support for single payer. Also Gill beat Durbin's boy in the Dem primary. I still wonder who "persuaded " ( bribed ) the " progressive independent " to run. He has since disappeared from all political activity. My speculation is that it was either the Koch brothers who threw a ton of money that year behind Davis or it was the DNC. I am inclined to think it was the Koch brothers but it could have very well been the DNC based on their historic pattern of throwing considerable time and resources against anti-corporate candidates in the Dem primaries, even when the anti-corporate Dem primary candidate had a better chance of winning against the republican in the general election. In essence the DNC would rather lose to a republican then have an anti-corporate Dem candidate get elected. Because for them ( DNC ) the maintaining and expansion of corporate neo-liberalism and their cash flow from corporate donors is the prime objective. David J. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 21 14:30:51 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:30:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump and the Saudi's Message-ID: More arms sales to Riyadh, when the Saudi crown prince meets with Trump, yesterday. Trump like his predecessors does his masters bidding, and with joy I might add. Thats just the tip of the iceberg. From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 14:50:56 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:50:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] interesting historical fact about the 13th district In-Reply-To: <007d01d3c11d$d08e37b0$71aaa710$@comcast.net> References: <007d01d3c11d$d08e37b0$71aaa710$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Very interesting; one caveat, FWIW, is that the district was redrawn after the 2010 census in order to obtain a possibility of a Dem victory (Tim Johnson had represented the 15th district, which obviously at that time included CU). The 2012 election taken from Gill was, ironically, the first with the new boundaries that were drawn intending to give a D a chance. It's also perhaps important to recall that upon Johnson's resignation, Davis was selected to be the nominee by Republican operatives based on his employment by, if I recall, John Shimkus; I don't believe he has ever faced any opposition from within the party. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:06 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > interesting historical fact about the 13th district > > > > In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections the district supported Bush > over Gore and then Kerry by a 55% to 45 % margin both times. > > > > In 2008, the year of the highest historical turnout for the district, > Obama beat McCain by 54% to 46 %. > > In 2012 , a year of a much lower voter turnout than 2008, Romney barely > beat Obama by less than 1 % of the vote > > In 2016 , Trump beat Clinton by 6 % of the vote. > > > > In 2012 Davis beat Gill by less than 1 % of the vote in a three way race > with a so called “ progressive independent “ who came out of know where to > run and agreed with every single position Gill supported and ended up with > 7 % of the vote. > > The DNC/DCCC gave Gill no get out the vote money or staff because Gill > refused to back away from his opposition to NAFTA and support for single > payer. Also Gill beat Durbin’s boy in the Dem primary. > > > > I still wonder who “persuaded “ ( bribed ) the “ progressive independent “ > to run. He has since disappeared from all political activity. > > My speculation is that it was either the Koch brothers who threw a ton of > money that year behind Davis or it was the DNC. > > I am inclined to think it was the Koch brothers but it could have very > well been the DNC based on their historic pattern of throwing considerable > time and resources against anti-corporate candidates in the Dem primaries, > even when the anti-corporate Dem primary candidate had a better chance of > winning against the republican in the general election. In essence the DNC > would rather lose to a republican then have an anti-corporate Dem candidate > get elected. Because for them ( DNC ) the maintaining and expansion of > corporate neo-liberalism and their cash flow from corporate donors is the > prime objective. > > > > David J. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 15:35:50 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:35:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] interesting historical fact about the 13th district In-Reply-To: References: <007d01d3c11d$d08e37b0$71aaa710$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Correction; of course, Davis was challenged by Erika Harold in 2014, before my very eyes. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:50 AM, David Green wrote: > Very interesting; one caveat, FWIW, is that the district was redrawn after > the 2010 census in order to obtain a possibility of a Dem victory (Tim > Johnson had represented the 15th district, which obviously at that time > included CU). The 2012 election taken from Gill was, ironically, the first > with the new boundaries that were drawn intending to give a D a chance. > It's also perhaps important to recall that upon Johnson's resignation, > Davis was selected to be the nominee by Republican operatives based on his > employment by, if I recall, John Shimkus; I don't believe he has ever faced > any opposition from within the party. > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:06 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> interesting historical fact about the 13th district >> >> >> >> In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections the district supported Bush >> over Gore and then Kerry by a 55% to 45 % margin both times. >> >> >> >> In 2008, the year of the highest historical turnout for the district, >> Obama beat McCain by 54% to 46 %. >> >> In 2012 , a year of a much lower voter turnout than 2008, Romney barely >> beat Obama by less than 1 % of the vote >> >> In 2016 , Trump beat Clinton by 6 % of the vote. >> >> >> >> In 2012 Davis beat Gill by less than 1 % of the vote in a three way race >> with a so called “ progressive independent “ who came out of know where to >> run and agreed with every single position Gill supported and ended up with >> 7 % of the vote. >> >> The DNC/DCCC gave Gill no get out the vote money or staff because Gill >> refused to back away from his opposition to NAFTA and support for single >> payer. Also Gill beat Durbin’s boy in the Dem primary. >> >> >> >> I still wonder who “persuaded “ ( bribed ) the “ progressive independent >> “ to run. He has since disappeared from all political activity. >> >> My speculation is that it was either the Koch brothers who threw a ton of >> money that year behind Davis or it was the DNC. >> >> I am inclined to think it was the Koch brothers but it could have very >> well been the DNC based on their historic pattern of throwing considerable >> time and resources against anti-corporate candidates in the Dem primaries, >> even when the anti-corporate Dem primary candidate had a better chance of >> winning against the republican in the general election. In essence the DNC >> would rather lose to a republican then have an anti-corporate Dem candidate >> get elected. Because for them ( DNC ) the maintaining and expansion of >> corporate neo-liberalism and their cash flow from corporate donors is the >> prime objective. >> >> >> >> David J. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 17:22:09 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:22:09 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <006101d3c119$00d971f0$028c55d0$@comcast.net> References: <2344E88B-3AC2-45E6-B842-A624A3CC718A@gmail.com> <013f01d3c0c2$1d66a150$5833e3f0$@comcast.net> <36375322-3F0C-454F-821A-1CC368B3B14D@gmail.com> <8FA61AA2-361A-49CE-827F-A3CEAEA74816@gmail.com> <006101d3c119$00d971f0$028c55d0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6FEFB8AB-8742-4778-9A06-0C8B85DADC2C@gmail.com> The Democrats’ embrace of the War Party in the 'Russiagate’ hysteria - and their belligerence against Eurasia (Russia, China, DPRK) suggests that it’s dangerous to give them back the House of Representatives. Given equally bad choices - so often the case - it’s probably now better to vote for a Republican for the House. —CGE ==================================================== [Nathan L. Gonzales] Illinois Primaries: Ratings Changes in Two Races Land of Lincoln may help Democrats gain seats ...The Illinois primaries are in the books, setting the stage for an important set of congressional elections in November. Assuming Democrat Conor Lamb is certified as the winner of the special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th District, Democrats still need a net gain of 23 seats to win the House majority. That’s a big enough gap that Democrats, instead of cherry-picking victories around the country, need to pick up a handful of seats in a few places. Illinois might be one of those states. At this point, it feels like Democrats expect to gain at least two seats based on their confidence in a suburban surge in the 6th District and the strength of their nominee in the 12th District. A great night for Democrats would include victories in the 13th and 14th districts as well… > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:18 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > We probably should do what we can to prevent the Democrats’ taking control of the House. They won’t use it well. > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 18:03:21 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:03:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Primary election day In-Reply-To: <5ab24668.1c69fb81.2646.f9f7@mx.google.com> References: <5ab24668.1c69fb81.2646.f9f7@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <9DED957B-D48F-4154-AF89-E6604C4B523C@gmail.com> Karen— It’s a little more trouble for me to send my notes to the members of the peace list when you censor them, but I’ll try to continue to do so. (As an old political friend used to say, “I’ve been thrown out of better bars than this one!”) I think censorship of antiwar discussion is out of place. Let the government do that. Don’t help them. "Anyone responding to a misdirected discussion [sic]” should forward it to the various AWARE lists. Discussion is better than censorship, and all computers have ‘delete’ keys. Don’t do the war-makers work for them, even for the best motives. —CGE > On Mar 21, 2018, at 6:47 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: > > This discussion belongs on the peace-discuss list, not peace. > Please stop misusing the peace list. > > Anyone responding to a misdirected discussion should also edit who the email is addressed to. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 21 20:03:44 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 20:03:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News interview with Medea Benjamin and Sabah Alnasseri on 15 years of destruction in Iraq Message-ID: ________________________________ biography Sabah Alnasseri was born in Basra, Iraq, and earned his doctorate at the Johann-Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. He teaches Middle East politics and economy at the Political Science Department at York University in Toronto, Canada. His publications cover various topics in Marxist political economy, Marxist state theory in the tradition of Gramsci, Poulantzas and Althusser, theory of regulation, and Middle East politics and economy. Medea Benjamin is co-founder of the peace group CODEPINK and the human rights organization Global Exchange. She has been organizing against U.S. military interventions, promoting the rights of Palestinians and calling for no war on Iran. Her latest work includes an effort to stop CIA drone attacks, and she is the author of a new book, "Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection" ________________________________ transcript [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-03-01/panel0319iraqwar-240.jpg]SHARMINI PERIES: It's The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. The invasion of Iraq led by the U.S. and British forces began on March 19, 2003 with these words by President Bush and former prime minister of the UK, Tony Blair. GEORGE W. BUSH: My fellow citizens at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. TONY BLAIR: It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical or biological weapons which could be activated within 45 minutes including against his own Shia population. SHARMINI PERIES: Leading up to the war in Iraq, we heard an echo chamber of rationalizations for the upcoming attack. Here is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell. DONALD RUMSFELD: The United States knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Any country on the face of the earth with an active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. COLIN POWELL: One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents. SHARMINI PERIES: It was a war that completely destroyed Iraq and changed the dynamics of the Middle East forever. During the initial invasion which lasted about six weeks three 380,000 coalition troops were dispatched 192 were from the US and 45,000 were British soldiers, and 70,000 were Kurdish Peshmerga troops. The Iraqi Republic's guard were approximately the same number but did not have the firepower of the US military forces. During those initial six weeks, nearly 200 coalition troops were killed and somewhere between 30 and 45,000 Iraqi troops were killed, and over 7,000 Iraqi civilians were killed. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney demanded swift action and justified it by saying it was to seize Iraq's unconventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction. GEORGE W. BUSH: The choice is his. And if he does not disarm, the United States of America will lead a coalition and disarm him in the name of peace. DONALD RUMSFELD: There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us. SHARMINI PERIES: Well, it was not swift US troops stayed in Iraq and continued the war for eight more years until 2011. Coalition casualties including the Iraqi security forces under US command and contractors from private companies reached over 25,000 dead with nearly 120,000 injured. Iraqi combatants suffered losses of about 37,000 civilians, however, paid the heaviest price with estimates ranging from 151,000 dead to over 600,000. On to discuss the devastation caused by the US, and UK and its coalition, I'm joined by two guests who have followed what happened in Iraq on a daily basis since the initial attacks. I'm joined by Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink. Thanks for joining us Medea MEDEA BENJAMIN: Thanks for having me. SHARMINI PERIES: And we are joined by Sabah Alnasseri, professor at the department of political science at York University in Toronto. Thanks for joining us today Sabah. SABAH ALNASSERI: Good to be with you, Sharmini. SHARMINI PERIES: Now, Medea, let's go back 15 years when President Bush announced that US is going to war in Iraq. What were your thoughts and what did you do? MEDEA BENJAMIN: I had just returned from Iraq with a group of Code Pink women and we had gone there to see what women in Iraq were thinking. And we came back with the sense of urgency to try to stop the war because they were so afraid of what a war would mean to their families. Many of them obviously did not like Saddam Hussein but certainly didn't want to be “liberated” by the US government through bombs. And so, as soon as we come back from Iraq in February we were organizing of just feverishly, and we thought that somehow as good American citizens if we did our job and mobilized lots of people that we would be able to change our government's policies. We did our job as citizens, we did mobilize tremendous mobilizations like the largest one, global mobilization in history on February 15, 2003, but unfortunately it was not enough to stop George Bush. And on that fateful day of March 19, 2003 when he announced the US was going to invade, I remember just running out to the White House as we had been on a four-month vigil saying no to the war and being met by people who had come all over from Washington D.C. hugging each other, crying and feeling like a disaster was in the making. SHARMINI PERIES: Now, Medea, describe February 15th and what we saw around the globe that didn't matter to Bush and Cheney, and his administration. MEDEA BENJAMIN: It was a remarkable time when millions of people came out on the streets all over the world in one loud beautiful voice saying, “The world says no to war.” I went down in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest anti-war mobilization. It sent a message to governments around the world that the global community did not support this. Unfortunately, George Bush called us a focus group, although, the next day the New York Times came out and said that we were the second superpower global world opinion. And indeed if you look not at public opinion in the United States which was very divided, but public opinion globally was very united saying this would be a disaster, and the US and its allies had no right invading Iraq. SHARMINI PERIES: Sabah, now in that statement on the 19th of March President Bush said that when he was speaking to the nation he said that US forces were already under way. So, that was the 20th in Iraq. What were your thoughts when you heard those bombs falling on innocent children in Baghdad, your home country? SABAH ALNASSERI: Let me go back to Blair's statements on Iraq before the invasion, when he was saying that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, and he used it that gives the Shiite population. This sectarian discourse remind me of Bush senior 1991, when he called upon the Shiite population to rise up against Saddam Hussein, again using a sectarian discourse. This is very remarkable because it is a strategy that is used by the US ever since the invasion happened in March 2003 to divide the country along sectarian lines and create a conflict among the coexistent community in Iraq. It was not collateral. It was not by coincidence, it was by designed. And these are the things we are afraid of. Before the war started, before the invasion of Iraq looking at the document statement be made by Bush, and Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Richard Perle and... but also the Iraqi exile opposition, unfortunately, propagated this discourse, and supported by the US and the UK to invade Iraq and to come to power. We were afraid because we knew it's not about the disarming Iraq, it's not about the so-called democracy or human rights. It's not about the liberation of Iraqi women. It is about occupation, genocidal practices, and mass incarceration and torture, and the introduction of all the politics of war, what I call War of Terror. And this is exactly how it started with the "Shock and Awe," which is nothing but a war of terror and corruption. These two columns of the years of occupation of Iraq, terror and corruption are up until today, determine the politics, the economy and the institution of governance in Iraq. SHARMINI PERIES: Now, Sabah, what were your thoughts as the bombs were falling on Iraq? SABAH ALNASSERI: Well, of course, I mean, we organized a huge, a massive rallies that was at that time, in Frankfurt in Germany, I used to live in Germany. And I went on the street the day, or the night, actually, the bombs fall on Baghdad… and other cities in Iraq, and were marching in the streets of Frankfurt with them, huge, maybe the biggest anti-war rallies, and maybe in the history of Germany. And sometimes, while we were rallying, and I couldn't catch up with my comrades and friends because sometimes I have to sit down and breathe, because I couldn't breathe for a while, sensing that bomb would fall on all these poor people who hate Saddam Hussein, who never elected Saddam Hussein, who was imposed on them also by the US, supported by the US. And now, they have to pay the price for something, for the mistake of the US and Iraq. And so, sensing that, you know, these bombs will bomb Iraq back into the middle of the Middle Ages, and probably massacre thousands, like 100,000 people, and displace maybe millions. This is an unimaginable scenario. Sometimes, as I said, I have to sit down and take my breath, and then continue running because at times I really couldn't breathe. SHARMINI PERIES: The Costs of War project by the Washington Institute for International Studies at Brown University estimates that the war in Iraq cost the US over two trillion dollars. When the costs of recovery of veterans are counted in. So, now, the other economists we know, Stiglitz, for example, says that the cost were more like six trillion dollars. Just last month, Kuwait hosted a conference about the reconstruction of Iraq, which still did not recover from any economic impact this war was supposed to produce. So, give us a sense of how much it did this war set back the Iraqi economy, and what were the real reasons for going to war in Iraq in the first place that wasn't said in those clips that we saw earlier today? SABAH ALNASSERI: Right. A few months before the invasion of Iraq, when I was in Germany I was following the conflict between the US in Iraq since 1991. And in a long essay, I have termed the “Never Ending Story of the US, Iraq and the War.” And I was arguing that the project of the...supported by Zionists like Netanyahu is not so much about weapons of mass destruction. They knew exactly that Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, otherwise, they wouldn’t invade and make war against Iraq, if Iraq have these weapons. And it's not about, less about oil, although oil plays, of course, a role but it's less about oil. I was arguing that the strategy of the new homes in the Middle East is to control the region through unstable... by creating more conflicts and war in the region. This is the only way they can control the region and destabilize Europe, Russia and China. That's the, I think, the geopolitics of it. And if we look at the consequences of the invasion of Iraq, not only domestically, domestically, as I said, the US institutionalized terror and corruption, systemic corruption. Iraq today, is one of the most corrupt countries on the face of this of this earth, and the scope of violence and corruption, it exceeds by far all the previous regime and the modern classical history of Iraq. So, this is institutionalized by the US. It is by design, and as you mentioned, reconstruction conference in Kuwait from February 14th to the 16th, actually the Iraqi needed something around 100 billion dollars to reconstruct the cities after the war against Daesh or ISIS. But the countries and the corporations. and...et cetera, involved in the conference, they pledged only 30 billion dollars to Iraq, but most of that means 94 percent of this money was in form of loan, sovereign and non-sovereign loans or investment or export credit. That means all these countries that were trying to support their own cooperation to access to the Iraqi economy, especially oil and gas, and so on, and secure contracts. But really they are not helping Iraq because Iraq has according, to the IMF, this year, something around a $137-billion debt. So, all these new debts for the reconstruction will put the Iraqi economy into massive problems. And the poor people, the working-class people in Iraq will pay the price, because of the corruption, because of the plundering of the of the wealth of the country by the government, by the governing parties, by their militias and allies within the institutions and outside the institutions, and the transfer of all this wealth outside of Iraq, will starve the population of Iraq for decades to come. That's domestically, but regionally, look at what the war and the invasion Iraq did. It destabilized the whole region, it shifted the balance of power to the advantage of Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, and so on. It institutionalized sectarianism which we can see up until today, informal proxy wars in Iraq, and Syria, and Yemen, et cetera, et cetera. It introduces a new type of politics in Iraq which is the militias. This is a new form of political organization in Iraq and in the region. We didn't have militias. It was introduced by the US, trained and armed by the US, and these militias control biggest chunk of Iraq, or Syria, or Yemen, Libya, et cetera. It introduces an enormous in-race that almost half of the US export of weapons is to the region and special... And now, it created a new crisis with the Gulf crisis between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And again, it increases the arms sales and weapons in the region, which means it creates a new conflict, a new war, a new escalation in the region. All these are the consequences of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. SHARMINI PERIES: Speaking of consequences, Medea, on May 1, 2003 President Bush stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier under the big sign, “Mission Accomplished,” and gave a victory speech. So, let's review the reasons for which Bush listed for going to war in Iraq in the first place. First, he said it was to disarm Iraq to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. I think it's safe to say that none of these goals have been achieved, nor weapons of mass destruction were found. And the people of Iraq are certainly not free, and former members of the Ba’ath Party have joined organizations like ISIS, and it's hard to claim that the invasion of Iraq defended the world from great danger. And if you take all of this into consideration and what Sabah just said, what were the costs of going to war in Iraq for Iraqis, for Americans, for the world over, really? MEDEA BENJAMIN: One of the most depressing things I have seen on this 15th anniversary as a new Pew study looking at American attitudes towards this war and a massive percentage, 43 percent, which I consider massive, said that it was the right decision. It should be one percent, perhaps, the most ignorant people thinking it's the right decision, as the blamed Iraq is a total disaster to this day. And we have not even talked about the number of deaths. I just wrote a piece trying to estimate how many Iraqis have been killed because Tommy Franks, the general, said early on in the invasion, “We don't do body counts,” but, you know, what if the result after the Holocaust in Germany was the world saying, “Well, we don't do body counts.” No, we should do body counts. And the US has tried during the entire time since the invasion until today to refuse to talk about the number of Iraqis killed, whether it was by the US, or as an outcome from the US invasion. And so, we looked at the Lancet report that had been done back in 2006 that said 600,000 Iraqis had been killed. And this report done by very professional people, and a very professional journal was pilloried by the US government to say that it was totally exaggerated. And yet, again, the US would not give its own figures. So, we updated that using the same methodology. One would say that there were about 2.4million Iraqis who have been killed as a result of this invasion. Now, I challenge the US government if they say that is a wild exaggeration. Well, give us your own account of what has been the death toll since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And that's not even talking about all of the wounded the 4 million who have been displaced, the economic losses for the Iraqi people. We tend to talk about what it has cost us here at home. And indeed there have been thousands of US lives lost in Iraq and trillions of US dollars that really put the emphasis on what the poor Iraqi people have suffered since that invasion. The shamefulness that there are still 43 percent of Americans who say it was worth it, and the shame that nobody has been held accountable for invading Iraq on the basis of lies, and absolutely destroying that country, and unleashing as Sabah said, the sectarian division, not only throughout Iraq but through the entire region. SHARMINI PERIES: Medea, one very unique feature that’s prominent in the war in Iraq is the heavy use of private military and security companies, or PMCSs, I believe is what they’re called. And Blackwater, and Erik Prince became famous in that way, in which we fought wars. And they weren't the only company that was used by the US. Now, in terms of contractors, at some point, they actually outnumber the US troops. So, give us a sense of how this scenario of using contractors played out in this war, and of course, what it meant for the civilians on the ground in Iraq? MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, let's remember that Halliburton got enormous contracts for the Iraq war even before it started. They knew that this was going to happen and they had put in their bids. And ever since then, whether it is the weapons manufacturers, the security forces or the Pentagon contractors like Halliburton, they certainly made a killing out of killing. And they've not been held accountable if they were security forces like Blackwater that in that massacred innocent Iraqis like in Nisour Square or just the fact that all of these countries were profiting from an illegal war with contracts that were cost plus, which meant they could not lose. And oftentimes such shoddy work that then they were fined by the US government, but being fined for shoddy work did not mean they wouldn't get a new contract. In fact, they kept getting new contracts. So, while the US taxpayer lost what turns out to be trillions of dollars in a war that was not supposed to cost us a cent because it was going to be so quick and so cheap, and the Iraqis were going to pay for it with their oil money, really cost us a massive amount of money, but made a lot of money for the private contractors. SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Sabah, let me actually give you an opportunity to assess the situation in Iraq now. You know, the war is considered past tense, but the soldiers in the US, from the US remain, some of them in Iraq. You know, we're hearing still bombs are falling on Iraq. What's the situation and what is the political conditions that the US has left behind that Iraqis are struggling with now? SABAH ALNASSERI: There are three issues I would say now, two months before the election in Iraq. The first one is, after the Iraqi army, and it's largely the popular mobilization units, defeated ISIS or Daesh and Mosul and Tikrit, Fallujah, etc., and kicked out Daesh from Iraq, all of a sudden we hear attacks from Daesh again, and especially on the western border of Iraq between Iraq and Syria. But the question is, where did they come? Who supplied them with weapons? And why all of a sudden after they were defeated, they can wage attack again? There's a big question mark, and if we look at who controls the other side of the border in Syria and Iraq, you will see it’s the allies of the United States. So, this is the first thing that creates a lot of concerns in Iraq because people fear again, some suicide bombing in the cities and so on, especially before the election. The second issue is, of course, the question of corruption. We have massive Ba’athist movements in Iraq since years, young people, unemployed, mostly working-class people, all classes in Iraq from all sects, and religions, and ethnicities. And they went on the street demanding better services, and especially to end corruption, and break those who plundered the wealth of Iraq to justice. And the minister, President... he promised people that he will go ahead with these corruption files. He will bring these people to court, and they will be prosecuted, et cetera. Nothing happened. This created a lot of frustration, and a lot of potential for conflict, and violence within the next few months. The third question is the issue of ISIS. There's a big debate in Iraq around 2014 when al-Maliki was the minister, or president, who is now the vice president, and he is again, want to be re-elected as the minister or president. He was in charge of Iraq, at that time, as the minister or president as a commander in chief. And the Iraq withdrawal from the cities and enabled Daesh to occupy the cities. So, there's a big debate, how much al-Maliki and the in charge, generals and those under his commands, and some militias, Kurdish militia, the Peshmerga is actually part of this scenario. That means they committed treason vis-à-vis Iraq, and the Iraqi people to secure for al-Maliki to skew the election in 2014, and for the...in Kurdistan to occupy the contested territories between Iraq and Kurdistan using Daesh to enable Peshmerga to get into the cities. So, the big debate about this issue, and none of these people was brought to justice, or held accountable, or prosecuted. So, people are frustrated for the lack of services, continuation of corruption especially, now before the election, the same parties and the same militias, especially the so-called the Shiite militia, the popular, the people mobilization units. Now, they are entering, especially the heads of these units, entering the election with their own parties supported by Iran. That means none of the people involved in corruption or in the fall of 2014 of ISIS will be prosecuted. And now, these party’s militias with the enormous amount of money they plundered from Iraq, they are buying the votes of people two months before the election, bribing poor people who have nothing to eat, give them some money, and promised them some jobs and so on, to secure the votes before even the election campaigning starts. [That is] corruption at a different level, that people had hopes that this coming election would be a turning point in Iraq, that different parties, different representatives of the people will make it to the Parliament, and to the executive and probably, you know, prosecute corrupt ministers and Mr. President, companies, et cetera, and represent the demands of the people in Iraq, despite their different sects, or religion, or ethnicity, and so on. But people are now so...resignated, and frustrated that the same old Synar since 2003,... and institutionalized by the US won't be produce again, which was a pre-programmed disaster. SHARMINI PERIES: We talk about the war in Iraq, you know, we talk about it as having changed the dynamics and political relations, and configurations, in the region and the even, but you know, US has not really left Iraq still yet. In fact, I believe just last week, seven US soldiers were killed in a helicopter crash over Iraq. So, what are US troops still doing there? And what do you make of the claim made by a right-wing leader, such as Prime Minister Netanyahu that says that Iraq has, if Iraq has not been conquered, it would be used as a pawn by Iran. How has these involvements by the US changed the dynamics in the region politically? MEDEA BENJAMIN: In general, what it has done ironically is give Iran more strength. The US is still there because they're trying to keep Iran from having that much influence inside of Iraq. But let's face it, because of the US invasion, and taking out Saddam Hussein, and putting in a Shia government, Iran has more influence in Iraq today. So, certainly this is an outcome that Netanyahu did not want to see. And I think the the lesson that should be drawn from the US that invasions are not something that allows the US to implement the kind of government that it wants, seems to be lost on the people in power today. When you're getting folks like Mike Pompeo to become the Secretary of State. the same Mike Pompeo who was a cheerleader for the war in Iraq. When Trump is listening to the same neocons right now that should, as far as I'm concerned, either be in jail or banned from government, are now the ones who are talking about the US should get out of the nuclear deal with Iran, and have a military option. So, it's mind boggling to me, Sharmini, that people don't look at the State of Iraq, and the region today and say the US military should stay as far away as possible, and US should lose its diplomatic powers. But I think that just attests to the power of the military industrial complex and the neocons who were never held to account for the invasion of Iraq. All right. Medea, thank you so much for joining us on this 15th anniversary of the war in Iraq, commemoration of the war in Iraq, I should say. And Sabah Alnasseri of political science at York University. I thank you so much for joining us and sharing your insights with us today. SABAH ALNASSERI: Thanks for having me. MEDEA BENJAMIN: Thank you. SHARMINI PERIES: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 10:05:09 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:05:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yesterday I was giving an interview out in San Francisco against CIA Haspel on torture. Chemerinsky is Dean of the Berkeley Law School. He has on his Faculty the infamous John Yoo, Bush's torture lawyer and war criminal and felon who should be in jail. As we speak today, Yoo is training Chemerinsky's Law Students to become torturers, murders and war criminals. How dare Chemerinsky come out here and lecture us about Chief Iliniwak! What is he doing to stop Yoo from turning his own law students into torturers and war criminals and felons and murderers? Nothing that I am aware of. He should be cleaning up his sewer known as Berkeley Law School. Not lecturing us on Chief Illiniwak. Talk about the gross hypocrisy of a Law Dean, he takes the cake. Fab. Francis 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, February 27, 2018 10:06 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: FW: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Also, to the best of my knowledge these 2 Law Deans have no expertise in the Field of International Human Rights Law, including and especially the basic human rights of Native Americans. Just a dog and pony show sponsored by the Administration to delay the elimination of Chief Illiniwak and all of its accouterments so that the Administration can milk the Illiniwak Nation Alumni for all they are worth during their new Capital Campaign. And it is a total disgrace that these two law deans would come onto our campus and interject themselves adversely into our Campaign to get rid of Illiniwakism on our campus and in our community. Fab [cid:image002.jpg at 01D3C19B.47A7B060] Francis 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, February 27, 2018 8:15 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak OK. Chancellor Jones is bringing in on April 17 two Establishmentarian Law Deans who are going to argue that Chief Illiniwak is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It will be a real dog-and-pony show. These 2 Law Deans know absolutely nothing at all about the tremendous psychological harm that Chief Illiniwak has inflicted upon our Native American Students, Faculty, Staff and Community Members. I doubt very seriously they will even bother to meet with any of them to hear them out. Just an Administration set-up for Chief Illiniwak. fab From: NatNews at yahoogroups.com [mailto:NatNews at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Schmidt Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:23 PM To: Native News > Subject: [NativeNews] Boyle's letter to U of I president Dear President White: You and the Board of Trustees must eradicate anything related to Indians from the sports program: "Fighting Illini", "Oskeewowow," the TomTom beats, the fake Indian Music from the 3 in 1 march and elsewhere in band performances , the war paint, the feathers, the tomahawks, the Illiniwak Logo, etc. In addition the University of Illinois must hold onto the Illiniwak Logo and not transfer it to the White Racists and Bigots on the so-called Council of Illiniwak Chiefs where they will continue to perpetrate this desecration of Indians forever . You must also indicate that you will vigorously prosecute anyone who violates your Trademark to Chief Illiniwak. You must terminate all licenses for Chief Illiniwak. And you must clear this racist Illiniwak garbage out of all University of Illinois Buildings. Little Red Sambo is finally gone--no thanks to you, the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor, the Provost and previous Board Members, Presidents, Chancellors and Provosts--except for Nancy Kantor whom you all summarily ran out of town on a rail for doing the right thing for American Indians. But now you and the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor and the Provost must concentrate on getting rid of all elements of Little Red Samboism from this campus. Based upon prior experience, I will not hold my breath. But we will keep coming after you all until you do the right thing for American Indians. Professor Francis A. Boyle cc: University of Illinois Board of Trustees 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53123 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 10:22:27 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:22:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak References: Message-ID: Ode to My Colleague and Friend Frank Newman Way to go Berkeley Law! Deeming Yourselves above The Law Your Dean Frank Newman now crying in Heaven Berkeley Law can go to Hell! Accessories After The Fact to torture, murder and war crimes Law Prof Carl Schmitt would be proud of You All The Nazis had Their Law Schools too Replete with John Yoo Killer Koh's poo RIP Berkeley Law Into the Ashcan of History You All go Good Riddance to Cal's Nazi scheisse! Francis 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, March 22, 2018 5:05 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Yesterday I was giving an interview out in San Francisco against CIA Haspel on torture. Chemerinsky is Dean of the Berkeley Law School. He has on his Faculty the infamous John Yoo, Bush's torture lawyer and war criminal and felon who should be in jail. As we speak today, Yoo is training Chemerinsky's Law Students to become torturers, murders and war criminals. How dare Chemerinsky come out here and lecture us about Chief Iliniwak! What is he doing to stop Yoo from turning his own law students into torturers and war criminals and felons and murderers? Nothing that I am aware of. He should be cleaning up his sewer known as Berkeley Law School. Not lecturing us on Chief Illiniwak. Talk about the gross hypocrisy of a Law Dean, he takes the cake. Fab. Francis 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, February 27, 2018 10:06 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: FW: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Also, to the best of my knowledge these 2 Law Deans have no expertise in the Field of International Human Rights Law, including and especially the basic human rights of Native Americans. Just a dog and pony show sponsored by the Administration to delay the elimination of Chief Illiniwak and all of its accouterments so that the Administration can milk the Illiniwak Nation Alumni for all they are worth during their new Capital Campaign. And it is a total disgrace that these two law deans would come onto our campus and interject themselves adversely into our Campaign to get rid of Illiniwakism on our campus and in our community. Fab [cid:image002.jpg at 01D3C19D.BBC36F50] Francis 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, February 27, 2018 8:15 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak OK. Chancellor Jones is bringing in on April 17 two Establishmentarian Law Deans who are going to argue that Chief Illiniwak is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It will be a real dog-and-pony show. These 2 Law Deans know absolutely nothing at all about the tremendous psychological harm that Chief Illiniwak has inflicted upon our Native American Students, Faculty, Staff and Community Members. I doubt very seriously they will even bother to meet with any of them to hear them out. Just an Administration set-up for Chief Illiniwak. fab From: NatNews at yahoogroups.com [mailto:NatNews at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Schmidt Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:23 PM To: Native News > Subject: [NativeNews] Boyle's letter to U of I president Dear President White: You and the Board of Trustees must eradicate anything related to Indians from the sports program: "Fighting Illini", "Oskeewowow," the TomTom beats, the fake Indian Music from the 3 in 1 march and elsewhere in band performances , the war paint, the feathers, the tomahawks, the Illiniwak Logo, etc. In addition the University of Illinois must hold onto the Illiniwak Logo and not transfer it to the White Racists and Bigots on the so-called Council of Illiniwak Chiefs where they will continue to perpetrate this desecration of Indians forever . You must also indicate that you will vigorously prosecute anyone who violates your Trademark to Chief Illiniwak. You must terminate all licenses for Chief Illiniwak. And you must clear this racist Illiniwak garbage out of all University of Illinois Buildings. Little Red Sambo is finally gone--no thanks to you, the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor, the Provost and previous Board Members, Presidents, Chancellors and Provosts--except for Nancy Kantor whom you all summarily ran out of town on a rail for doing the right thing for American Indians. But now you and the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor and the Provost must concentrate on getting rid of all elements of Little Red Samboism from this campus. Based upon prior experience, I will not hold my breath. But we will keep coming after you all until you do the right thing for American Indians. Professor Francis A. Boyle cc: University of Illinois Board of Trustees 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53126 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 10:35:21 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:35:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak References: Message-ID: Obviously, Chemerinsky is being brought out here by Jones to hector us all about Chief Illiniwak and the First Amendment. Oh sure! John Yoo's First Amendment "right" to turn Chemerinsky's law students into torturers and murderers and war criminals and felons and monsters just like Yoo and get away with it. That's what the First Amendment means to Chemerinsky and his Sewer know as Berkeley Law School that gave Yoo their most prestigious endowed chair. Sick and demented! Fab. Francis 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, March 22, 2018 5:22 AM To: 'Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)' Subject: RE: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Ode to My Colleague and Friend Frank Newman Way to go Berkeley Law! Deeming Yourselves above The Law Your Dean Frank Newman now crying in Heaven Berkeley Law can go to Hell! Accessories After The Fact to torture, murder and war crimes Law Prof Carl Schmitt would be proud of You All The Nazis had Their Law Schools too Replete with John Yoo Killer Koh's poo RIP Berkeley Law Into the Ashcan of History You All go Good Riddance to Cal's Nazi scheisse! Francis 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, March 22, 2018 5:05 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Yesterday I was giving an interview out in San Francisco against CIA Haspel on torture. Chemerinsky is Dean of the Berkeley Law School. He has on his Faculty the infamous John Yoo, Bush's torture lawyer and war criminal and felon who should be in jail. As we speak today, Yoo is training Chemerinsky's Law Students to become torturers, murders and war criminals. How dare Chemerinsky come out here and lecture us about Chief Iliniwak! What is he doing to stop Yoo from turning his own law students into torturers and war criminals and felons and murderers? Nothing that I am aware of. He should be cleaning up his sewer known as Berkeley Law School. Not lecturing us on Chief Illiniwak. Talk about the gross hypocrisy of a Law Dean, he takes the cake. Fab. Francis 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, February 27, 2018 10:06 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: FW: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Also, to the best of my knowledge these 2 Law Deans have no expertise in the Field of International Human Rights Law, including and especially the basic human rights of Native Americans. Just a dog and pony show sponsored by the Administration to delay the elimination of Chief Illiniwak and all of its accouterments so that the Administration can milk the Illiniwak Nation Alumni for all they are worth during their new Capital Campaign. And it is a total disgrace that these two law deans would come onto our campus and interject themselves adversely into our Campaign to get rid of Illiniwakism on our campus and in our community. Fab [cid:image002.jpg at 01D3C19F.86CC67A0] Francis 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, February 27, 2018 8:15 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak OK. Chancellor Jones is bringing in on April 17 two Establishmentarian Law Deans who are going to argue that Chief Illiniwak is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It will be a real dog-and-pony show. These 2 Law Deans know absolutely nothing at all about the tremendous psychological harm that Chief Illiniwak has inflicted upon our Native American Students, Faculty, Staff and Community Members. I doubt very seriously they will even bother to meet with any of them to hear them out. Just an Administration set-up for Chief Illiniwak. fab From: NatNews at yahoogroups.com [mailto:NatNews at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Schmidt Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:23 PM To: Native News > Subject: [NativeNews] Boyle's letter to U of I president Dear President White: You and the Board of Trustees must eradicate anything related to Indians from the sports program: "Fighting Illini", "Oskeewowow," the TomTom beats, the fake Indian Music from the 3 in 1 march and elsewhere in band performances , the war paint, the feathers, the tomahawks, the Illiniwak Logo, etc. In addition the University of Illinois must hold onto the Illiniwak Logo and not transfer it to the White Racists and Bigots on the so-called Council of Illiniwak Chiefs where they will continue to perpetrate this desecration of Indians forever . You must also indicate that you will vigorously prosecute anyone who violates your Trademark to Chief Illiniwak. You must terminate all licenses for Chief Illiniwak. And you must clear this racist Illiniwak garbage out of all University of Illinois Buildings. Little Red Sambo is finally gone--no thanks to you, the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor, the Provost and previous Board Members, Presidents, Chancellors and Provosts--except for Nancy Kantor whom you all summarily ran out of town on a rail for doing the right thing for American Indians. But now you and the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor and the Provost must concentrate on getting rid of all elements of Little Red Samboism from this campus. Based upon prior experience, I will not hold my breath. But we will keep coming after you all until you do the right thing for American Indians. Professor Francis A. Boyle cc: University of Illinois Board of Trustees 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53119 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 10:54:28 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:54:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak References: Message-ID: As for Stone, he had been Dean at U Chicago Law School. This is the 15th anniversary of the genocidal US war against Iraq. Stone is going to be hectoring us on Chief Illiniwak and the First Amendment. Stone needs to clean up his intellectual and moral cesspool known as the University of Chicago. Fab, ab, UChicago, 1971/72 Copyright 2010 Newstex LLC All Rights Reserved Newstex Web Blogs Copyright 2010 Atlantic Free Press Atlantic Free Press April 3, 2010 Saturday 9:07 AM EST LENGTH: 1826 words HEADLINE: Neo-Cons, Fundies, Feddies & Con-Artists: Bush to Obama BYLINE: Francis A Boyle BODY: Apr. 3, 2010 (Atlantic Free Press delivered by Newstex) -- by Francis A. Boyle Ph.D. It is now a matter of public record that immediately after the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, U.S. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld and his pro-Israeli Neo-Conservative Deputy Paul Wolfowitz began to plot, plan, scheme and conspire to wage a war of aggression against Iraq by manipulating the tragic events of September 11th in order to provide a pretext for doing so. Of course Iraq had nothing at all to do with September 11th or supporting Al-Qaeda. But that made no difference to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, their Undersecretary of War Douglas Feith, and the numerous other pro-Israeli Neo-Cons inhabiting the Bush Jr. administration. These pro-Israeli Neo-Cons had been schooled in the Machiavellian/Hobbist/Nietzschean theories of Professor Leo Strauss who taught political philosophy at the University of Chicago in its Department of Political Science for many years. The best exposé of Strauss's pernicious theories on law, politics, government, for elitism, and against democracy can be found in two scholarly books by the Canadian Professor of Political Philosophy Shadia B. Drury: The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988); Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999). I entered the University of Chicago in September of 1968 shortly after Strauss had retired. But I was trained in Chicago's Political Science Department by Strauss's foremost protégé, co-author, and later literary executor Joseph Cropsey. Based upon my personal experience as an alumnus of Chicago's Political Science Department (A.B., 1971, in Political Science), I concur (NASDAQ:CNQR) completely with Professor Drury's devastating critique of Strauss. I also agree with her penetrating analysis of the degradation of the American political process that has been inflicted by Chicago's Straussian Neo-Con cabal. Strauss was a protégé of Nazi Law Professor Carl Schmitt, who justified every hideous atrocity that Hitler and the Nazis inflicted on anyone, including the Jews. Chicagos Neo-Cons are Neo-Nazis. The University of Chicago routinely trained me and innumerable other students to become ruthless and unprincipled Machiavellians. That is precisely why so many neophyte Neo-Con students gravitated towards the University of Chicago or towards Chicago Alumni at other universities. Years later, the University of Chicago became the "brains" behind the Bush Jr. Empire and his Ashcroft Police State. Attorney General John Ashcroft received his law degree from the Neo-Con University of Chicago Law School in 1967. Many of his lawyers at the Bush Jr. Department of Injustice were members of the right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, elitist, war-mongering, and totalitarian Federalist Society (A.K.A.:"Feddies"), which originated in part at the Neo-Con University of Chicago Law School. There Barack Obama would teach constitutional law. Feddies wrote the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) I and the draft for USAPA II, which constitute the blueprints for establishing an American Police State. Meanwhile, the Department of Injustice's own F.B.I. is still covering up the U.S. governmental origins of the post 11 September 2001 anthrax attacks on Washington D.C. that enabled Ashcroft and his Feddies to stampede the U.S. Congress into passing USAPA I into law. Integrally related to and overlapping with the Feddies are members of the University of Chicago Law School Movement of oeLaw-and-Kick-Them-in-the-Groin-Economics, which in turn was founded upon the Market Fundamentalism of Milton Friedman, now retired but long-time Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. Friedman and his "Chicago Boys" have raped, robbed, looted, plundered, and pillaged economies and their respective peoples all over the developing world, especially People of Color, and now here in the United States. This Chicago gang of academic con-artists and charlatans are proponents of the Nazi Doctrine of "useless eaters" that was condemned by the Nuremberg Judgment (1946). Pursuant to Friedman's philosophy of Market Fundamentalism, the "privatization" of Iraq and its Oil Industry are already underway for the primary benefit of the U.S. energy companies (e.g., Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) , formerly under Bush Jr.s Vice President Dick Cheney) that had already interpenetrated the Bush Jr. administration as well as the Bush Family itself. Enron. Although miseducated at Yale and Harvard Business School, the "Ivies" proved to be too liberal for Bush Jr. and his fundamentalist Christian supporters, whose pointman and spearcarrier in the Bush Jr. administration was Ashcroft, a Fundie himself. The Neo-Cons and the Fundies contracted an "unholy alliance" in support of Bush Jr. For their own different reasons, both gangs also worked hand-in-hand to support Israel's genocidal Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, an internationally acknowledged war criminal. According to his own public estimate and boast in a 26 February 2003 speech before the American Enterprise Institute (another front-organization for Straussian Neo-Cons), President Bush Jr. hired about 20 Straussians to occupy key positions in his administration, intentionally taking offices where they could push American foreign policy in favor of Israel and against its chosen enemies such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians. Most of the Straussian Neo-Cons in the Bush Jr. administration and elsewhere were and still are Israel-firsters: What is "good" for Israel is by definition "good" for the United States. Dual loyalties indeed. These same principles hold true for the not-so-closet Neo-Cons in the Obama administration: e.g., Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, Elena Kagan, Dennis Ross, Cass Sunstein, etc. In addition, it was the Chicago Straussian cabal of pro-Israeli Neo-Cons who set up a special "intelligence" unit within the Pentagon that was responsible for manufacturing many of the bald-faced lies, deceptions, half-truths, and sheer propaganda that the Bush Jr. administration then disseminated to the lap-dog U.S. news media in order to generate public support for a war of aggression against Iraq for the benefit of Israel and in order to steal Iraq's oil. To paraphrase advice Machiavelli once rendered to his Prince in Chapter XVIII of that book: Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived. As I can attest from my personal experience as an alumnus of the University of Chicago Department of Political Science, the Bible of Chicago's Neo-Con Straussian cabal is Machiavelli's The Prince. We students had to know our Machiavelli by heart and rote at the University of Chicago. As for the University of Chicago overall, its New Testament is Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind (1987). Of course Bloom was another protégé of Strauss (and thus the intellectual grandson of Nazi Law Professor Carl Schmitt), as well as a mentor to Wolfowitz. In his Bloom-biographical novel Ravelstein (2000) Saul Bellow, longtime member of the University of Chicago Faculty, outed his self-styled friend Bloom as a hedonist, pederast, and most promiscuous homosexual who died of AIDS. All this was common knowledge at the University of Chicago, where Bloom was and is still worshiped on a pedestal and his elitist screed against democratic education in America still revered as gospel truth. In Ravelstein Wolfowitz appeared as Bloom's protégé Philip Gorman, leaking national security secrets to his mentor during the Bush Sr. war against Iraq. Strauss hovered around the novel as Bloom's mentor and guru Professor Davarr. Strauss/Davarr is really the eminence grise of Ravelstein. With friends like Bellow, Bloom did not need enemies. On the basis of Ravelstein alone, Wolfowitz warranted criminal investigation by the F.B.I. Immediately after the Bush Jr. administrations wanton aggression against Iraq, the University of Chicago chose the occasion to officially celebrate its Straussian Neo-Con cabal responsible therefore, highlighting Wolfowitz Ph.D. '72, Ahmad Chalabi, Ph.D. '69 (the CIA's Iraqi puppet), Abram Shulsky, A.M. '68, Ph.D. '72 (head of the Pentagon's special "intelligence" unit), Zalmay Khalilzad, Ph.D. '79 (Bush Jr.'s roving pro-consul for Afghanistan and then Iraq), as well as faculty members Bellow, X '39, and Bloom, A.B. '49, A.M. '53, Ph.D. '55, together with Strauss. According to the June 2003 University of Chicago Magazine, Bloom's rant "helped popularize Straussian ideals of democracy." It is correct to assert that Bloom's book helped to popularize Straussian "ideas," but they were blatantly anti-democratic, Machiavellian, Hobbist, Nietzschean, and elitist to begin with. Only the University of Chicago would have the unmitigated Orwellian gall to publicly assert that Strauss and Bloom cared one whit about democracy, let alone comprehended the "ideals of democracy." Does anyone seriously believe that a pro-Israeli Chicago/Strauss/Bloom product such as Wolfowitz could care less about democracy in the United States let alone in Iraq? Or for that matter anyone in the Bush Jr. administration? After they stole the 2000 presidential election from the American People in Florida and before the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court, some of whom were/are Feddies? Justice Clarence Thomas is a Straussian to boot. For eight years the Neo-Cons, Fundies, Feddies, and Con-Artists of the Bush Jr. administration did everything humanly possible to build an American Police State. So far University of Chicago Constitutional Law Teacher President Barack Obama has failed and refused to deconstruct and dismantle their totalitarian handiwork. To the contrary, the Obama administration has defended and justified in court almost every hideous atrocity that the Bush Jr. administration perpetrated on international law, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. At the behest of its Straussian Neo-Con Political Science Department, in 1979 the entire University of Chicago went out of its way to grant the "first Albert Pick Jr. Award for Outstanding Contributions to International Understanding" to Robert McNamara, who was personally responsible for exterminating 3 million Vietnamese and 58,000 men of my generation. In other words, the University of Chicago itself maliciously strove to rehabilitate one of the greatest international war criminals in the post-World War II era. History shall always record that the University of Chicago gratuitously honored Bob oeHalf-an-Eichmann McNamara. Do not send your children to the University of Chicago where they will grow up to become warmongers like Wolfowitz and totalitarians like Ashcroft! The University of Chicago is an intellectual and moral cesspool. As J.D. Rockefeller, the Original Robber Baron and Funder of the University of Chicago once commented about his progeny: oeIts the best investment I ever made. Still is. Newstex ID: ATFR-0001-43485955 _______________________________________________ AALSMIN-L mailing list AALSMIN-L at lists.ubalt.edu http://lists.ubalt.edu/mailman/listinfo/aalsmin-l This email was sent using the University of Baltimore mailing list system. Messages sent via a University of Baltimore mailing do not necessarily represent the opinion of the University. Francis 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, March 22, 2018 5:35 AM To: 'Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)' Subject: RE: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Obviously, Chemerinsky is being brought out here by Jones to hector us all about Chief Illiniwak and the First Amendment. Oh sure! John Yoo's First Amendment "right" to turn Chemerinsky's law students into torturers and murderers and war criminals and felons and monsters just like Yoo and get away with it. That's what the First Amendment means to Chemerinsky and his Sewer know as Berkeley Law School that gave Yoo their most prestigious endowed chair. Sick and demented! Fab. Francis 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, March 22, 2018 5:22 AM To: 'Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)' > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Ode to My Colleague and Friend Frank Newman Way to go Berkeley Law! Deeming Yourselves above The Law Your Dean Frank Newman now crying in Heaven Berkeley Law can go to Hell! Accessories After The Fact to torture, murder and war crimes Law Prof Carl Schmitt would be proud of You All The Nazis had Their Law Schools too Replete with John Yoo Killer Koh's poo RIP Berkeley Law Into the Ashcan of History You All go Good Riddance to Cal's Nazi scheisse! Francis 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, March 22, 2018 5:05 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Yesterday I was giving an interview out in San Francisco against CIA Haspel on torture. Chemerinsky is Dean of the Berkeley Law School. He has on his Faculty the infamous John Yoo, Bush's torture lawyer and war criminal and felon who should be in jail. As we speak today, Yoo is training Chemerinsky's Law Students to become torturers, murders and war criminals. How dare Chemerinsky come out here and lecture us about Chief Iliniwak! What is he doing to stop Yoo from turning his own law students into torturers and war criminals and felons and murderers? Nothing that I am aware of. He should be cleaning up his sewer known as Berkeley Law School. Not lecturing us on Chief Illiniwak. Talk about the gross hypocrisy of a Law Dean, he takes the cake. Fab. Francis 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, February 27, 2018 10:06 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: FW: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Also, to the best of my knowledge these 2 Law Deans have no expertise in the Field of International Human Rights Law, including and especially the basic human rights of Native Americans. Just a dog and pony show sponsored by the Administration to delay the elimination of Chief Illiniwak and all of its accouterments so that the Administration can milk the Illiniwak Nation Alumni for all they are worth during their new Capital Campaign. And it is a total disgrace that these two law deans would come onto our campus and interject themselves adversely into our Campaign to get rid of Illiniwakism on our campus and in our community. Fab [cid:image002.jpg at 01D3C1A2.22D51910] Francis 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, February 27, 2018 8:15 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak OK. Chancellor Jones is bringing in on April 17 two Establishmentarian Law Deans who are going to argue that Chief Illiniwak is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It will be a real dog-and-pony show. These 2 Law Deans know absolutely nothing at all about the tremendous psychological harm that Chief Illiniwak has inflicted upon our Native American Students, Faculty, Staff and Community Members. I doubt very seriously they will even bother to meet with any of them to hear them out. Just an Administration set-up for Chief Illiniwak. fab From: NatNews at yahoogroups.com [mailto:NatNews at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Schmidt Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:23 PM To: Native News > Subject: [NativeNews] Boyle's letter to U of I president Dear President White: You and the Board of Trustees must eradicate anything related to Indians from the sports program: "Fighting Illini", "Oskeewowow," the TomTom beats, the fake Indian Music from the 3 in 1 march and elsewhere in band performances , the war paint, the feathers, the tomahawks, the Illiniwak Logo, etc. In addition the University of Illinois must hold onto the Illiniwak Logo and not transfer it to the White Racists and Bigots on the so-called Council of Illiniwak Chiefs where they will continue to perpetrate this desecration of Indians forever . You must also indicate that you will vigorously prosecute anyone who violates your Trademark to Chief Illiniwak. You must terminate all licenses for Chief Illiniwak. And you must clear this racist Illiniwak garbage out of all University of Illinois Buildings. Little Red Sambo is finally gone--no thanks to you, the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor, the Provost and previous Board Members, Presidents, Chancellors and Provosts--except for Nancy Kantor whom you all summarily ran out of town on a rail for doing the right thing for American Indians. But now you and the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor and the Provost must concentrate on getting rid of all elements of Little Red Samboism from this campus. Based upon prior experience, I will not hold my breath. But we will keep coming after you all until you do the right thing for American Indians. Professor Francis A. Boyle cc: University of Illinois Board of Trustees 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53119 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Mar 22 12:23:29 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:23:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> Indeed Deb, Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his corporate masters. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Debra Schrishuhn via Peace Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: peace Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! Deb On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his > mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a > Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the > opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency pressure, please name one. > > And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and > war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer nonsense. > > > On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook > > wrote: > > No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this > Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. > > Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in > office. > > Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while the > Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against Russia > and China. > > —CGE > > > On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram > > wrote: > > Carl > > I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. > However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, or > is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need. > > Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to > “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you > think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. > > Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait for > another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our Democrat > Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told Tammy > Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support for > militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be vigilant > and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. > > I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would support > Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as well > as single payer supporter. > > > > > On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook > > wrote: > > David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. > He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US > troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. > > The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US > war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is > even > worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former > intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National > Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as > Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The > potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the > legislature has no precedent in US political history” > [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. > > Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back > into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama administration > - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. > If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a > war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his > predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against > the administration’s wars. —CGE > > > On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace > > wrote: > > Robert, > > I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. > She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for > families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a > national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to > hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! > > Niloofar > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace > > wrote: > https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 > > I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. > I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to > every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and > progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I > will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. > But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. > First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end > unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in > Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me > the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is > different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I > engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; > but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan > said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, > Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. Because > she read the thing I send her and she understood it. > I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls > are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say > and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. > Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by > Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. > I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on > my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. > But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin > people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated that > on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. > So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? Within > an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other > peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth > would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy > Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, > because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. > Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. > Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. > But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy > Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to > help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and > help to beat Rodney Davis in November. > Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois > Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to > support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. > But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the > runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate > anyway. She points out that only three members of our current > delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should > change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly > wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't > want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this > criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. > > _______________________ > > > > _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 12:44:35 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:44:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! Idiots. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Indeed Deb, > > Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. > Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his corporate masters. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Debra Schrishuhn via Peace > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM > To: Karen Aram > Cc: peace > Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines > ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! > > Deb > > > > On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency pressure, please name one. >> >> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer nonsense. >> >> >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >> > wrote: >> >> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >> >> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in >> office. >> >> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while the >> Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against Russia >> and China. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >> > wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, or >> is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need. >> >> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >> >> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait for >> another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our Democrat >> Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told Tammy >> Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support for >> militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be vigilant >> and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >> >> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would support >> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as well >> as single payer supporter. >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >> > wrote: >> >> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. >> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US >> troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >> >> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former >> intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National >> Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as >> Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The >> potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the >> legislature has no precedent in US political history” >> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >> >> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back >> into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama administration >> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. >> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against >> the administration’s wars. —CGE >> >> >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >> > wrote: >> >> Robert, >> >> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. >> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring for >> families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >> >> Niloofar >> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >> > wrote: >> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >> >> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to >> every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. I >> will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. >> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. >> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me >> the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. Because >> she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on >> my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated that >> on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? Within >> an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and other >> peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy Duckworth >> would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact that Betsy >> Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus for me, >> because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. >> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. >> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. >> >> _______________________ >> >> From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Mar 22 12:50:34 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 07:50:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time." That will be a cold day in hell Carl. It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. David J. -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM To: David Johnson; Peace Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! Idiots. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Indeed Deb, > > Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. > Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his corporate masters. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of > Debra Schrishuhn via Peace > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM > To: Karen Aram > Cc: peace > Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines > ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! > > Deb > > > > On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency pressure, please name one. >> >> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer nonsense. >> >> >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >> > wrote: >> >> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >> >> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in >> office. >> >> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >> Russia and China. >> >> —CGE >> >> >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >> > wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need. >> >> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >> >> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >> >> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would support >> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as well >> as single payer supporter. >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >> > wrote: >> >> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. >> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US >> troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >> >> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former >> intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National >> Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as >> Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The >> potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the >> legislature has no precedent in US political history” >> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >> >> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back >> into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >> administration >> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. >> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against >> the administration’s wars. —CGE >> >> >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >> > wrote: >> >> Robert, >> >> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. >> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >> >> Niloofar >> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >> > wrote: >> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >> >> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to >> every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. >> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. >> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me >> the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on >> my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and >> other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. >> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. >> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. >> >> _______________________ >> >> From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 13:09:39 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:09:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). Deb On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: > " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long > time." > > That will be a cold day in hell Carl. > > It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM > To: David Johnson; Peace > Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary > (2) > > David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture to > his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) > > Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. > > But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for > congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! > > Idiots. > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >> wrote: >> >> Indeed Deb, >> >> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He also >> had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil liberties and >> had one of the most favorable voting records in support of Unions . He >> changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the >> Republicans still controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was >> responding to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his >> faults. >> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a solely >> owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care what his >> constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his corporate >> masters. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >> To: Karen Aram >> Cc: peace >> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >> >> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, you >> are not Tim Johnson! >> >> Deb >> >> >> >> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>> pressure, please name one. >>> >>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>> nonsense. >>> >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>> > wrote: >>> >>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>> >>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in >>> office. >>> >>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>> Russia and China. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely >>> need. >>> >>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>> >>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>> >>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>> support >>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>> well >>> as single payer supporter. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>> > wrote: >>> >>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>> IL-13. >>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US >>> troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>> >>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former >>> intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National >>> Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as >>> Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The >>> potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the >>> legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>> >>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back >>> into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>> administration >>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>> Congress. >>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against >>> the administration’s wars. —CGE >>> >>> >>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Robert, >>> >>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>> candidate. >>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>> >>> Niloofar >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>> > wrote: >>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>> >>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to >>> every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat >>> Rodney Davis in November. >>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>> Londrigan. >>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me >>> the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >>> Londrigan in a walk. >>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on >>> my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, >>> I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and >>> other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy >>> Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's >>> List. >>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>> general. >>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as >>> a strong plus. >>> >>> _______________________ >>> >>> > > > From jbw292002 at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 13:10:17 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:10:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> Message-ID: So Carl, If I understand you correctly..... Rodney Davis may be shamed/pressured into emulating Tim Johnson and somehow bringing about peace and paradise on earth.... But the "war-mongering Democrats" CANNOT be shamed or pressured into bringing about peace and paradise on earth..... Because NEVER is a long time?? Or perhaps there's another perfectly logical reason, the kind you're famous for? Asking for a friend, John Wason On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 7:50 AM, David Johnson via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long > time." > > That will be a cold day in hell Carl. > > It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM > To: David Johnson; Peace > Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary > (2) > > David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture to > his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) > > Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. > > But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for > congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! > > Idiots. > > > > On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Indeed Deb, > > > > Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his > constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He also > had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil liberties and had > one of the most favorable voting records in support of Unions . He changed > his support of the war in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans > still controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding to > citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. > > Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a solely > owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care what his > constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his corporate masters. > > > > David J. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of > > Debra Schrishuhn via Peace > > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM > > To: Karen Aram > > Cc: peace > > Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > > > What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines > > ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, you > are not Tim Johnson! > > > > Deb > > > > > > > > On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > >> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his > >> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a > >> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the > >> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency > pressure, please name one. > >> > >> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and > >> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer > nonsense. > >> > >> > >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook > >> > wrote: > >> > >> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this > >> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. > >> > >> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in > >> office. > >> > >> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while > >> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against > >> Russia and China. > >> > >> —CGE > >> > >> > >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram > >> > wrote: > >> > >> Carl > >> > >> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. > >> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, > >> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely > need. > >> > >> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to > >> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you > >> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. > >> > >> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait > >> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our > >> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told > >> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support > >> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be > >> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. > >> > >> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would > support > >> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as > well > >> as single payer supporter. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook > >> > wrote: > >> > >> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in > IL-13. > >> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US > >> troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. > >> > >> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US > >> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is > >> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former > >> intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National > >> Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as > >> Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The > >> potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the > >> legislature has no precedent in US political history” > >> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. > >> > >> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back > >> into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama > >> administration > >> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for > Congress. > >> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a > >> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his > >> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against > >> the administration’s wars. —CGE > >> > >> > >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace > >> > wrote: > >> > >> Robert, > >> > >> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment > candidate. > >> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring > >> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a > >> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to > >> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! > >> > >> Niloofar > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace > >> > wrote: > >> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 > >> > >> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. > >> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to > >> every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and > >> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. > >> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat > Rodney Davis in November. > >> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen > Londrigan. > >> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end > >> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in > >> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me > >> the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is > >> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I > >> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; > >> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan > >> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, > >> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. > >> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. > >> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls > >> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say > >> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen > Londrigan in a walk. > >> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by > >> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. > >> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on > >> my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. > >> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin > >> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated > >> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy > resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. > >> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? > >> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and > >> other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy > >> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact > >> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus > >> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy > Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. > >> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's > List. > >> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in > general. > >> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy > >> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to > >> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and > >> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. > >> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois > >> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to > >> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. > >> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the > >> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate > >> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current > >> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should > >> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly > >> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't > >> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this > >> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this > as a strong plus. > >> > >> _______________________ > >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Mar 22 13:14:38 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:14:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History 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: AlterNet Headlines [mailto:replies at alternet.org] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:05 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History | Is John Bolton Too Much Even for Trump? | Trump's Legal Troubles Growing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 13:19:53 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> Message-ID: You’re very funny, John. You did note that I mentioned what the Democrats are doing today, didn’t you? I look forward to their immediate forswearing of their vicious and dangerous attempt to get Trump to provoke war with Russia. —CGE > On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:10 AM, John W. wrote: > > > So Carl, > > If I understand you correctly..... > > Rodney Davis may be shamed/pressured into emulating Tim Johnson and somehow bringing about peace and paradise on earth.... > > But the "war-mongering Democrats" CANNOT be shamed or pressured into bringing about peace and paradise on earth..... > > Because NEVER is a long time?? Or perhaps there's another perfectly logical reason, the kind you're famous for? > > Asking for a friend, > > John Wason > > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 7:50 AM, David Johnson via Peace > wrote: > > " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time." > > That will be a cold day in hell Carl. > > It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com ] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM > To: David Johnson; Peace > Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) > > Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. > > But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! > > Idiots. > > > > On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > Indeed Deb, > > > > Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. > > Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his corporate masters. > > > > David J. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] On Behalf Of > > Debra Schrishuhn via Peace > > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM > > To: Karen Aram > > Cc: peace > > Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > > > What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines > > ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! > > > > Deb > > > > > > > > On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: > >> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his > >> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a > >> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the > >> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency pressure, please name one. > >> > >> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and > >> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer nonsense. > >> > >> > >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook > >> >> wrote: > >> > >> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this > >> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. > >> > >> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in > >> office. > >> > >> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while > >> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against > >> Russia and China. > >> > >> —CGE > >> > >> > >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram > >> >> wrote: > >> > >> Carl > >> > >> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. > >> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, > >> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely need. > >> > >> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to > >> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you > >> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. > >> > >> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait > >> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our > >> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told > >> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support > >> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be > >> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. > >> > >> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would support > >> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as well > >> as single payer supporter. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook > >> >> wrote: > >> > >> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in IL-13. > >> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US > >> troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. > >> > >> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US > >> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is > >> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former > >> intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National > >> Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as > >> Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The > >> potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the > >> legislature has no precedent in US political history” > >> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html ]. > >> > >> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back > >> into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama > >> administration > >> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for Congress. > >> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a > >> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his > >> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against > >> the administration’s wars. —CGE > >> > >> > >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace > >> >> wrote: > >> > >> Robert, > >> > >> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment candidate. > >> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring > >> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a > >> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to > >> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! > >> > >> Niloofar > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace > >> >> wrote: > >> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 > >> > >> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. > >> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to > >> every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and > >> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. > >> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat Rodney Davis in November. > >> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. > >> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end > >> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in > >> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me > >> the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is > >> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I > >> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; > >> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan > >> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, > >> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. > >> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. > >> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls > >> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say > >> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. > >> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by > >> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. > >> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on > >> my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. > >> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin > >> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated > >> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. > >> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? > >> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and > >> other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy > >> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact > >> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus > >> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. > >> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's List. > >> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in general. > >> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy > >> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to > >> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and > >> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. > >> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois > >> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to > >> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. > >> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the > >> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate > >> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current > >> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should > >> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly > >> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't > >> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this > >> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. > >> > >> _______________________ > >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 13:25:34 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:25:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [The whole interview is worth considering.] "Noam Chomsky on the Populist Groundswell, U.S. Elections, the Future of Humanity, and More” By Lynn Parramore {The renowned linguist, cognitive scientist, and historian on where we stand as an economy, as a country, and as human beings} We recently interviewed Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Laureate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. He shares his thoughts with the Institute for New Economic Thinking on foreign policy, dissent in the Internet age, public education, corporate predation, who’s really messing with American elections, climate change, and more. Lynn Parramore: You’ve been looking at politics and international relations for quite a long time. Over the decades, what are the continuities in these areas that stand out in your view? Noam Chomsky: Well the continuities are the message of the Athenians to Melos: “the powerful do what they wish and the weak suffer what they must” [from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War.”] It’s often disguised in humanitarian terms. The modalities and the context change. The situations change but the message stays the same. LP: What do you see as the most significant changes? NC: There are some steps towards imposing constraints and limits on state violence. For the most part, they come from inside. So for example, if you look at the United States and the kinds of actions that John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson could carry out in Vietnam, they were possible because of almost complete lack of public attention. I don’t know if you know, but as late as 1966 in Boston we could barely have an anti-war action because it would be violently broken up with the support of the press and so on. By then, South Vietnam had been practically destroyed. The war had expanded to other areas of Indochina. The Reagan administration, at the very beginning, tried to duplicate what Kennedy had done in 1961 with regard to Central America. So they had a white paper more or less modeled on Kennedy’s white paper that said the Communists are taking over. It was the usual steps, the propaganda, but it collapsed quickly. In the case of the Kennedy white paper, it took years before it was exposed as mostly fraudulent, but the Wall Street Journal, of all places, exposed the Reagan white paper in six months. There were protests by church groups and popular organizations and they had to kind of back off. What happened was bad enough but it was nothing like Indochina. Iraq was the first time in the history of imperialism that there were massive protests before the war was even officially launched. It’s claimed by people that it failed, but I don’t think so. I mean, they never began to do the kinds of things that they could have done. There were no B-52 raids on heavily populated areas or chemical warfare of the kind they did in Indochina. By and large the constraints come from inside, and they understood that. By the time you got to the first Bush administration, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they came out with a national defense policy and strategic policy. What they basically said is that we’re going to have wars against what they called much weaker enemies and these have to be carried out quickly and decisively or else there will be embarrassment—a way of saying that popular reaction is going to set in. And that’s the way it’s been. It’s not pretty, but it’s some kind of constraint. There are increasingly conditions in international law, like the Rome Treaty [the 1957 treaty that established the European Economic Community] and so on, but great powers just ignore them if they can get away with it, and getting away with it means ignoring the constraints of other states, which, in the case of, say, the U.S., don’t amount to much. Or internal constraints from changes inside the society, which have put in conditions of some significance, I think. It’s almost unimaginable now that the U.S. could carry out the kind of war it did in Indochina, which is something recognized by elite opinion. A typical example is Mark Bowden’s op-ed in the New York Times the other day about [Walter] Cronkite and how he changed everything. Well, what did Cronkite say? He said, it doesn’t look as if we’re going to win. That’s the criticism of the war. That’s the way it was perceived at the time, and that’s the way it’s still perceived by intellectual elites. But if you look at public opinion—which doesn’t really get investigated much so it’s not too clear what it means, but it’s interesting—the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was running polls on all sorts of issues in the 70s and 80s, and when the Vietnam War ended in 1975, about 70 percent of the population described the war as fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake. That stayed pretty steady for several years until they stop asking the question. The director of the study, John Rielly, interpreted that as meaning too many American were being killed. Maybe. There’s another possible interpretation of “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” which is that the U.S. was carrying out a crime against humanity. But it was never investigated because there’s too much cognitive dissonance. Elite intellectuals can’t perceive that possibility. Everybody had a comment when the war ended, and so the hawks said, “stab in the back” [i.e. civilian critics undermined the military] and “if we’d fought harder we would have won.” The doves went kind of like Anthony Lewis of the New York Times, who was maybe the most extreme. In 1975 when the war ended, he said the war began with blundering efforts to do good. “Efforts to do good” is virtual tautology, facts irrelevant; and “blundering” means it failed. He said that by 1969 it was clear that it was a disaster because the U.S. could not bring democracy to Vietnam at a cost acceptable to us. That’s the far left critique of the war in 1975. And Bowden, who is writing from a critical point of view, basically reiterated that point a couple days ago: Cronkite’s great contribution was to say, “look, it looks as if we can’t win, and if we can’t win…” I mean, Russian generals said the same in Afghanistan. We don’t honor them for that. LP: When you talked about protests in Understanding Power before the digital age, you mentioned that it was difficult for dissenters and protesters to connect with each other. How has the internet changed that? Protesters are obviously under surveillance when they are online, but they are able to connect with each other more quickly. Has there been a net gain to those who want to object to wars and oppression? Or is this illusory? NC: You may remember, during the Tahrir Square demonstrations in Cairo, which were being organized through social media, at one point [Hosni] Mubarak actually closed down the internet. That increased the mobilization. People just started talking to each other. It’s a different kind of communication. It means a lot more. So I think, yes, social media do offer opportunities for quick organization and transmission, but typically at a pretty superficial level. Face-to-face organizing is something quite different. The same, incidentally, has been found in electoral politics. Andrew Cockburn had an interesting article in Harper’s during the [2016] campaign in which he compared studies on the effect on potential voters of advertising, you know, TV, and the effect of knocking on doors and talking to people. It was overwhelming that the latter was more effective. We’re still human beings. LP: Companies like Google and Facebook increasingly control the information we can access. They’ve even been enlisted to vet stories, to weed out fake news, though there’s evidence that they may be weeding out legitimate dissent. Yet they are often applauded as if they’re doing a service. How is this sort of thing affecting our freedom? NC: It’s service for a bad reason. The younger people just don’t read much, so they want something quick, fast, easy. You go through a newspaper, it takes time. You have to see what’s at the end of the column, not just what’s in the headline. So this kind of instant gratification culture is drawing people to these quick summaries. Practically everybody’s on Facebook (except me). The other thing they’re doing which is kind of interesting has to do with microtargeting, which is being used for electoral manipulation. There are some cases, which have not been discussed as far as I know outside the business press. During the last German election, there was a lot of talk of potential Russian interference, you know, it’s gonna swing the election. Well, it turns out there was foreign interference, but it wasn’t Russian. It was a combination of the Berlin office of Facebook and a media company in the U.S., which works for Trump, Le Pen, Netanyahu, other nice guys. They used Facebook in Berlin to get a demographic analysis of parts of the population to allow them to microtarget ads to individuals in favor of AfD, the neo-Nazi party, which may have been a factor in their unexpectedly high vote in the election. This was reported in Bloomberg BusinessWeek. This was a real case of electoral manipulation but somehow it doesn’t make the headlines. LP: Which brings us to the narrative of Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election. I understand you’re not very impressed with this line. NC: Well it’s very hard to take seriously for a number of reasons. One reason is the work of Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues [“How Money Won Trump the White House”]. There really is manipulation of elections, but it’s not coming from the Russians. It’s coming from the people who buy the elections. Take his study of the 2016 election [“Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election”]. That’s how you interfere with elections. Or the pretty spectacular study that he and his colleagues did about a year ago on Congress “How Money Drives US Congressional Elections,” where you just get a straight line [correlation between money and major party votes in Congress]. You rarely see results like that in the social sciences. That’s massive manipulation. Compared with that, what the Russians might be doing is minuscule. Quite aside from the fact that the U.S. does it all the time in other countries. LP: It’s clear from leaked emails that the Democratic National Committee meddled with Bernie Sanders in his quest for the 2016 presidential nomination by favoring Hillary Clinton when it was supposed to be unbiased towards all candidates. What do you think it would it take for a real reformist candidate, a true populist, to ever win the presidency? NC: What it would actually take is popular organization and activism. With all its flaws, the U.S. is still a pretty free country. In this case, Democratic Party managers had to manipulate to keep Sanders from winning the nomination. His campaign, I think, was really spectacular. I couldn’t have predicted anything like it. It’s a break with over a century of American political history. No corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close—he probably could have won the nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he’d been elected? He couldn’t have done a thing. Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy—you have to build the whole system from the bottom. It’s kind of intriguing now, I’m sure you’ve seen the polls where he turns out to be the most popular political figure. Well, in a functioning democracy, the person who is the most popular political figure should appear somewhere. But nothing he does gets reported. It’s taking place, it’s having effects, but from the point of view of the liberal media, it’s as if it doesn’t exist. LP: What about recent events in California with Senator Dianne Feinstein, who got a big surprise by failing to win the state Democratic Party endorsement for a sixth term? Is this like the Sanders phenomenon, where people who want basic things like universal healthcare and worker protections are making their preferences heard by refusing to support candidates who are unresponsive? NC: She was voted down, and like the Sanders campaign or [Jeremy] Corbyn in England, there is a groundswell, and if it could be turned into something sustained and with a serious base, it could mean a lot. Traditionally, this has always been built around the labor movement, and that’s why the corporate sector is so dedicated to destroying the unions. It’s coming up in the Janus case, which was heard the other day, which will probably be voted in favor of Janus, which will be a lethal blow to public unions. [Mark Janus is the plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME involving the issue of whether government employees represented by a union must pay dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining and resolving grievances]. The whole U.S. private sector is passionate about destroying the union movement. This has been going on for a long time, but now they really think they can strangle it because it’s the core of activism for almost anything. Take a look at, say, healthcare. In Canada, in the 50s, it was the unions who were pressing hard for national healthcare, and kind of interestingly, in the U.S. the same unions were pressing for healthcare for themselves, auto workers in Detroit. These are two pretty similar countries, but with this striking difference in outcomes on healthcare. A more interesting case is England. There’s a pretty good article that just came out in the latest issue of Jacobin, which runs through the history of British healthcare and it’s quite interesting. It began, in England under Bevan in the late 40s. They got what was the best healthcare system in the world—still is, probably, and certainly was then. It started with mine workers in Wales who developed their own cooperative health system on a small scale. Aneurin Bevan was a Welsh mine worker. The cooperative system was picked up by the Labour Party as a program and the Labour Party actually won the election in 1945 and Bevan pushed it through and they got the National Health Service. Well, there’s two points that are critical for the U.S. It’s the unions. That why you have to destroy the unions. You destroy solidarity. It’s same reason for the attack on public schools, the attack on social security. These are all based on the idea that somehow you care about others, the community, and so on, and that’s completely unacceptable in a culture where you want to try to concentrate wealth and power. You don’t want people to have anything to do except to try to gain whatever they can for themselves. In that case, they’ll be very weak, of course. It’s only when you organize together than you can confront private capital. Secondly, there was a political party. The American political system probably wouldn’t be accepted by the European Court of Justice as a legitimate system. There’s no way for independent parties to enter the system. The Labour Party in England started as a very small party. But because the system allows—as most democratic countries do—small parties to function, they were able to develop and work within Parliament and expand and get political figures and the government and finally ended up being a big party. That’s almost impossible in the U.S. If you look at a ballot in the U.S., it says Democrat, Republican, Other. Nobody can break in. It’s a political monopoly. It’s two things that aren’t really political parties. You can’t really be a member of the Democratic Party, you can’t participate in designing its programs. You can be a member of the Labour Party. These are big differences, so I think two huge problems in the U.S. are the deficiencies of the political system, which shows up in the kind of things that Tom Ferguson and his colleagues study—you know, the enormous power of concentrated wealth in determining the outcome of elections and then the policies afterwards. That’s one, and the other is the destruction of the labor movement. LP: Let’s talk about the attack on public schools, which Gordon Lafer has outlined in his book, The One Percent Solution. NC: Yes, a very interesting book. LP: He discusses efforts by ALEC and other corporate-backed groups to dismantle public education, to get legislation passed to replace teachers with online education, increase class sizes, replace public schools with privately-funded charters, and so on. You’ve talked about the history of mass education. How do you see this corporate agenda for American schools? NC: You know, mass public education was, with all its flaws, one of the real contributions to American democracy. It was way ahead of other countries all the way through, including the college level with land grant colleges and so on. Europe just began to match that after World War II. Here it was happening in the late 19th century. Now there’s a real concerted effort to destroy the whole public education system. ALEC and Koch Brothers just recently announced a campaign taking Arizona as the test case because they figure Arizona is probably an easy one since it has probably the lowest per capita expenditure for education and a very right-wing legislature. What they’re trying to do—they describe it openly—is to try to essentially destroy the public education system, turn everything to vouchers and charter schools. It’ll be an interesting battle, and if it works in Arizona they want to do it elsewhere. It’s a huge corporate offensive. It’s very similar to attack on unions. First the Friedrichs [Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in which the Supreme Court deadlocked on the issue of the right of public-sector unions to collect fees from workers they represent, including those who don’t join the union, to cover bargaining and other activities], now the Janus case, and they’ll probably succeed. This right-to-work legislation is just unacceptable in other countries. In fact, in the NAFTA negotiations, at one point Canada proposed that part of a revision should be to ban measures that undermine labor rights like the right-to-work legislation. It’s kind of like using scabs. It’s just not heard of. But Reagan introduced it here—I think the U.S. and South Africa were the only countries that allowed it. In fact, the U.S. has never even ratified the first principle of the International Labour Organization, the right of association. I think the U.S. must be alone, frankly. It’s very much a business-run society. LP: What are students being trained for now in the corporate vision of education that is taking over the country? What kind of future will they have? And what does it do to the idea of a democracy? NC: Students will be controlled and disciplined. The education doesn’t leave any room for interaction, for creative activity, for teachers to do things on their own, for students to find a way to do things, I’ve talked to teacher’s groups. I remember once I was giving a talk and a 6th grade teacher came up to me describing experiences. She said that after one class a little girl came up and said that she was really interested in something that came up and wanted to know how she could do some more on it. And they teacher had to tell her, you can’t do it. You have to study for the MCAS, the Massachusetts version of the regular exam [Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System]. Everything depends on that. Even the teacher’s salary depends on that. So you can’t do anything creative as an individual. You follow the rules. It’s the Marine Corps. You do what you’re told. No associations. It’s a perfect system for creating a deeply authoritarian society. It’s also kind of a two-tiered system. It’s a little bit like what Sam Bowles and Herb Gitnis [co-authors of Schooling in Capitalist America] discussed when they wrote about early mass education. For the general worker, turn them into industrial workers, but for the elite, you have to have creativity: MIT, Harvard. You have to have people to create the next stage of the economy. LP: In the last several years, we’ve had a number of protest movements, Occupy, Black Lives Matter, and the #MeToo movement, which have often met with hostility or dismissal in the liberal press. Take #MeToo: the protest against workplace sexual harassment and violence has shown solidarity along class lines and across countries. For example, Latina farmworkers and Indian feminists back it. Yet some in the liberal press compare #MeToo protesters to McCarthyites and warn of witch hunts, despite the fact that the movement is helping to shift power away from oppressive management towards workers in challenging things like forced arbitration clauses that deny workers the right to take charges to court. NC: It’s a very valid protest and it’s an important movement. Charges do have to be subject to some kind of verification. Just allegation is not enough. As far as I know, the left-oriented groups like EPI [Economic Policy Institute] are in favor of ending forced arbitration, which also affects many other kinds of charges. I think they’re focusing on labor rights. LP: That’s true, but it seems that some may not be recognizing #MeToo as really part of the labor rights struggle. NC: That’s interesting. Yes. LP: Let’s talk about the broader issue of economic inequality. This year, wealthy elites polled at the World Economic Forum in Davos listed inequality as number 7 on their list of global worries. They’re more worried about other things, like data breaches and involuntary migration. Do you think that they may be comforted by the fact that they’ve avoided some scary scenarios, like, for example, a real populist president in the US, and can therefore relax a bit? Should they be more worried? NC: The danger that they perceive is that it might lead to a popular uprising, so you have to control that. There are the standard excuses about merit, which is a joke when you look at the details. I mean, take Bill Gates—a perfectly admirable person, but, as I’m sure he’d be the first to say, he based his fortune on two things, one, decades of work in the state sector which created the technology — the creative, risky work which was done since the 50s. He picked it up and marketed it. The second is the World Trade Organization, which gives him monopoly-pricing rights. I mean, that’s great but… LP: Kind of goes against the Horatio Alger myth [the belief that anybody can get rich just by working hard]. NC: Yes. LP: Finally, as you look ahead, what do you consider to be the biggest threats to human beings in the future? What should we be most concerned about? NC: Climate change and nuclear war. These are really existential threats. And what’s happening now is just astonishing. If media were functioning seriously, every day the lead headline would be this amazing fact—that in the entire world, every country is trying or committed to doing at least something. One country—one!—the most powerful country in history—is committed to trying to destroy the climate. Not just pulling out of the efforts of others, but maximizing the use of the most destructive means. There’s been nothing like this in history. It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life. It’s just missing from the media. In fact, if you read, say, the sensible business press, the Financial Times, BusinessWeek, any of them, when they talk about fossil fuel production, the articles are all just about the prospect for profit. Is the U.S. moving to number one and what are the gains? Not that it’s going to wipe out organized human life. Maybe that’s a footnote somewhere. It’s pretty astonishing. ### > On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:14 AM, 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) > > From: AlterNet Headlines [mailto:replies at alternet.org] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:05 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History | Is John Bolton Too Much Even for Trump? | Trump's Legal Troubles Growing > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 13:34:35 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:34:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <9280948A-82D9-48E4-B933-5FFAEEE1B024@illinois.edu> But at the cost of helping to return control of the House to the Democrats, who are today excoriating Trump for being lackadaisical in war provocations vs. Russia! Trump apparently didn't do what he was told [“DO NOT CONGRATULATE”] - and that's the great fear of the political establishment (DNC and RNC, Pentagoners, the ‘intelligence community,’ neocons et al.) Trump's wilfulness runs the risk that he might do deals with other governments, and peace might break out. That's clearly contrary to the establishment's desire to increase those war provocations, especially against Russia and China, as the last administration did. They may have to impeach him, if he won't be more belligerent. —CGE > On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:09 AM, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace wrote: > > Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic > issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points > of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let > us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and > lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. > > Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) > direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step > (just couldn't help myself on that one). > > Deb > > > > > > On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long >> time." >> >> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >> >> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >> To: David Johnson; Peace >> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary >> (2) >> >> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture to >> his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >> >> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >> >> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >> >> Idiots. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>> wrote: >>> >>> Indeed Deb, >>> >>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >>> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He also >>> had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil liberties and >>> had one of the most favorable voting records in support of Unions . He >>> changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the >>> Republicans still controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was >>> responding to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his >>> faults. >>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a solely >>> owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care what his >>> constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his corporate >>> masters. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>> To: Karen Aram >>> Cc: peace >>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>> >>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, you >>> are not Tim Johnson! >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>>> pressure, please name one. >>>> >>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>>> nonsense. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>> >>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in >>>> office. >>>> >>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>>> Russia and China. >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we surely >>>> need. >>>> >>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>> >>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >>>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >>>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>> >>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>> support >>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>> well >>>> as single payer supporter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>> IL-13. >>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US >>>> troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>> >>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >>>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former >>>> intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National >>>> Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as >>>> Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The >>>> potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the >>>> legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>> >>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back >>>> into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>> administration >>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>> Congress. >>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against >>>> the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Robert, >>>> >>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>> candidate. >>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>> >>>> Niloofar >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>> > wrote: >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>> >>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to >>>> every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat >>>> Rodney Davis in November. >>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>> Londrigan. >>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me >>>> the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >>>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >>>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >>>> Londrigan in a walk. >>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on >>>> my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, >>>> I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and >>>> other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >>>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >>>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy >>>> Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's >>>> List. >>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>> general. >>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >>>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this as >>>> a strong plus. >>>> >>>> _______________________ >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 13:46:28 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:46:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak References: Message-ID: And just in case you missed the allusion in my poem: Killer Koh taught John Yoo at Yale Law School Killer Koh's Poo Now teaching at Berkeley Law Chemerinsky is Deaning Killer Koh's Poo. The Absolute Corruption of the Legal Academy Now coming To the Rescue of Chief Illiniwak Fab. Francis 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, March 22, 2018 5:35 AM To: 'Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)' Subject: RE: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Obviously, Chemerinsky is being brought out here by Jones to hector us all about Chief Illiniwak and the First Amendment. Oh sure! John Yoo's First Amendment "right" to turn Chemerinsky's law students into torturers and murderers and war criminals and felons and monsters just like Yoo and get away with it. That's what the First Amendment means to Chemerinsky and his Sewer know as Berkeley Law School that gave Yoo their most prestigious endowed chair. Sick and demented! Fab. Francis 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, March 22, 2018 5:22 AM To: 'Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)' > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Ode to My Colleague and Friend Frank Newman Way to go Berkeley Law! Deeming Yourselves above The Law Your Dean Frank Newman now crying in Heaven Berkeley Law can go to Hell! Accessories After The Fact to torture, murder and war crimes Law Prof Carl Schmitt would be proud of You All The Nazis had Their Law Schools too Replete with John Yoo Killer Koh's poo RIP Berkeley Law Into the Ashcan of History You All go Good Riddance to Cal's Nazi scheisse! Francis 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, March 22, 2018 5:05 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Yesterday I was giving an interview out in San Francisco against CIA Haspel on torture. Chemerinsky is Dean of the Berkeley Law School. He has on his Faculty the infamous John Yoo, Bush's torture lawyer and war criminal and felon who should be in jail. As we speak today, Yoo is training Chemerinsky's Law Students to become torturers, murders and war criminals. How dare Chemerinsky come out here and lecture us about Chief Iliniwak! What is he doing to stop Yoo from turning his own law students into torturers and war criminals and felons and murderers? Nothing that I am aware of. He should be cleaning up his sewer known as Berkeley Law School. Not lecturing us on Chief Illiniwak. Talk about the gross hypocrisy of a Law Dean, he takes the cake. Fab. Francis 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, February 27, 2018 10:06 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: FW: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak Also, to the best of my knowledge these 2 Law Deans have no expertise in the Field of International Human Rights Law, including and especially the basic human rights of Native Americans. Just a dog and pony show sponsored by the Administration to delay the elimination of Chief Illiniwak and all of its accouterments so that the Administration can milk the Illiniwak Nation Alumni for all they are worth during their new Capital Campaign. And it is a total disgrace that these two law deans would come onto our campus and interject themselves adversely into our Campaign to get rid of Illiniwakism on our campus and in our community. Fab [cid:image002.jpg at 01D3C1BA.3C3991C0] Francis 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, February 27, 2018 8:15 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: News Gazoo: 2 Law Deans Dog and Pony Show for Chief Illiniwak OK. Chancellor Jones is bringing in on April 17 two Establishmentarian Law Deans who are going to argue that Chief Illiniwak is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It will be a real dog-and-pony show. These 2 Law Deans know absolutely nothing at all about the tremendous psychological harm that Chief Illiniwak has inflicted upon our Native American Students, Faculty, Staff and Community Members. I doubt very seriously they will even bother to meet with any of them to hear them out. Just an Administration set-up for Chief Illiniwak. fab From: NatNews at yahoogroups.com [mailto:NatNews at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Schmidt Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 7:23 PM To: Native News > Subject: [NativeNews] Boyle's letter to U of I president Dear President White: You and the Board of Trustees must eradicate anything related to Indians from the sports program: "Fighting Illini", "Oskeewowow," the TomTom beats, the fake Indian Music from the 3 in 1 march and elsewhere in band performances , the war paint, the feathers, the tomahawks, the Illiniwak Logo, etc. In addition the University of Illinois must hold onto the Illiniwak Logo and not transfer it to the White Racists and Bigots on the so-called Council of Illiniwak Chiefs where they will continue to perpetrate this desecration of Indians forever . You must also indicate that you will vigorously prosecute anyone who violates your Trademark to Chief Illiniwak. You must terminate all licenses for Chief Illiniwak. And you must clear this racist Illiniwak garbage out of all University of Illinois Buildings. Little Red Sambo is finally gone--no thanks to you, the Board of Trustees, the Chancellor, the Provost and previous Board Members, Presidents, Chancellors and Provosts--except for Nancy Kantor whom you all summarily ran out of town on a rail for doing the right thing for American Indians. But now you and the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor and the Provost must concentrate on getting rid of all elements of Little Red Samboism from this campus. Based upon prior experience, I will not hold my breath. But we will keep coming after you all until you do the right thing for American Indians. Professor Francis A. Boyle cc: University of Illinois Board of Trustees 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 53119 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 13:50:09 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:50:09 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 8:19 AM, C G Estabrook wrote: You’re very funny, John. > > You did note that I mentioned what the Democrats are doing today, didn’t > you? > > I look forward to their immediate forswearing of their vicious and > dangerous attempt to get Trump to provoke war with Russia. > 'Snot what they're doing, Carl. They just don't think that tRump should be fellating Putin. Truth is, I don't know what ANYONE in Washington is doing, aside from lining their own pockets and making empty speeches. I do know, on the other hand, that tRump is such a fool that he's liable to do absolutely anything, vacillating wildly between being Kim Jong-Un's most ardent admirer, and breathing fire and brimstone against "Little Rocket Man". Beyond that, affiant sayeth not. > —CGE > > > On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:10 AM, John W. wrote: > > > So Carl, > > If I understand you correctly..... > > Rodney Davis may be shamed/pressured into emulating Tim Johnson and > somehow bringing about peace and paradise on earth.... > > But the "war-mongering Democrats" CANNOT be shamed or pressured into > bringing about peace and paradise on earth..... > > Because NEVER is a long time?? Or perhaps there's another perfectly > logical reason, the kind you're famous for? > > Asking for a friend, > > John Wason > > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 7:50 AM, David Johnson via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long >> time." >> >> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >> >> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >> To: David Johnson; Peace >> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary (2) >> >> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture to >> his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >> >> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >> >> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >> >> Idiots. >> >> >> > On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> > >> > Indeed Deb, >> > >> > Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He also >> had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil liberties and had >> one of the most favorable voting records in support of Unions . He changed >> his support of the war in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans >> still controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding to >> citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >> > Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care what >> his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his corporate >> masters. >> > >> > David J. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >> > Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >> > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >> > To: Karen Aram >> > Cc: peace >> > Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >> > >> > What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >> > ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >> you are not Tim Johnson! >> > >> > Deb >> > >> > >> > >> > On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> >> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >> >> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >> >> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >> >> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >> pressure, please name one. >> >> >> >> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >> >> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >> nonsense. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >> >> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >> >> >> >> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed in >> >> office. >> >> >> >> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >> >> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >> >> Russia and China. >> >> >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Carl >> >> >> >> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >> >> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >> >> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >> surely need. >> >> >> >> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >> >> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >> >> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >> >> >> >> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >> >> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >> >> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >> >> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >> >> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >> >> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >> >> >> >> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >> support >> >> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war >> as well >> >> as single payer supporter. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >> IL-13. >> >> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that US >> >> troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. >> Africa. >> >> >> >> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >> >> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >> >> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of former >> >> intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National >> >> Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking nomination as >> >> Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The >> >> potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the >> >> legislature has no precedent in US political history” >> >> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >> >> >> >> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump back >> >> into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >> >> administration >> >> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >> Congress. >> >> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >> >> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >> >> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn against >> >> the administration’s wars. —CGE >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Robert, >> >> >> >> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >> candidate. >> >> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >> >> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >> >> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >> >> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >> >> >> >> Niloofar >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >> >> > wrote: >> >> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >> >> >> >> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >> >> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went to >> >> every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >> >> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >> >> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to defeat >> Rodney Davis in November. >> >> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >> Londrigan. >> >> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >> >> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >> >> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to me >> >> the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >> >> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >> >> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >> >> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >> >> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >> >> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >> >> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >> >> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >> >> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >> >> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >> Londrigan in a walk. >> >> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >> >> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >> >> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, on >> >> my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >> >> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >> >> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >> >> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >> >> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >> >> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me and >> >> other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >> >> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >> >> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >> >> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on Betsy >> Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >> >> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by Emily's >> List. >> >> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >> general. >> >> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >> >> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >> >> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >> >> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >> >> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >> >> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >> >> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >> >> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >> >> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >> >> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >> >> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >> >> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >> >> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >> >> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >> >> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count this >> as a strong plus. >> >> >> >> _______________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Mar 22 14:02:22 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:02:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. That is if she wins, which she won't. She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM To: David Johnson Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). Deb On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: > " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long > time." > > That will be a cold day in hell Carl. > > It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM > To: David Johnson; Peace > Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's > primary > (2) > > David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture > to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) > > Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. > > But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for > congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! > > Idiots. > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >> wrote: >> >> Indeed Deb, >> >> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He >> also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support >> of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition >> while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and >> Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not >> that he didn't have his faults. >> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >> corporate masters. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >> To: Karen Aram >> Cc: peace >> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >> >> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >> you are not Tim Johnson! >> >> Deb >> >> >> >> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>> pressure, please name one. >>> >>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>> nonsense. >>> >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>> > wrote: >>> >>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>> >>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>> in office. >>> >>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>> Russia and China. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >>> surely need. >>> >>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>> >>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>> >>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>> support >>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>> well >>> as single payer supporter. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>> > wrote: >>> >>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>> IL-13. >>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>> >>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, >>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking >>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm >>> elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel >>> into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>> >>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>> administration >>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>> Congress. >>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>> >>> >>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Robert, >>> >>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>> candidate. >>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>> >>> Niloofar >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>> > wrote: >>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>> >>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>> Londrigan. >>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >>> Londrigan in a walk. >>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on >>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>> Emily's List. >>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>> general. >>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count >>> this as a strong plus. >>> >>> _______________________ >>> >>> > > > From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 14:39:48 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:39:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <08809A67-3532-4E62-9DF5-1F2F41547809@illinois.edu> Although the public is opposed to US wars in the Mideast (as it was 50 years ago, in Vietnam) the electoral system, then as now, makes it almost impossible to cast an anti-war vote for Congress. That’s the case here in C-U this year, where the choices are Democrat Londrigan or Republican Davis. But it’s worthwhile to vote against the Democrats, who are duplicitously ('Russiagate’) pushing a nominally Republican president into further war provocations against a nuclear-armed Russia. "Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th," I will be voting for the Republican Davis, "because a neo-liberal war monger democrat” is a member of a party attempting to drive an erratic Republican administration away from peace overtures. John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” At the moment, the Congressional Democrats are the main “tribunes [popular leaders] of perpetual war.” Don’t help them. —CGE > On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. > > She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. > That is if she wins, which she won't. > > She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. > She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. > > The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. > > Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM > To: David Johnson > Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. > > Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). > > Deb > > > > > > On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long >> time." >> >> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >> >> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >> To: David Johnson; Peace >> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary >> (2) >> >> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture >> to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >> >> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >> >> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >> >> Idiots. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>> wrote: >>> >>> Indeed Deb, >>> >>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >>> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He >>> also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support >>> of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition >>> while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and >>> Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not >>> that he didn't have his faults. >>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>> corporate masters. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>> To: Karen Aram >>> Cc: peace >>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>> >>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >>> you are not Tim Johnson! >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>>> pressure, please name one. >>>> >>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>>> nonsense. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>> >>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>> in office. >>>> >>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>>> Russia and China. >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >>>> surely need. >>>> >>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>> >>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >>>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >>>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>> >>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>> support >>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>> well >>>> as single payer supporter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>> IL-13. >>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>> >>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >>>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, >>>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking >>>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm >>>> elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel >>>> into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>> >>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>> administration >>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>> Congress. >>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Robert, >>>> >>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>> candidate. >>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>> >>>> Niloofar >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>> > wrote: >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>> >>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>> Londrigan. >>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >>>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >>>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >>>> Londrigan in a walk. >>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >>>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >>>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on >>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>> Emily's List. >>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>> general. >>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >>>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count >>>> this as a strong plus. >>>> >>>> _______________________ >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 22 15:15:10 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 15:15:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <08809A67-3532-4E62-9DF5-1F2F41547809@illinois.edu> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <08809A67-3532-4E62-9DF5-1F2F41547809@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Carl, Pilger made that statement before the election. it’s no longer viable. Trump has capitulated on everything either the CIA or Pentagon want of him. He has handed war powers, over to the Pentagon. That which should be in the hands of Congress, not the military. Because Trump doesn’t want war with Russia or China, and says nice things, is meaningless. He is no anti-war candidate, in fact he is caving in to the neocons and Pentagons’ goal of “Iran next,” after we get Syria under control. After Iran the assumption is that Russia will be a piece of cake, I suppose. China is long term, and covert, thats where the CIA comes in, and always has. Hence the disagreements between our two “murder organizations,” that of the CIA and Pentagon. Trump is just floundering around between the two. His move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, his meeting recently with the Saudi Prince in DC with millions more in sales of arms, are just two of his recent “peace initiatives?” Yes, the Democrats only care about the next election, and are behind Russiagate, and yes they want to impeach Trump because Pence is easier to manipulate, like Obama, but to excuse the Republicans or to equate them with “peace loving government representatives?” Total nonsense, and you know better. Just because liberals and Democrats refuse to acknowledge that their Representatives, and President Obama are equally guilty of war crimes, if not more so if focusing on the body count, foreign body count and nation destruction, and Republicans may support your personal values, they sure as hell don’t support peace. You know full well, “foreign policy” continues unabated with perpetual war, no matter which of the two party’s are in power. Imperialism is the final stage of capitalism, and the US and Europe is there now. Asia no, so they are on the rise, for now. Every single one of our Representatives in DC but for a very few, is guilty of war crimes, along with mainstream media, and should be tried according to International Law, if not just our own laws. Let us not forget 2003 and Iraq, which was only the beginning. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 07:39, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Although the public is opposed to US wars in the Mideast (as it was 50 years ago, in Vietnam) the electoral system, then as now, makes it almost impossible to cast an anti-war vote for Congress. > > That’s the case here in C-U this year, where the choices are Democrat Londrigan or Republican Davis. > > But it’s worthwhile to vote against the Democrats, who are duplicitously ('Russiagate’) pushing a nominally Republican president into further war provocations against a nuclear-armed Russia. > > "Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th," I will be voting for the Republican Davis, "because a neo-liberal war monger democrat” is a member of a party attempting to drive an erratic Republican administration away from peace overtures. > > John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” > > At the moment, the Congressional Democrats are the main “tribunes [popular leaders] of perpetual war.” Don’t help them. —CGE > > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >> >> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >> That is if she wins, which she won't. >> >> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >> >> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >> >> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >> To: David Johnson >> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >> >> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >> >> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >> >> Deb >> >> >> >> >> >> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long >>> time." >>> >>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>> >>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>> primary >>> (2) >>> >>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture >>> to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>> >>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>> >>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>> >>> Idiots. >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Indeed Deb, >>>> >>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >>>> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He >>>> also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support >>>> of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition >>>> while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and >>>> Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not >>>> that he didn't have his faults. >>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>>> corporate masters. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>> To: Karen Aram >>>> Cc: peace >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>> >>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >>>> you are not Tim Johnson! >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>>>> pressure, please name one. >>>>> >>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>>>> nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>> >>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>>> in office. >>>>> >>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>>>> Russia and China. >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Carl >>>>> >>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >>>>> surely need. >>>>> >>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>> >>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >>>>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >>>>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>> >>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>> support >>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>> well >>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>>> IL-13. >>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>> >>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >>>>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, >>>>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking >>>>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm >>>>> elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel >>>>> into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>> >>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>> administration >>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>>> Congress. >>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Robert, >>>>> >>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>> candidate. >>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Niloofar >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>> >>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>> Londrigan. >>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >>>>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >>>>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >>>>> Londrigan in a walk. >>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >>>>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >>>>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on >>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>> Emily's List. >>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>> general. >>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >>>>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count >>>>> this as a strong plus. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 15:59:05 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:59:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <08809A67-3532-4E62-9DF5-1F2F41547809@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Pilger’s description of the ‘war party' remains all too accurate. They're the source of ‘Russiagate,’ to encourage US belligerence. The question is how to vote in this year's Congressional election. My “personal value” is to vote against war. The system is designed to prevent that. The best we can do at the current juncture is to vote against the Democrat. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 10:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl, > > Pilger made that statement before the election. it’s no longer viable. Trump has capitulated on everything either the CIA or Pentagon want of him. He has handed war powers, over to the Pentagon. That which should be in the hands of Congress, not the military. Because Trump doesn’t want war with Russia or China, and says nice things, is meaningless. He is no anti-war candidate, in fact he is caving in to the neocons and Pentagons’ goal of “Iran next,” after we get Syria under control. After Iran the assumption is that Russia will be a piece of cake, I suppose. > > China is long term, and covert, thats where the CIA comes in, and always has. Hence the disagreements between our two “murder organizations,” that of the CIA and Pentagon. Trump is just floundering around between the two. > > His move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, his meeting recently with the Saudi Prince in DC with millions more in sales of arms, are just two of his recent “peace initiatives?” > > Yes, the Democrats only care about the next election, and are behind Russiagate, and yes they want to impeach Trump because Pence is easier to manipulate, like Obama, but to excuse the Republicans or to equate them with “peace loving government representatives?” Total nonsense, and you know better. > > Just because liberals and Democrats refuse to acknowledge that their Representatives, and President Obama are equally guilty of war crimes, if not more so if focusing on the body count, foreign body count and nation destruction, and Republicans may support your personal values, they sure as hell don’t support peace. You know full well, “foreign policy” continues unabated with perpetual war, no matter which of the two party’s are in power. > > Imperialism is the final stage of capitalism, and the US and Europe is there now. Asia no, so they are on the rise, for now. > > Every single one of our Representatives in DC but for a very few, is guilty of war crimes, along with mainstream media, and should be tried according to International Law, if not just our own laws. > > Let us not forget 2003 and Iraq, which was only the beginning. > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 07:39, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Although the public is opposed to US wars in the Mideast (as it was 50 years ago, in Vietnam) the electoral system, then as now, makes it almost impossible to cast an anti-war vote for Congress. >> >> That’s the case here in C-U this year, where the choices are Democrat Londrigan or Republican Davis. >> >> But it’s worthwhile to vote against the Democrats, who are duplicitously ('Russiagate’) pushing a nominally Republican president into further war provocations against a nuclear-armed Russia. >> >> "Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th," I will be voting for the Republican Davis, "because a neo-liberal war monger democrat” is a member of a party attempting to drive an erratic Republican administration away from peace overtures. >> >> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >> >> At the moment, the Congressional Democrats are the main “tribunes [popular leaders] of perpetual war.” Don’t help them. —CGE >> >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>> >>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>> >>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>> >>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>> >>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>> To: David Johnson >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>> >>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>> >>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long >>>> time." >>>> >>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>> >>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary >>>> (2) >>>> >>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture >>>> to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>> >>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>> >>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>> >>>> Idiots. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>> >>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >>>>> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He >>>>> also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>>>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support >>>>> of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition >>>>> while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and >>>>> Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not >>>>> that he didn't have his faults. >>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>>>> corporate masters. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>> Cc: peace >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>> >>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >>>>> you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>> >>>>> Deb >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>>>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>>>>> pressure, please name one. >>>>>> >>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>>>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>>>>> nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>>>> in office. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>>>>> Russia and China. >>>>>> >>>>>> —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>>>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >>>>>> surely need. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>>>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >>>>>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >>>>>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>> support >>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>> well >>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>>>> IL-13. >>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>> >>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >>>>>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, >>>>>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking >>>>>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm >>>>>> elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel >>>>>> into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>> administration >>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>>>> Congress. >>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>> candidate. >>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>> >>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>>>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>>>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >>>>>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >>>>>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >>>>>> Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>>>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >>>>>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >>>>>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on >>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>> general. >>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >>>>>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>>>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>>>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>>>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>>>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>>>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>>>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>>>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>>>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>>>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count >>>>>> this as a strong plus. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 16:06:14 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:06:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. Deb Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: > > Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. > > She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. > That is if she wins, which she won't. > > She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. > She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. > > The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. > > Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM > To: David Johnson > Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. > > Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). > > Deb > > > > > >> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long >> time." >> >> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >> >> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >> To: David Johnson; Peace >> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary >> (2) >> >> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture >> to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >> >> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >> >> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >> >> Idiots. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>> wrote: >>> >>> Indeed Deb, >>> >>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >>> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He >>> also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support >>> of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition >>> while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and >>> Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not >>> that he didn't have his faults. >>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>> corporate masters. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>> To: Karen Aram >>> Cc: peace >>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>> >>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >>> you are not Tim Johnson! >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>>> pressure, please name one. >>>> >>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>>> nonsense. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>> >>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>> in office. >>>> >>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>>> Russia and China. >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >>>> surely need. >>>> >>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>> >>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >>>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >>>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>> >>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>> support >>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>> well >>>> as single payer supporter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>> IL-13. >>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>> >>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >>>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, >>>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking >>>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm >>>> elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel >>>> into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>> >>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>> administration >>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>> Congress. >>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Robert, >>>> >>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>> candidate. >>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>> >>>> Niloofar >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>> > wrote: >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>> >>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>> Londrigan. >>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >>>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >>>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >>>> Londrigan in a walk. >>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >>>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >>>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on >>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>> Emily's List. >>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>> general. >>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >>>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count >>>> this as a strong plus. >>>> >>>> _______________________ >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 16:14:25 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:14:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <08809A67-3532-4E62-9DF5-1F2F41547809@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <213997A2-8263-4BBF-901A-3ED58CFD2CB9@gmail.com> Carl Given your disdain for both major party candidates for Congress, why not exercise your right to write in the candidate of your choice? In Illinois write-ins are allowed within certain parameters. Investigate those—or declare yourself a write-in candidate— and the votes will be reported in the totals. Deb Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 10:59 AM, C G Estabrook wrote: > > Pilger’s description of the ‘war party' remains all too accurate. They're the source of ‘Russiagate,’ to encourage US belligerence. > > The question is how to vote in this year's Congressional election. My “personal value” is to vote against war. > > The system is designed to prevent that. The best we can do at the current juncture is to vote against the Democrat. > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 10:15 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Carl, >> >> Pilger made that statement before the election. it’s no longer viable. Trump has capitulated on everything either the CIA or Pentagon want of him. He has handed war powers, over to the Pentagon. That which should be in the hands of Congress, not the military. Because Trump doesn’t want war with Russia or China, and says nice things, is meaningless. He is no anti-war candidate, in fact he is caving in to the neocons and Pentagons’ goal of “Iran next,” after we get Syria under control. After Iran the assumption is that Russia will be a piece of cake, I suppose. >> >> China is long term, and covert, thats where the CIA comes in, and always has. Hence the disagreements between our two “murder organizations,” that of the CIA and Pentagon. Trump is just floundering around between the two. >> >> His move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, his meeting recently with the Saudi Prince in DC with millions more in sales of arms, are just two of his recent “peace initiatives?” >> >> Yes, the Democrats only care about the next election, and are behind Russiagate, and yes they want to impeach Trump because Pence is easier to manipulate, like Obama, but to excuse the Republicans or to equate them with “peace loving government representatives?” Total nonsense, and you know better. >> >> Just because liberals and Democrats refuse to acknowledge that their Representatives, and President Obama are equally guilty of war crimes, if not more so if focusing on the body count, foreign body count and nation destruction, and Republicans may support your personal values, they sure as hell don’t support peace. You know full well, “foreign policy” continues unabated with perpetual war, no matter which of the two party’s are in power. >> >> Imperialism is the final stage of capitalism, and the US and Europe is there now. Asia no, so they are on the rise, for now. >> >> Every single one of our Representatives in DC but for a very few, is guilty of war crimes, along with mainstream media, and should be tried according to International Law, if not just our own laws. >> >> Let us not forget 2003 and Iraq, which was only the beginning. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 07:39, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Although the public is opposed to US wars in the Mideast (as it was 50 years ago, in Vietnam) the electoral system, then as now, makes it almost impossible to cast an anti-war vote for Congress. >>> >>> That’s the case here in C-U this year, where the choices are Democrat Londrigan or Republican Davis. >>> >>> But it’s worthwhile to vote against the Democrats, who are duplicitously ('Russiagate’) pushing a nominally Republican president into further war provocations against a nuclear-armed Russia. >>> >>> "Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th," I will be voting for the Republican Davis, "because a neo-liberal war monger democrat” is a member of a party attempting to drive an erratic Republican administration away from peace overtures. >>> >>> John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >>> >>> At the moment, the Congressional Democrats are the main “tribunes [popular leaders] of perpetual war.” Don’t help them. —CGE >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>>> >>>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>>> >>>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>>> >>>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>>> >>>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>>> To: David Johnson >>>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>> >>>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>>> >>>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long >>>>> time." >>>>> >>>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>>> >>>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>>> primary >>>>> (2) >>>>> >>>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture >>>>> to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>>> >>>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>>> >>>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>>> >>>>> Idiots. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >>>>>> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He >>>>>> also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>>>>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support >>>>>> of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition >>>>>> while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and >>>>>> Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not >>>>>> that he didn't have his faults. >>>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>>>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>>>>> corporate masters. >>>>>> >>>>>> David J. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>>> Cc: peace >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>>> >>>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >>>>>> you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>>> >>>>>> Deb >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>>>>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>>>>>> pressure, please name one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>>>>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>>>>>> nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>>>>> in office. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>>>>>> Russia and China. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>>>>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >>>>>>> surely need. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>>>>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >>>>>>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >>>>>>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>>> support >>>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>>>>> IL-13. >>>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >>>>>>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, >>>>>>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking >>>>>>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm >>>>>>> elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel >>>>>>> into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>>> administration >>>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>>>>> Congress. >>>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>>> candidate. >>>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>>>>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>>>>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >>>>>>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >>>>>>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >>>>>>> Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>>>>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >>>>>>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >>>>>>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on >>>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>>> general. >>>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >>>>>>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>>>>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>>>>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>>>>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>>>>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>>>>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>>>>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>>>>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>>>>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>>>>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count >>>>>>> this as a strong plus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 22 16:29:27 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:29:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> Message-ID: In defense of David Gill, I can only say, running for office while maintaining as demanding a profession as ER physician, is beyond my comprehension. I can only assume that when being confronted with opposition such as that which the DCCC puts out, must have been quite a shock, and required a decision as to what must be done under the circumstances, loyalty to patients over his candidacy. In corporate DC he would not be working as a physician, with the demands required of that position, thus freeing him to focus on the issues which he cares about. In my early life I worked in the medical field and am well aware of the responsibility required of doctors working ER. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. > > As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. > > Deb > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >> >> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >> >> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >> That is if she wins, which she won't. >> >> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >> >> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >> >> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >> To: David Johnson >> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >> >> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >> >> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >> >> Deb >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long >>> time." >>> >>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>> >>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>> primary >>> (2) >>> >>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture >>> to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>> >>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>> >>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>> >>> Idiots. >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Indeed Deb, >>>> >>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >>>> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He >>>> also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support >>>> of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition >>>> while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and >>>> Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not >>>> that he didn't have his faults. >>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>>> corporate masters. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>> To: Karen Aram >>>> Cc: peace >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>> >>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >>>> you are not Tim Johnson! >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>>>> pressure, please name one. >>>>> >>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>>>> nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>> >>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>>> in office. >>>>> >>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>>>> Russia and China. >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Carl >>>>> >>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >>>>> surely need. >>>>> >>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>> >>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >>>>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >>>>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>> >>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>> support >>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>> well >>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>>> IL-13. >>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>> >>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >>>>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, >>>>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking >>>>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm >>>>> elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel >>>>> into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>> >>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>> administration >>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>>> Congress. >>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Robert, >>>>> >>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>> candidate. >>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Niloofar >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>> >>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>> Londrigan. >>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >>>>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >>>>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >>>>> Londrigan in a walk. >>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >>>>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >>>>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on >>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>> Emily's List. >>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>> general. >>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >>>>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count >>>>> this as a strong plus. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 16:29:17 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:29:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: CIA'S WAR CRIMINAL HASPEL: Flashpoints Archives | KPFA 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: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:29 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: CIA'S WAR CRIMINAL HASPEL: Flashpoints Archives | KPFA Update on A New CIA Director! Francis 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, March 22, 2018 11:25 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Flashpoints Archives | KPFA [https://kpfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/kpfa-logo.png] Flashpoints Archives | KPFA An award winning front-line investigative news magazine focusing on human, civil and workers rights, issues of war and peace, Global Warming, racism and poverty, and other issues. Hosted by Dennis J. Bernstein. https://kpfa.org/program/flashpoints/ Sent from Mail for Windows 10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 22 16:30:27 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:30:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> Message-ID: I will likely do a “write in” and will require more information for others as well. Thanks for this tip Deb. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. > > As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. > > Deb > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >> >> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >> >> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >> That is if she wins, which she won't. >> >> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >> >> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >> >> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >> To: David Johnson >> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >> >> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >> >> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >> >> Deb >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long >>> time." >>> >>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>> >>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>> primary >>> (2) >>> >>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture >>> to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>> >>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>> >>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>> >>> Idiots. >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Indeed Deb, >>>> >>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >>>> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He >>>> also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support >>>> of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition >>>> while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and >>>> Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not >>>> that he didn't have his faults. >>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>>> corporate masters. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>> To: Karen Aram >>>> Cc: peace >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>> >>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >>>> you are not Tim Johnson! >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>>>> pressure, please name one. >>>>> >>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>>>> nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>> >>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>>> in office. >>>>> >>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>>>> Russia and China. >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Carl >>>>> >>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >>>>> surely need. >>>>> >>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>> >>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >>>>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >>>>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>> >>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>> support >>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>> well >>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>>> IL-13. >>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>> >>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >>>>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, >>>>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking >>>>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm >>>>> elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel >>>>> into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>> >>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>> administration >>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>>> Congress. >>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Robert, >>>>> >>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>> candidate. >>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Niloofar >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>> >>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>> Londrigan. >>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >>>>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >>>>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >>>>> Londrigan in a walk. >>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >>>>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >>>>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on >>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>> Emily's List. >>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>> general. >>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >>>>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count >>>>> this as a strong plus. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 16:37:12 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:37:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <96A11C1F-8ED6-46B3-B799-9C38BA586257@gmail.com> Sure. Check with IL Board of Elections but I think someone has to declare themselves a write-in candidate (at least they do for President— not entirely sure how it works for Congress ). Then the voter fills in the “write-in” bubble and writes in the name. If you abide. Y the BOE’s rules they have to count the vote and it will be reported in the official tally. If you simply do not vote for a candidate, it is recorded as an “undervote.” Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > I will likely do a “write in” and will require more information for others as well. Thanks for this tip Deb. > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >> >> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >> >> Deb >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>> >>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>> >>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>> >>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>> >>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>> To: David Johnson >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>> >>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>> >>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long >>>> time." >>>> >>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>> >>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary >>>> (2) >>>> >>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to lecture >>>> to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>> >>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>> >>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>> >>>> Idiots. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>> >>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with his >>>>> constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. He >>>>> also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>>>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in support >>>>> of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to opposition >>>>> while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the Presidency and >>>>> Congress because he was responding to citizens in his district. Not >>>>> that he didn't have his faults. >>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>>>> corporate masters. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>> Cc: peace >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>> >>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >>>>> you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>> >>>>> Deb >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>>>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>>>>> pressure, please name one. >>>>>> >>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>>>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>>>>> nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>>>> in office. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>>>>> Russia and China. >>>>>> >>>>>> —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>>>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >>>>>> surely need. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>>>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her support >>>>>> for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must be >>>>>> vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>> support >>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>> well >>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>>>> IL-13. >>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>> >>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel is >>>>>> even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, >>>>>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking >>>>>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm >>>>>> elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel >>>>>> into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>> administration >>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>>>> Congress. >>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>> candidate. >>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>> >>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>>>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>>>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. Know-it-alls >>>>>> are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what I have to say >>>>>> and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen >>>>>> Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>>>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the fact >>>>>> that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big plus >>>>>> for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely on >>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>> general. >>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money and >>>>>> help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>>>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>>>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>>>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>>>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>>>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>>>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>>>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>>>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>>>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count >>>>>> this as a strong plus. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 16:36:26 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:36:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yeah, you just have to bring a pencil and you will have to insist on your right to do a write-in with the Tellers there as I had to do. I once wrote in Mickey Mouse--the Best Candidate. Though I did not show the Tellers who was I voting for. Fab 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-discuss On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:30 AM To: Debra Schrishuhn Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) I will likely do a “write in” and will require more information for others as well. Thanks for this tip Deb. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. > > As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. > > Deb > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >> >> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >> >> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >> That is if she wins, which she won't. >> >> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >> >> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >> >> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >> To: David Johnson >> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary (2) >> >> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >> >> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >> >> Deb >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>> long time." >>> >>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>> >>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>> primary >>> (2) >>> >>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>> >>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>> >>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>> >>> Idiots. >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Indeed Deb, >>>> >>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards >>>> to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records >>>> in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to >>>> opposition while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the >>>> Presidency and Congress because he was responding to citizens in >>>> his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>>> corporate masters. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>> To: Karen Aram >>>> Cc: peace >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>> >>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>> >>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>> >>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>>> in office. >>>>> >>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Carl >>>>> >>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>> which we surely need. >>>>> >>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>> >>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>> >>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>> support >>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>> well >>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>>> IL-13. >>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>> >>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are >>>>> seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the >>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>> >>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>> administration >>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>>> Congress. >>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Robert, >>>>> >>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>> candidate. >>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Niloofar >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>> >>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>> Londrigan. >>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war >>>>> is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking >>>>> about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big >>>>> plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely >>>>> on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>> Emily's List. >>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>> general. >>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money >>>>> and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 16:38:48 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:38:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> Message-ID: The real issue here is why did the Champaign County Dems refuse to support Gill. He could have won the primary and then the general. The answer is obvious if you look at where he stands on all the issues. fab 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-discuss On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:29 AM To: Debra Schrishuhn Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In defense of David Gill, I can only say, running for office while maintaining as demanding a profession as ER physician, is beyond my comprehension. I can only assume that when being confronted with opposition such as that which the DCCC puts out, must have been quite a shock, and required a decision as to what must be done under the circumstances, loyalty to patients over his candidacy. In corporate DC he would not be working as a physician, with the demands required of that position, thus freeing him to focus on the issues which he cares about. In my early life I worked in the medical field and am well aware of the responsibility required of doctors working ER. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. > > As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. > > Deb > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >> >> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >> >> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >> That is if she wins, which she won't. >> >> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >> >> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >> >> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >> To: David Johnson >> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary (2) >> >> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >> >> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >> >> Deb >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>> long time." >>> >>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>> >>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>> primary >>> (2) >>> >>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>> >>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>> >>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>> >>> Idiots. >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Indeed Deb, >>>> >>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards >>>> to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records >>>> in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to >>>> opposition while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the >>>> Presidency and Congress because he was responding to citizens in >>>> his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>>> corporate masters. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>> To: Karen Aram >>>> Cc: peace >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>> >>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>> >>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>> >>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>>> in office. >>>>> >>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Carl >>>>> >>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>> which we surely need. >>>>> >>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>> >>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>> >>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>> support >>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>> well >>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>>> IL-13. >>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>> >>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are >>>>> seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the >>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>> >>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>> administration >>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>>> Congress. >>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Robert, >>>>> >>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>> candidate. >>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Niloofar >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>> >>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>> Londrigan. >>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war >>>>> is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking >>>>> about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big >>>>> plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely >>>>> on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>> Emily's List. >>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>> general. >>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money >>>>> and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 16:40:35 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:40:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <96A11C1F-8ED6-46B3-B799-9C38BA586257@gmail.com> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <96A11C1F-8ED6-46B3-B799-9C38BA586257@gmail.com> Message-ID: It is your right to write in anyone you want to, but you will have to insist upon it with the censorious Tellers. Again, I wrote in Mickey Mouse--The Best Candidate available. But you will have to bring your own pencil. Fab. 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-discuss On Behalf Of Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:37 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) Sure. Check with IL Board of Elections but I think someone has to declare themselves a write-in candidate (at least they do for President— not entirely sure how it works for Congress ). Then the voter fills in the “write-in” bubble and writes in the name. If you abide. Y the BOE’s rules they have to count the vote and it will be reported in the official tally. If you simply do not vote for a candidate, it is recorded as an “undervote.” Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > I will likely do a “write in” and will require more information for others as well. Thanks for this tip Deb. > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >> >> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >> >> Deb >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>> >>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>> >>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>> >>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>> >>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>> To: David Johnson >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>> primary (2) >>> >>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>> >>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>> long time." >>>> >>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>> >>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary >>>> (2) >>>> >>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>> >>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>> >>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>> >>>> Idiots. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>> >>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards >>>>> to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting >>>>> records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war >>>>> in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still >>>>> controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding >>>>> to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t >>>>> care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand >>>>> of his corporate masters. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>> Cc: peace >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>> >>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>> >>>>> Deb >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change >>>>>> his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer >>>>>> a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>> >>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and >>>>>> changed in office. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - >>>>>> while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>>> >>>>>> —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just >>>>>> wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of >>>>>> our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now >>>>>> told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>> support >>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>> well >>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress >>>>>> in IL-13. >>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions >>>>>> that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>> >>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] >>>>>> are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in >>>>>> the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>> administration >>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats >>>>>> for Congress. >>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - >>>>>> a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>> candidate. >>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic >>>>>> "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even >>>>>> support a national health care system (improved medicare for >>>>>> all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>> >>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I >>>>>> went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, >>>>>> knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened >>>>>> to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this >>>>>> war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first >>>>>> time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was >>>>>> talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical >>>>>> matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick >>>>>> Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very >>>>>> frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the >>>>>> Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a >>>>>> big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can >>>>>> rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>> general. >>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if >>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be >>>>>> all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot >>>>>> of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu Mar 22 16:49:37 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:49:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <96A11C1F-8ED6-46B3-B799-9C38BA586257@gmail.com> Message-ID: While I appreciate your humor and sarcasm, Francis, :) I would prefer supporting and writing in a “legitimate” candidate, and I’ll bet others would also. So, they do have to declare a candidacy, thats all? If they have to get thousands upon thousands of signatures forget it. I’ll see if I can get “David Green” to declare his candidacy as he did previously on behalf of the local Green Party. Many, like myself, who prefer voting to not voting, knowing that many died to achieve this right, elsewhere in the world, even if we have no longer have faith in the US electoral system. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:40, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > It is your right to write in anyone you want to, but you will have to insist upon it with the censorious Tellers. Again, I wrote in Mickey Mouse--The Best Candidate available. But you will have to bring your own pencil. Fab. > > 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-discuss On Behalf Of Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:37 AM > To: Karen Aram > Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > Sure. Check with IL Board of Elections but I think someone has to declare themselves a write-in candidate (at least they do for President— not entirely sure how it works for Congress ). Then the voter fills in the “write-in” bubble and writes in the name. If you abide. Y the BOE’s rules they have to count the vote and it will be reported in the official tally. If you simply do not vote for a candidate, it is recorded as an “undervote.” > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> I will likely do a “write in” and will require more information for others as well. Thanks for this tip Deb. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >>> >>> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>>> >>>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>>> >>>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>>> >>>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>>> >>>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>>> To: David Johnson >>>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary (2) >>>> >>>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>>> >>>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>>> long time." >>>>> >>>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>>> >>>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>>> primary >>>>> (2) >>>>> >>>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>>> >>>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>>> >>>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>>> >>>>> Idiots. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards >>>>>> to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting >>>>>> records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war >>>>>> in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still >>>>>> controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding >>>>>> to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t >>>>>> care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand >>>>>> of his corporate masters. >>>>>> >>>>>> David J. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>>> Cc: peace >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>>> >>>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>>> >>>>>> Deb >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change >>>>>>> his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer >>>>>>> a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and >>>>>>> changed in office. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - >>>>>>> while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just >>>>>>> wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of >>>>>>> our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now >>>>>>> told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>>> support >>>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress >>>>>>> in IL-13. >>>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions >>>>>>> that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] >>>>>>> are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in >>>>>>> the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>>> administration >>>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats >>>>>>> for Congress. >>>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - >>>>>>> a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>>> candidate. >>>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic >>>>>>> "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even >>>>>>> support a national health care system (improved medicare for >>>>>>> all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I >>>>>>> went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, >>>>>>> knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened >>>>>>> to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this >>>>>>> war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first >>>>>>> time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was >>>>>>> talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical >>>>>>> matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick >>>>>>> Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very >>>>>>> frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the >>>>>>> Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a >>>>>>> big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can >>>>>>> rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>>> general. >>>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if >>>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be >>>>>>> all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot >>>>>>> of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 16:50:05 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:50:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] CIA'S WAR CRIMINAL HASPEL: Flashpoints Archives | KPFA Message-ID: You should be able to hear me condemn Berkeley Law in no uncertain terms because they gave their most prestigious chair to John Yoo, Killer Koh’s Pooh. Well guess what? The University of Illiniwaks are bringing in Dean Chemerinsky of Berkeley Law who is Deaning Killer Koh’s Pooh and the rest of the Berkeley Law Faculty Cesspool in order to rescue Chief Illiniwak: “Dean of Killer Koh’s Pooh to the Rescue of Chief Illiniwak!” How’s that for a Headline in the pro-Mussolini/Eugenics News Gazoo. Fab Francis 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, March 22, 2018 11:29 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: FW: CIA'S WAR CRIMINAL HASPEL: Flashpoints Archives | KPFA Francis 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, March 22, 2018 11:29 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: CIA'S WAR CRIMINAL HASPEL: Flashpoints Archives | KPFA Update on A New CIA Director! Francis 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, March 22, 2018 11:25 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Flashpoints Archives | KPFA [https://kpfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/kpfa-logo.png] Flashpoints Archives | KPFA An award winning front-line investigative news magazine focusing on human, civil and workers rights, issues of war and peace, Global Warming, racism and poverty, and other issues. Hosted by Dennis J. Bernstein. https://kpfa.org/program/flashpoints/ Sent from Mail for Windows 10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 16:53:15 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:53:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <9F1698C2-4DBC-4395-8370-0CF5B8EFB935@gmail.com> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <9F1698C2-4DBC-4395-8370-0CF5B8EFB935@gmail.com> Message-ID: That was probably mine, but I had to insist upon my right to do a write-in with the Tellers, telling them I was a law professor and bringing my own pencil. Did you report Mickey Mouse in the tallies? I want to know if my vote for Mickey Mouse counted. fab 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: Debra Schrishuhn Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:40 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) Hey, I think I saw that vote—or another Mickey Mouse voter—when I was auditing the votes as a poll watcher in 2016. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:36 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > Yeah, you just have to bring a pencil and you will have to insist on your right to do a write-in with the Tellers there as I had to do. I once wrote in Mickey Mouse--the Best Candidate. Though I did not show the Tellers who was I voting for. > Fab > > > 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-discuss On > Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:30 AM > To: Debra Schrishuhn > Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's > primary (2) > > I will likely do a “write in” and will require more information for others as well. Thanks for this tip Deb. > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >> >> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >> >> Deb >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>> >>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>> >>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>> >>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>> >>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>> To: David Johnson >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>> primary (2) >>> >>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>> >>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>> long time." >>>> >>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>> >>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary >>>> (2) >>>> >>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>> >>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>> >>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>> >>>> Idiots. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>> >>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards >>>>> to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting >>>>> records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war >>>>> in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still >>>>> controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding >>>>> to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t >>>>> care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand >>>>> of his corporate masters. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>> Cc: peace >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>> >>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>> >>>>> Deb >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change >>>>>> his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer >>>>>> a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>> >>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and >>>>>> changed in office. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - >>>>>> while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>>> >>>>>> —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just >>>>>> wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of >>>>>> our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now >>>>>> told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>> support >>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>> well >>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress >>>>>> in IL-13. >>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions >>>>>> that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>> >>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] >>>>>> are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in >>>>>> the >>>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>> administration >>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats >>>>>> for Congress. >>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - >>>>>> a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>> candidate. >>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic >>>>>> "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even >>>>>> support a national health care system (improved medicare for >>>>>> all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>> >>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I >>>>>> went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, >>>>>> knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened >>>>>> to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this >>>>>> war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first >>>>>> time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was >>>>>> talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical >>>>>> matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick >>>>>> Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very >>>>>> frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the >>>>>> Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a >>>>>> big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can >>>>>> rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>> general. >>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if >>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be >>>>>> all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot >>>>>> of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Mar 22 17:05:33 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:05:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00f501d3c1ff$fd907380$f8b15a80$@comcast.net> Really ? Then why was it the DNC did nothing for Gill in terms of GOTV ( Get Out the Vote ) money and staff resources in 2012 ? If he had " caved " then the DNC would have been happy and provided him what he needed. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:06 AM To: David Johnson Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. Deb Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: > > Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. > > She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. > That is if she wins, which she won't. > > She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. > She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. > > The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. > > Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM > To: David Johnson > Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's > primary (2) > > Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. > > Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). > > Deb > > > > > >> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >> long time." >> >> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >> >> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >> To: David Johnson; Peace >> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary >> (2) >> >> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >> >> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >> >> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >> >> Idiots. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>> wrote: >>> >>> Indeed Deb, >>> >>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. >>> He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in >>> support of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to >>> opposition while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the >>> Presidency and Congress because he was responding to citizens in his >>> district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>> corporate masters. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>> To: Karen Aram >>> Cc: peace >>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>> >>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >>> you are not Tim Johnson! >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>>> pressure, please name one. >>>> >>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>>> nonsense. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>> >>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>> in office. >>>> >>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>>> Russia and China. >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >>>> surely need. >>>> >>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>> >>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must >>>> be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>> >>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>> support >>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>> well >>>> as single payer supporter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>> IL-13. >>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>> >>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, >>>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking >>>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 >>>> midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence >>>> personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>> >>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>> administration >>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>> Congress. >>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Robert, >>>> >>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>> candidate. >>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>> >>>> Niloofar >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>> > wrote: >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>> >>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>> Londrigan. >>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what >>>> I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's >>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big >>>> plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely >>>> on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>> Emily's List. >>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>> general. >>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money >>>> and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count >>>> this as a strong plus. >>>> >>>> _______________________ >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 17:10:38 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:10:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <016271F0-17F0-4C37-A37C-3AD429F3A3B3@gmail.com> First of all, Champaign County Democrats rarely endorse candidates in primaries and the Executive Committee decides not to make any endorsements this cycle. Second, support for Gill, Londrigan, Jones , and Ebel was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Central Committee. Third, Gill lost in presidential year and the bar is considerably higher in a midterm. Fourth, a number of former Gill supporters have noticed that he only has time for progressive issues when he is running for office. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > The real issue here is why did the Champaign County Dems refuse to support Gill. He could have won the primary and then the general. The answer is obvious if you look at where he stands on all the issues. > fab > > 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-discuss On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:29 AM > To: Debra Schrishuhn > Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > In defense of David Gill, I can only say, running for office while maintaining as demanding a profession as ER physician, is beyond my comprehension. I can only assume that when being confronted with opposition such as that which the DCCC puts out, must have been quite a shock, and required a decision as to what must be done under the circumstances, loyalty to patients over his candidacy. > > In corporate DC he would not be working as a physician, with the demands required of that position, thus freeing him to focus on the issues which he cares about. > > In my early life I worked in the medical field and am well aware of the responsibility required of doctors working ER. > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >> >> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >> >> Deb >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>> >>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>> >>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>> >>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>> >>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>> To: David Johnson >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>> primary (2) >>> >>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>> >>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>> long time." >>>> >>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>> >>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary >>>> (2) >>>> >>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>> >>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>> >>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>> >>>> Idiots. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>> >>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards >>>>> to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records >>>>> in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to >>>>> opposition while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the >>>>> Presidency and Congress because he was responding to citizens in >>>>> his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>>>> corporate masters. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>> Cc: peace >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>> >>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>> >>>>> Deb >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>> >>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>>>> in office. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>>> >>>>>> —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>> support >>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>> well >>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>>>> IL-13. >>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>> >>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are >>>>>> seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the >>>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>> administration >>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>>>> Congress. >>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>> candidate. >>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>> >>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war >>>>>> is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking >>>>>> about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big >>>>>> plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely >>>>>> on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>> general. >>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money >>>>>> and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 17:14:43 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:14:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <9F1698C2-4DBC-4395-8370-0CF5B8EFB935@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6B22687E-FD79-4DA4-8C31-6ED02073E483@gmail.com> No, because Mickey had not previously declared himself to be a write-in candidate. As I said, check the regs with IBOE. They are the authority on how properly to lodge a write-in campaign/vote. Deb Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > That was probably mine, but I had to insist upon my right to do a write-in with the Tellers, telling them I was a law professor and bringing my own pencil. Did you report Mickey Mouse in the tallies? > I want to know if my vote for Mickey Mouse counted. > > fab > > 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: Debra Schrishuhn > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:40 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > Hey, I think I saw that vote—or another Mickey Mouse voter—when I was auditing the votes as a poll watcher in 2016. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:36 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Yeah, you just have to bring a pencil and you will have to insist on your right to do a write-in with the Tellers there as I had to do. I once wrote in Mickey Mouse--the Best Candidate. Though I did not show the Tellers who was I voting for. >> Fab >> >> >> 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-discuss On >> Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:30 AM >> To: Debra Schrishuhn >> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary (2) >> >> I will likely do a “write in” and will require more information for others as well. Thanks for this tip Deb. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >>> >>> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>>> >>>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>>> >>>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>>> >>>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>>> >>>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>>> To: David Johnson >>>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary (2) >>>> >>>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>>> >>>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>>> long time." >>>>> >>>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>>> >>>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>>> primary >>>>> (2) >>>>> >>>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>>> >>>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>>> >>>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>>> >>>>> Idiots. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards >>>>>> to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting >>>>>> records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war >>>>>> in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still >>>>>> controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding >>>>>> to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t >>>>>> care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand >>>>>> of his corporate masters. >>>>>> >>>>>> David J. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>>> Cc: peace >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>>> >>>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>>> >>>>>> Deb >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change >>>>>>> his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer >>>>>>> a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and >>>>>>> changed in office. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - >>>>>>> while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just >>>>>>> wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of >>>>>>> our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now >>>>>>> told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>>> support >>>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress >>>>>>> in IL-13. >>>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions >>>>>>> that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] >>>>>>> are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>>> administration >>>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats >>>>>>> for Congress. >>>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - >>>>>>> a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>>> candidate. >>>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic >>>>>>> "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even >>>>>>> support a national health care system (improved medicare for >>>>>>> all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I >>>>>>> went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, >>>>>>> knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened >>>>>>> to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this >>>>>>> war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first >>>>>>> time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was >>>>>>> talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical >>>>>>> matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick >>>>>>> Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very >>>>>>> frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the >>>>>>> Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a >>>>>>> big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can >>>>>>> rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>>> general. >>>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if >>>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be >>>>>>> all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot >>>>>>> of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Mar 22 17:26:37 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:26:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00fa01d3c202$ef017690$cd0463b0$@comcast.net> That type of attitude is part of the reason why we are in the mess we are currently in, that being , voting for any democrat regardless how bad they are. Bill Clinton and other corporate dems perfected and named this strategy during the 1980's - " Triangulation " - in essence we don't care what our base thinks, we will please our corporate donors because the corporate donors will retaliate against us if we don't do what they want, where are base has no alternative but to vote for us. I thought there was supposed to be a " revolution " within the Democratic party ? You don't make a revolution by collaborating with the enemy by supporting corporate Democrats. What needs to be done by those who believe that a revolution in the Democratic party is both possible and desirable is to immediately upon the election of a corporate Dem in the primary, begin recruiting someone to run against them in the general election as an independent or a Green, etc. REGARDLESS if there is a possibility of a Republican getting elected. That would send a message and build a movement focusing on ONLY supporting candidates who will fight corporate special interests. You have to hand it to the ruling class in this country. Through their corporate owned media and other means they have many people so brain washed that they will vote for people who have no intentions of representing the people or making change for the better. In addition to falling for a " horse race" mindset that I have heard time and time again during the Dem primaries - " Oh he/ she can't win, vote for someone who has a chance". That is what was done to Kucinich in the 2008 primary in benefit of Obama. And look how that turned out. As opposed to fighting like hell for the best candidate and then if they lose force concessions from the winner or the winner will face the consequences in the general election running against an anti-corporate independent in a three way race. The lesser of two evils strategy has gotten us nowhere, while the corporate ruling class is laughing all the way to the bank. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:06 AM To: David Johnson Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. Deb Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: > > Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. > > She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. > That is if she wins, which she won't. > > She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. > She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. > > The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. > > Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM > To: David Johnson > Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's > primary (2) > > Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. > > Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). > > Deb > > > > > >> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >> long time." >> >> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >> >> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >> To: David Johnson; Peace >> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary >> (2) >> >> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >> >> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >> >> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >> >> Idiots. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>> wrote: >>> >>> Indeed Deb, >>> >>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. >>> He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in >>> support of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to >>> opposition while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the >>> Presidency and Congress because he was responding to citizens in his >>> district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>> corporate masters. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>> To: Karen Aram >>> Cc: peace >>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>> >>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >>> you are not Tim Johnson! >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>>> pressure, please name one. >>>> >>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>>> nonsense. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>> >>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>> in office. >>>> >>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>>> Russia and China. >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >>>> surely need. >>>> >>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>> >>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must >>>> be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>> >>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>> support >>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>> well >>>> as single payer supporter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>> IL-13. >>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>> >>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, >>>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking >>>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 >>>> midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence >>>> personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>> >>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>> administration >>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>> Congress. >>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Robert, >>>> >>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>> candidate. >>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>> >>>> Niloofar >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>> > wrote: >>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>> >>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>> Londrigan. >>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what >>>> I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's >>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big >>>> plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely >>>> on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>> Emily's List. >>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>> general. >>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money >>>> and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count >>>> this as a strong plus. >>>> >>>> _______________________ >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 17:27:24 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:27:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <6B22687E-FD79-4DA4-8C31-6ED02073E483@gmail.com> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <9F1698C2-4DBC-4395-8370-0CF5B8EFB935@gmail.com> <6B22687E-FD79-4DA4-8C31-6ED02073E483@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ok. Thanks. Well you can write-in Mickey anyway if you want to, though the censorious Tellers will try to discourage a write-in vote as they did to me. Fab. 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: Debra Schrishuhn Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:15 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) No, because Mickey had not previously declared himself to be a write-in candidate. As I said, check the regs with IBOE. They are the authority on how properly to lodge a write-in campaign/vote. Deb Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > That was probably mine, but I had to insist upon my right to do a write-in with the Tellers, telling them I was a law professor and bringing my own pencil. Did you report Mickey Mouse in the tallies? > I want to know if my vote for Mickey Mouse counted. > > fab > > 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: Debra Schrishuhn > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:40 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's > primary (2) > > Hey, I think I saw that vote—or another Mickey Mouse voter—when I was auditing the votes as a poll watcher in 2016. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:36 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> Yeah, you just have to bring a pencil and you will have to insist on your right to do a write-in with the Tellers there as I had to do. I once wrote in Mickey Mouse--the Best Candidate. Though I did not show the Tellers who was I voting for. >> Fab >> >> >> 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-discuss On >> Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:30 AM >> To: Debra Schrishuhn >> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary (2) >> >> I will likely do a “write in” and will require more information for others as well. Thanks for this tip Deb. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >>> >>> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>>> >>>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>>> >>>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>>> >>>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>>> >>>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>>> To: David Johnson >>>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary (2) >>>> >>>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>>> >>>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>>> long time." >>>>> >>>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>>> >>>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>>> primary >>>>> (2) >>>>> >>>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>>> >>>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>>> >>>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>>> >>>>> Idiots. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in >>>>>> regards to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable >>>>>> voting records in support of Unions . He changed his support of >>>>>> the war in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans >>>>>> still controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was >>>>>> responding to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t >>>>>> care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand >>>>>> of his corporate masters. >>>>>> >>>>>> David J. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf >>>>>> Of Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>>> Cc: peace >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>>> >>>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate >>>>>> lines >>>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>>> >>>>>> Deb >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change >>>>>>> his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would >>>>>>> prefer a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has >>>>>>> already had the opportunity to change his mind on many things >>>>>>> due to constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and >>>>>>> changed in office. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - >>>>>>> while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war >>>>>>> provocations against Russia and China. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people >>>>>>> to “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I >>>>>>> suppose you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just >>>>>>> wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of >>>>>>> our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now >>>>>>> told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given >>>>>>> her support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though >>>>>>> we must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>>> support >>>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress >>>>>>> in IL-13. >>>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions >>>>>>> that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support >>>>>>> US war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but >>>>>>> Ebel is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary >>>>>>> number of former intelligence and military operatives from the >>>>>>> CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department >>>>>>> [who] are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for >>>>>>> Congress in the >>>>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>>> administration >>>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats >>>>>>> for Congress. >>>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - >>>>>>> a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of >>>>>>> his predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and >>>>>>> turn against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an >>>>>>> establishment candidate. >>>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic >>>>>>> "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even >>>>>>> support a national health care system (improved medicare for >>>>>>> all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I >>>>>>> went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, >>>>>>> knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened >>>>>>> to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this >>>>>>> war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first >>>>>>> time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was >>>>>>> talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that >>>>>>> criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical >>>>>>> matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick >>>>>>> Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very >>>>>>> frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the >>>>>>> Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging >>>>>>> me and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that >>>>>>> Tammy Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. >>>>>>> So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person >>>>>>> is a big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that >>>>>>> I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List >>>>>>> in general. >>>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if >>>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be >>>>>>> all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a >>>>>>> lot of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and >>>>>>> we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while >>>>>>> I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, >>>>>>> and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly >>>>>>> wonderful to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything >>>>>>> else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Mar 22 17:29:37 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:29:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <016271F0-17F0-4C37-A37C-3AD429F3A3B3@gmail.com> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <016271F0-17F0-4C37-A37C-3AD429F3A3B3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <010501d3c203$5a2ff860$0e8fe920$@comcast.net> " Fourth, a number of former Gill supporters have noticed that he only has time for progressive issues when he is running for office. " Can you elaborate a little on this Deb ? What do you define as " progressive issues " ? As opposed to what other issues ? David j. -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:11 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net); Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) First of all, Champaign County Democrats rarely endorse candidates in primaries and the Executive Committee decides not to make any endorsements this cycle. Second, support for Gill, Londrigan, Jones , and Ebel was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Central Committee. Third, Gill lost in presidential year and the bar is considerably higher in a midterm. Fourth, a number of former Gill supporters have noticed that he only has time for progressive issues when he is running for office. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > The real issue here is why did the Champaign County Dems refuse to support Gill. He could have won the primary and then the general. The answer is obvious if you look at where he stands on all the issues. > fab > > 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-discuss On > Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:29 AM > To: Debra Schrishuhn > Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's > primary (2) > > In defense of David Gill, I can only say, running for office while maintaining as demanding a profession as ER physician, is beyond my comprehension. I can only assume that when being confronted with opposition such as that which the DCCC puts out, must have been quite a shock, and required a decision as to what must be done under the circumstances, loyalty to patients over his candidacy. > > In corporate DC he would not be working as a physician, with the demands required of that position, thus freeing him to focus on the issues which he cares about. > > In my early life I worked in the medical field and am well aware of the responsibility required of doctors working ER. > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >> >> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >> >> Deb >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>> >>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>> >>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>> >>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>> >>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>> To: David Johnson >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>> primary (2) >>> >>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>> >>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>> long time." >>>> >>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>> >>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary >>>> (2) >>>> >>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>> >>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>> >>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>> >>>> Idiots. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>> >>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards >>>>> to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting >>>>> records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war >>>>> in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still >>>>> controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding >>>>> to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t >>>>> care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand >>>>> of his corporate masters. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>> Cc: peace >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>> >>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>> >>>>> Deb >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change >>>>>> his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer >>>>>> a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>> >>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and >>>>>> changed in office. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - >>>>>> while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>>> >>>>>> —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just >>>>>> wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of >>>>>> our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now >>>>>> told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>> support >>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>> well >>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress >>>>>> in IL-13. >>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions >>>>>> that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>> >>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] >>>>>> are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in >>>>>> the >>>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>> administration >>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats >>>>>> for Congress. >>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - >>>>>> a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>> candidate. >>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic >>>>>> "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even >>>>>> support a national health care system (improved medicare for >>>>>> all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>> >>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I >>>>>> went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, >>>>>> knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened >>>>>> to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this >>>>>> war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first >>>>>> time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was >>>>>> talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical >>>>>> matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick >>>>>> Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very >>>>>> frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the >>>>>> Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a >>>>>> big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can >>>>>> rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>> general. >>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if >>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be >>>>>> all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot >>>>>> of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 17:29:52 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:29:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <00f501d3c1ff$fd907380$f8b15a80$@comcast.net> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <00f501d3c1ff$fd907380$f8b15a80$@comcast.net> Message-ID: It is more complex than that. They did help him raise over 1 million dollars—significant amounts from Durbin and Rahm Emanuel donors— oh, and Cheri Bustos, too. They replaced his local staffers with DCCC people. After Mike Richards was made to resign a few weeks before the general election, they brought in a California lawyer to run his campaign. As I recall his campaign treasurer and interns were all DCCC people. The only local survivor was a young man I hired during the primary, who went on to be a DCCC-friendly political operative elsewhere in the country. For the record, the DNC rarely gets involved in Congressional campaigns, leaving that to the DCCC. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:05 PM, David Johnson wrote: > > Really ? > > Then why was it the DNC did nothing for Gill in terms of GOTV ( Get Out the Vote ) money and staff resources in 2012 ? > If he had " caved " then the DNC would have been happy and provided him what he needed. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:06 AM > To: David Johnson > Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. > > As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. > > Deb > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >> >> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >> >> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >> That is if she wins, which she won't. >> >> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >> >> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >> >> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >> To: David Johnson >> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary (2) >> >> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >> >> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >> >> Deb >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>> long time." >>> >>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>> >>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>> primary >>> (2) >>> >>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>> >>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>> >>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>> >>> Idiots. >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Indeed Deb, >>>> >>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. >>>> He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in >>>> support of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to >>>> opposition while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the >>>> Presidency and Congress because he was responding to citizens in his >>>> district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>>> corporate masters. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>> To: Karen Aram >>>> Cc: peace >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>> >>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney Davis, >>>> you are not Tim Johnson! >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had the >>>>> opportunity to change his mind on many things due to constituency >>>>> pressure, please name one. >>>>> >>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, and >>>>> war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is sheer >>>>> nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>> >>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>>> in office. >>>>> >>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations against >>>>> Russia and China. >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Carl >>>>> >>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican colors, >>>>> or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, which we >>>>> surely need. >>>>> >>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose you >>>>> think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>> >>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we must >>>>> be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>> >>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>> support >>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>> well >>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>>> IL-13. >>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>> >>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, >>>>> National Security Council and State Department [who] are seeking >>>>> nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 >>>>> midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence >>>>> personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>> >>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>> administration >>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>>> Congress. >>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Robert, >>>>> >>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>> candidate. >>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Niloofar >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>> >>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>> Londrigan. >>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war is >>>>> different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking about; >>>>> but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw her, >>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to what >>>>> I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, it's >>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed by >>>>> Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big >>>>> plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely >>>>> on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>> Emily's List. >>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>> general. >>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money >>>>> and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our Illinois >>>>> Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I have to >>>>> support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to the >>>>> runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best candidate >>>>> anyway. She points out that only three members of our current >>>>> delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we should >>>>> change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I certainly >>>>> wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and I wouldn't >>>>> want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful to have this >>>>> criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's true, I count >>>>> this as a strong plus. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 17:30:29 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:30:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] MICKEY FOR 2020!: Mickey Mouse Club -Alma Mater- Song 1950 Mouseketeers - YouTube 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: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:30 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Mickey Mouse Club -Alma Mater- Song 1950 Mouseketeers - YouTube Mickey Mouse Club -Alma Mater- Song 1950 Mouseketeers - YouTube Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJg1hA1Q-8w Sent from Mail for Windows 10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Mar 22 17:31:58 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:31:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <00f501d3c1ff$fd907380$f8b15a80$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <010701d3c203$ae5b0f10$0b112d30$@comcast.net> If that is the case, then why did Gill go off on the Democratic party at the Champaign County Democratic dinner immediately before the general election ? David J. -----Original Message----- From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:30 PM To: David Johnson Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) It is more complex than that. They did help him raise over 1 million dollars—significant amounts from Durbin and Rahm Emanuel donors— oh, and Cheri Bustos, too. They replaced his local staffers with DCCC people. After Mike Richards was made to resign a few weeks before the general election, they brought in a California lawyer to run his campaign. As I recall his campaign treasurer and interns were all DCCC people. The only local survivor was a young man I hired during the primary, who went on to be a DCCC-friendly political operative elsewhere in the country. For the record, the DNC rarely gets involved in Congressional campaigns, leaving that to the DCCC. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:05 PM, David Johnson wrote: > > Really ? > > Then why was it the DNC did nothing for Gill in terms of GOTV ( Get Out the Vote ) money and staff resources in 2012 ? > If he had " caved " then the DNC would have been happy and provided him what he needed. > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:06 AM > To: David Johnson > Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's > primary (2) > > I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. > > As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. > > Deb > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >> >> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >> >> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >> That is if she wins, which she won't. >> >> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >> >> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >> >> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >> To: David Johnson >> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary (2) >> >> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >> >> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >> >> Deb >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>> long time." >>> >>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>> >>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>> primary >>> (2) >>> >>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>> >>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>> >>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>> >>> Idiots. >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Indeed Deb, >>>> >>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. >>>> He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in >>>> support of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to >>>> opposition while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the >>>> Presidency and Congress because he was responding to citizens in >>>> his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>>> corporate masters. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>> To: Karen Aram >>>> Cc: peace >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>> >>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>> >>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>> >>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>>> in office. >>>>> >>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Carl >>>>> >>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>> which we surely need. >>>>> >>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>> >>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>> >>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>> support >>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>> well >>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>>> IL-13. >>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>> >>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are >>>>> seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the >>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>> >>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>> administration >>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>>> Congress. >>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Robert, >>>>> >>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>> candidate. >>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Niloofar >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>> >>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>> Londrigan. >>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war >>>>> is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking >>>>> about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big >>>>> plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely >>>>> on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>> Emily's List. >>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>> general. >>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money >>>>> and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 17:41:50 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:41:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <010501d3c203$5a2ff860$0e8fe920$@comcast.net> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <016271F0-17F0-4C37-A37C-3AD429F3A3B3@gmail.com> <010501d3c203$5a2ff860$0e8fe920$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Sure. A few examples: Pam Gronemeyer tried over and over to get him to join the IL Single-Payer Coalition without success. She invited him multiple times to speak at Medicare for All and Move to Amend rallies/events. I invited him to be featured speaker at an Equal Rights Amendment event in Urbana, and gave him heads-ups on a number of other local and regional events. After half a dozen rebuffs, I gave up. He started coming to rallies and events when he started running again for Congress. Deb Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:29 PM, David Johnson wrote: > > " Fourth, a number of former Gill supporters have noticed that he only has time for progressive issues when he is running for office. " > > Can you elaborate a little on this Deb ? > > What do you define as " progressive issues " ? As opposed to what other issues ? > > David j. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:11 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net); Karen Aram > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > First of all, Champaign County Democrats rarely endorse candidates in primaries and the Executive Committee decides not to make any endorsements this cycle. > > Second, support for Gill, Londrigan, Jones , and Ebel was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Central Committee. > > Third, Gill lost in presidential year and the bar is considerably higher in a midterm. > > Fourth, a number of former Gill supporters have noticed that he only has time for progressive issues when he is running for office. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> The real issue here is why did the Champaign County Dems refuse to support Gill. He could have won the primary and then the general. The answer is obvious if you look at where he stands on all the issues. >> fab >> >> 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-discuss On >> Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:29 AM >> To: Debra Schrishuhn >> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary (2) >> >> In defense of David Gill, I can only say, running for office while maintaining as demanding a profession as ER physician, is beyond my comprehension. I can only assume that when being confronted with opposition such as that which the DCCC puts out, must have been quite a shock, and required a decision as to what must be done under the circumstances, loyalty to patients over his candidacy. >> >> In corporate DC he would not be working as a physician, with the demands required of that position, thus freeing him to focus on the issues which he cares about. >> >> In my early life I worked in the medical field and am well aware of the responsibility required of doctors working ER. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >>> >>> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>>> >>>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>>> >>>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>>> >>>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>>> >>>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>>> To: David Johnson >>>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary (2) >>>> >>>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>>> >>>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>>> long time." >>>>> >>>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>>> >>>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>>> primary >>>>> (2) >>>>> >>>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>>> >>>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>>> >>>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>>> >>>>> Idiots. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards >>>>>> to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting >>>>>> records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war >>>>>> in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still >>>>>> controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding >>>>>> to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t >>>>>> care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand >>>>>> of his corporate masters. >>>>>> >>>>>> David J. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>>> Cc: peace >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>>> >>>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>>> >>>>>> Deb >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change >>>>>>> his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer >>>>>>> a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and >>>>>>> changed in office. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - >>>>>>> while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just >>>>>>> wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of >>>>>>> our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now >>>>>>> told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>>> support >>>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress >>>>>>> in IL-13. >>>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions >>>>>>> that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] >>>>>>> are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>>> administration >>>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats >>>>>>> for Congress. >>>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - >>>>>>> a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>>> candidate. >>>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic >>>>>>> "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even >>>>>>> support a national health care system (improved medicare for >>>>>>> all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I >>>>>>> went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, >>>>>>> knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened >>>>>>> to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this >>>>>>> war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first >>>>>>> time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was >>>>>>> talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical >>>>>>> matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick >>>>>>> Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very >>>>>>> frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the >>>>>>> Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a >>>>>>> big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can >>>>>>> rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>>> general. >>>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if >>>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be >>>>>>> all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot >>>>>>> of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 17:44:56 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:44:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <016271F0-17F0-4C37-A37C-3AD429F3A3B3@gmail.com> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <016271F0-17F0-4C37-A37C-3AD429F3A3B3@gmail.com> Message-ID: , support for Gill, Londrigan, Jones , and Ebel was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Central Committee. -------------------------------------------- Yeah, that's the problem right there. QED. Thanks. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Debra Schrishuhn Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:11 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) First of all, Champaign County Democrats rarely endorse candidates in primaries and the Executive Committee decides not to make any endorsements this cycle. Second, support for Gill, Londrigan, Jones , and Ebel was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Central Committee. Third, Gill lost in presidential year and the bar is considerably higher in a midterm. Fourth, a number of former Gill supporters have noticed that he only has time for progressive issues when he is running for office. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > The real issue here is why did the Champaign County Dems refuse to support Gill. He could have won the primary and then the general. The answer is obvious if you look at where he stands on all the issues. > fab > > 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-discuss On > Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:29 AM > To: Debra Schrishuhn > Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's > primary (2) > > In defense of David Gill, I can only say, running for office while maintaining as demanding a profession as ER physician, is beyond my comprehension. I can only assume that when being confronted with opposition such as that which the DCCC puts out, must have been quite a shock, and required a decision as to what must be done under the circumstances, loyalty to patients over his candidacy. > > In corporate DC he would not be working as a physician, with the demands required of that position, thus freeing him to focus on the issues which he cares about. > > In my early life I worked in the medical field and am well aware of the responsibility required of doctors working ER. > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >> >> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >> >> Deb >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>> >>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>> >>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>> >>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>> >>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>> To: David Johnson >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>> primary (2) >>> >>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>> >>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>> long time." >>>> >>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>> >>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary >>>> (2) >>>> >>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>> >>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>> >>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>> >>>> Idiots. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>> >>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards >>>>> to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting >>>>> records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war >>>>> in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still >>>>> controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding >>>>> to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t >>>>> care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand >>>>> of his corporate masters. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>> Cc: peace >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>> >>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>> >>>>> Deb >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change >>>>>> his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer >>>>>> a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>> >>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and >>>>>> changed in office. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - >>>>>> while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>>> >>>>>> —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just >>>>>> wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of >>>>>> our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now >>>>>> told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>> support >>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>> well >>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress >>>>>> in IL-13. >>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions >>>>>> that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>> >>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] >>>>>> are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in >>>>>> the >>>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>> administration >>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats >>>>>> for Congress. >>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - >>>>>> a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>> candidate. >>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic >>>>>> "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even >>>>>> support a national health care system (improved medicare for >>>>>> all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>> >>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I >>>>>> went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, >>>>>> knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened >>>>>> to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this >>>>>> war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first >>>>>> time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was >>>>>> talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical >>>>>> matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick >>>>>> Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very >>>>>> frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the >>>>>> Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a >>>>>> big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can >>>>>> rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>> general. >>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if >>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be >>>>>> all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot >>>>>> of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 17:45:24 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:45:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: <010701d3c203$ae5b0f10$0b112d30$@comcast.net> References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <00f501d3c1ff$fd907380$f8b15a80$@comcast.net> <010701d3c203$ae5b0f10$0b112d30$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <5DBA17A6-28BC-4CE3-8E9B-BB3CC1288199@gmail.com> Well, I don’t know. I was not in attendance. He had grudges against a number of the former CCDem leadership for supporting his primary rival. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:31 PM, David Johnson wrote: > > If that is the case, then why did Gill go off on the Democratic party at the Champaign County Democratic dinner immediately before the general election ? > > David J. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:30 PM > To: David Johnson > Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > It is more complex than that. They did help him raise over 1 million dollars—significant amounts from Durbin and Rahm Emanuel donors— oh, and Cheri Bustos, too. They replaced his local staffers with DCCC people. After Mike Richards was made to resign a few weeks before the general election, they brought in a California lawyer to run his campaign. > > As I recall his campaign treasurer and interns were all DCCC people. The only local survivor was a young man I hired during the primary, who went on to be a DCCC-friendly political operative elsewhere in the country. > > For the record, the DNC rarely gets involved in Congressional campaigns, leaving that to the DCCC. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:05 PM, David Johnson wrote: >> >> Really ? >> >> Then why was it the DNC did nothing for Gill in terms of GOTV ( Get Out the Vote ) money and staff resources in 2012 ? >> If he had " caved " then the DNC would have been happy and provided him what he needed. >> >> David J. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:06 AM >> To: David Johnson >> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary (2) >> >> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >> >> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >> >> Deb >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>> >>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>> >>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>> >>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>> >>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>> >>> David J. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>> To: David Johnson >>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>> primary (2) >>> >>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>> >>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>> long time." >>>> >>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>> >>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary >>>> (2) >>>> >>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>> >>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>> >>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>> >>>> Idiots. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>> >>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with problems. >>>>> He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards to civil >>>>> liberties and had one of the most favorable voting records in >>>>> support of Unions . He changed his support of the war in Iraq to >>>>> opposition while Bush and the Republicans still controlled the >>>>> Presidency and Congress because he was responding to citizens in >>>>> his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t care >>>>> what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand of his >>>>> corporate masters. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>> Cc: peace >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>> >>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>> >>>>> Deb >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change his >>>>>> mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer a >>>>>> Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>> >>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and changed >>>>>> in office. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - while >>>>>> the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>>> >>>>>> —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just wait >>>>>> for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of our >>>>>> Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now told >>>>>> Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>> support >>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>> well >>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress in >>>>>> IL-13. >>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions that >>>>>> US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>> >>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] are >>>>>> seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the >>>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>> administration >>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats for >>>>>> Congress. >>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - a >>>>>> war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>> candidate. >>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic "caring >>>>>> for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even support a >>>>>> national health care system (improved medicare for all). I hope to >>>>>> hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>> >>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I went >>>>>> to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, knowledgeable, and >>>>>> progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened to >>>>>> me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this war >>>>>> is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first time I >>>>>> engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was talking >>>>>> about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical matter, >>>>>> on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick Durbin >>>>>> people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very frustrated >>>>>> that on the eve of the Senate vote on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy >>>>>> resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a big >>>>>> plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can rely >>>>>> on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>> general. >>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if Betsy >>>>>> Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be all-in to >>>>>> help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot of money >>>>>> and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 17:50:43 2018 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:50:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <016271F0-17F0-4C37-A37C-3AD429F3A3B3@gmail.com> Message-ID: Only way to change that is to run for Precinct Committeeperson and become part of the governing body. Every cycle I beg local progressives to run. The Party won’t change until the people running it change. It has made progress under the current leadership but too few people are still committed to a democratic Democratic Party. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > , support for Gill, Londrigan, Jones , and Ebel was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Central Committee. > -------------------------------------------- > Yeah, that's the problem right there. QED. Thanks. > > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debra Schrishuhn > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:11 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > First of all, Champaign County Democrats rarely endorse candidates in primaries and the Executive Committee decides not to make any endorsements this cycle. > > Second, support for Gill, Londrigan, Jones , and Ebel was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Central Committee. > > Third, Gill lost in presidential year and the bar is considerably higher in a midterm. > > Fourth, a number of former Gill supporters have noticed that he only has time for progressive issues when he is running for office. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> The real issue here is why did the Champaign County Dems refuse to support Gill. He could have won the primary and then the general. The answer is obvious if you look at where he stands on all the issues. >> fab >> >> 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-discuss On >> Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:29 AM >> To: Debra Schrishuhn >> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary (2) >> >> In defense of David Gill, I can only say, running for office while maintaining as demanding a profession as ER physician, is beyond my comprehension. I can only assume that when being confronted with opposition such as that which the DCCC puts out, must have been quite a shock, and required a decision as to what must be done under the circumstances, loyalty to patients over his candidacy. >> >> In corporate DC he would not be working as a physician, with the demands required of that position, thus freeing him to focus on the issues which he cares about. >> >> In my early life I worked in the medical field and am well aware of the responsibility required of doctors working ER. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >>> >>> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>>> >>>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>>> >>>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>>> >>>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>>> >>>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>>> To: David Johnson >>>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary (2) >>>> >>>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>>> >>>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>>> long time." >>>>> >>>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>>> >>>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>>> primary >>>>> (2) >>>>> >>>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>>> >>>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>>> >>>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>>> >>>>> Idiots. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards >>>>>> to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting >>>>>> records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war >>>>>> in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still >>>>>> controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding >>>>>> to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t >>>>>> care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand >>>>>> of his corporate masters. >>>>>> >>>>>> David J. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>>> Cc: peace >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>>> >>>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>>> >>>>>> Deb >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change >>>>>>> his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer >>>>>>> a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and >>>>>>> changed in office. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - >>>>>>> while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just >>>>>>> wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of >>>>>>> our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now >>>>>>> told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>>> support >>>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress >>>>>>> in IL-13. >>>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions >>>>>>> that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] >>>>>>> are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>>> administration >>>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats >>>>>>> for Congress. >>>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - >>>>>>> a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>>> candidate. >>>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic >>>>>>> "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even >>>>>>> support a national health care system (improved medicare for >>>>>>> all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I >>>>>>> went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, >>>>>>> knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened >>>>>>> to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this >>>>>>> war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first >>>>>>> time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was >>>>>>> talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical >>>>>>> matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick >>>>>>> Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very >>>>>>> frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the >>>>>>> Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a >>>>>>> big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can >>>>>>> rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>>> general. >>>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if >>>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be >>>>>>> all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot >>>>>>> of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 18:03:15 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:03:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <016271F0-17F0-4C37-A37C-3AD429F3A3B3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <207DA0C0-634D-4400-8FB0-AE931477ABBE@gmail.com> Gill was the only one who was anti-war. The other three were pro-war - including Londrigan. Voting write-in in the fall does little to prevent the (pro-war) Democrats from taking control of the House. Distasteful as it is, voting for the Republican incumbent has the best chance of defeating the Democratic candidate. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > , support for Gill, Londrigan, Jones , and Ebel was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Central Committee. > -------------------------------------------- > Yeah, that's the problem right there. QED. Thanks. > > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debra Schrishuhn > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:11 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > First of all, Champaign County Democrats rarely endorse candidates in primaries and the Executive Committee decides not to make any endorsements this cycle. > > Second, support for Gill, Londrigan, Jones , and Ebel was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Central Committee. > > Third, Gill lost in presidential year and the bar is considerably higher in a midterm. > > Fourth, a number of former Gill supporters have noticed that he only has time for progressive issues when he is running for office. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> The real issue here is why did the Champaign County Dems refuse to support Gill. He could have won the primary and then the general. The answer is obvious if you look at where he stands on all the issues. >> fab >> >> 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-discuss On >> Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:29 AM >> To: Debra Schrishuhn >> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary (2) >> >> In defense of David Gill, I can only say, running for office while maintaining as demanding a profession as ER physician, is beyond my comprehension. I can only assume that when being confronted with opposition such as that which the DCCC puts out, must have been quite a shock, and required a decision as to what must be done under the circumstances, loyalty to patients over his candidacy. >> >> In corporate DC he would not be working as a physician, with the demands required of that position, thus freeing him to focus on the issues which he cares about. >> >> In my early life I worked in the medical field and am well aware of the responsibility required of doctors working ER. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >>> >>> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>>> >>>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>>> >>>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>>> >>>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>>> >>>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>>> To: David Johnson >>>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary (2) >>>> >>>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>>> >>>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>>> long time." >>>>> >>>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>>> >>>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>>> primary >>>>> (2) >>>>> >>>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>>> >>>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>>> >>>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>>> >>>>> Idiots. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards >>>>>> to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting >>>>>> records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war >>>>>> in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still >>>>>> controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding >>>>>> to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t >>>>>> care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand >>>>>> of his corporate masters. >>>>>> >>>>>> David J. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>>> Cc: peace >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>>> >>>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>>> >>>>>> Deb >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change >>>>>>> his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer >>>>>>> a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and >>>>>>> changed in office. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - >>>>>>> while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just >>>>>>> wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of >>>>>>> our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now >>>>>>> told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>>> support >>>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress >>>>>>> in IL-13. >>>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions >>>>>>> that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] >>>>>>> are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>>> administration >>>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats >>>>>>> for Congress. >>>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - >>>>>>> a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>>> candidate. >>>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic >>>>>>> "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even >>>>>>> support a national health care system (improved medicare for >>>>>>> all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I >>>>>>> went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, >>>>>>> knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened >>>>>>> to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this >>>>>>> war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first >>>>>>> time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was >>>>>>> talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical >>>>>>> matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick >>>>>>> Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very >>>>>>> frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the >>>>>>> Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a >>>>>>> big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can >>>>>>> rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>>> general. >>>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if >>>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be >>>>>>> all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot >>>>>>> of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 18:15:48 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:15:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) In-Reply-To: References: <9623DD00-012C-449A-8BA6-8838D91C14F7@gmail.com> <004201d3c1d8$961101b0$c2330510$@comcast.net> <2EC4C619-8FD7-4E20-9EB2-5836F870E74D@gmail.com> <009101d3c1dc$5ed4da10$1c7e8e30$@comcast.net> <00c001d3c1e6$667c0900$33741b00$@comcast.net> <77ADA48D-2FE3-4FD5-9D88-0D04CE765FC9@gmail.com> <016271F0-17F0-4C37-A37C-3AD429F3A3B3@gmail.com> Message-ID: LOL! I was at the 1968 DNC Fiasco in the Chicago Amphitheater. With my own eyes I saw the DNC steal the nomination from Gene McCarthy and give it to that Vietnamwarmonger Hubie. Predictably, instead of Gene we got Tricky Dick, which I am sure the Vietnamwarmongering DNC preferred anyway. Shades of 2016! The DNC steals the nomination from Bernie in order to anoint Killary giving us Trump instead of Bernie. Plus ca change....for the DNC. Fab 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: Debra Schrishuhn Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:51 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) Only way to change that is to run for Precinct Committeeperson and become part of the governing body. Every cycle I beg local progressives to run. The Party won’t change until the people running it change. It has made progress under the current leadership but too few people are still committed to a democratic Democratic Party. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > , support for Gill, Londrigan, Jones , and Ebel was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Central Committee. > -------------------------------------------- > Yeah, that's the problem right there. QED. Thanks. > > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debra Schrishuhn > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:11 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss List > (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's > primary (2) > > First of all, Champaign County Democrats rarely endorse candidates in primaries and the Executive Committee decides not to make any endorsements this cycle. > > Second, support for Gill, Londrigan, Jones , and Ebel was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Central Committee. > > Third, Gill lost in presidential year and the bar is considerably higher in a midterm. > > Fourth, a number of former Gill supporters have noticed that he only has time for progressive issues when he is running for office. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> The real issue here is why did the Champaign County Dems refuse to support Gill. He could have won the primary and then the general. The answer is obvious if you look at where he stands on all the issues. >> fab >> >> 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-discuss On >> Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:29 AM >> To: Debra Schrishuhn >> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary (2) >> >> In defense of David Gill, I can only say, running for office while maintaining as demanding a profession as ER physician, is beyond my comprehension. I can only assume that when being confronted with opposition such as that which the DCCC puts out, must have been quite a shock, and required a decision as to what must be done under the circumstances, loyalty to patients over his candidacy. >> >> In corporate DC he would not be working as a physician, with the demands required of that position, thus freeing him to focus on the issues which he cares about. >> >> In my early life I worked in the medical field and am well aware of the responsibility required of doctors working ER. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >>> >>> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>>> >>>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>>> >>>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>>> >>>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>>> >>>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>>> To: David Johnson >>>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary (2) >>>> >>>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>>> >>>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>>> long time." >>>>> >>>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>>> >>>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>>> primary >>>>> (2) >>>>> >>>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>>> >>>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>>> >>>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>>> >>>>> Idiots. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in >>>>>> regards to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable >>>>>> voting records in support of Unions . He changed his support of >>>>>> the war in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans >>>>>> still controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was >>>>>> responding to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t >>>>>> care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand >>>>>> of his corporate masters. >>>>>> >>>>>> David J. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf >>>>>> Of Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>>> Cc: peace >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>>> >>>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate >>>>>> lines >>>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>>> >>>>>> Deb >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change >>>>>>> his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would >>>>>>> prefer a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has >>>>>>> already had the opportunity to change his mind on many things >>>>>>> due to constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and >>>>>>> changed in office. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - >>>>>>> while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war >>>>>>> provocations against Russia and China. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people >>>>>>> to “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I >>>>>>> suppose you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just >>>>>>> wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of >>>>>>> our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now >>>>>>> told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given >>>>>>> her support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though >>>>>>> we must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>>> support >>>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress >>>>>>> in IL-13. >>>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions >>>>>>> that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support >>>>>>> US war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but >>>>>>> Ebel is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary >>>>>>> number of former intelligence and military operatives from the >>>>>>> CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department >>>>>>> [who] are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for >>>>>>> Congress in the >>>>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>>> administration >>>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats >>>>>>> for Congress. >>>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - >>>>>>> a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of >>>>>>> his predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and >>>>>>> turn against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an >>>>>>> establishment candidate. >>>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic >>>>>>> "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even >>>>>>> support a national health care system (improved medicare for >>>>>>> all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I >>>>>>> went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, >>>>>>> knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened >>>>>>> to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this >>>>>>> war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first >>>>>>> time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was >>>>>>> talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that >>>>>>> criterion, it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical >>>>>>> matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick >>>>>>> Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very >>>>>>> frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the >>>>>>> Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging >>>>>>> me and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that >>>>>>> Tammy Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. >>>>>>> So the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person >>>>>>> is a big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that >>>>>>> I can rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List >>>>>>> in general. >>>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if >>>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be >>>>>>> all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a >>>>>>> lot of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and >>>>>>> we should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while >>>>>>> I certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, >>>>>>> and I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly >>>>>>> wonderful to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything >>>>>>> else that's true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu Mar 22 18:46:50 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:46:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) Message-ID: On the Champaign County ballot, it seemed to me that the "Dem-Machine-preferred" candidate was first on the list in every race. I believe that first-listed candidate  won every race, yes? Perhaps there is some b.s. reason those candidates just happened to win a lottery or get their paperwork in first. Statisically not a possibility, yes? Interesting for history's sake to see how the other counties laid out their ballots.  I could be wrong, and often are! I do believe our elections are so fixed that we have no say at all. Homeland Security took over all the infrastructure after Clinton lost, since the pro-war state didn't control the outcome. I voted in this primary to see what I would learn about the new try- to- fool -us system. Learned 1.The war criminals think we will fall for a woman candidate. 2. A progressive candidate gets very little help and extra competition. 3.Seems to be coordination between Repubs & Dems AGAIN - why no candidates for Dems in important races such as judges if Dems wish to change Citizens United, extreme incarceration, immigration lockup, private prisons? If write-in candidates were available, would be interesting to see if counts were accurate, although I don't know how we could ascertain that. Rumour has it Stein and Johnson's were not right? I am sure voters want write-ins. The instructions that write-ins needed to be registered were on the ballot.  On the other topic, the continued escalations of WWIII in Syria toward Iran are being masked by the paid-for protests and mass hysteria over real/partially faked / outright faked/ just described in the newspaper/ shootings with FBI-found patsies.  This is a gun grab to neuter our 2nd Amendment rights (and I was a vehement gun control mom) and another step to a federal database with everything about everyone in it. Of course, you all saw that I am the neophyte just learning it. I am hoping to go to that March for Our Lives on Sat. March 24 with anti- war signs. The march is in Douglas Park in Urbana I think? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discussDate: Thu, Mar 22, 2018 12:51 PMTo: Boyle, Francis A;Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Karen Aram;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) Only way to change that is to run for Precinct Committeeperson and become part of the governing body. Every cycle I beg local progressives to run. The Party won’t change until the people running it change. It has made progress under the current leadership but too few people are still committed to a democratic Democratic Party. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > , support for Gill, Londrigan, Jones , and Ebel was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Central Committee. > -------------------------------------------- > Yeah, that's the problem right there. QED. Thanks. > > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debra Schrishuhn > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 12:11 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) > > First of all, Champaign County Democrats rarely endorse candidates in primaries and the Executive Committee decides not to make any endorsements this cycle. > > Second, support for Gill, Londrigan, Jones , and Ebel was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Central Committee. > > Third, Gill lost in presidential year and the bar is considerably higher in a midterm. > > Fourth, a number of former Gill supporters have noticed that he only has time for progressive issues when he is running for office. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> The real issue here is why did the Champaign County Dems refuse to support Gill. He could have won the primary and then the general. The answer is obvious if you look at where he stands on all the issues. >> fab >> >> 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-discuss On >> Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:29 AM >> To: Debra Schrishuhn >> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >> primary (2) >> >> In defense of David Gill, I can only say, running for office while maintaining as demanding a profession as ER physician, is beyond my comprehension. I can only assume that when being confronted with opposition such as that which the DCCC puts out, must have been quite a shock, and required a decision as to what must be done under the circumstances, loyalty to patients over his candidacy. >> >> In corporate DC he would not be working as a physician, with the demands required of that position, thus freeing him to focus on the issues which he cares about. >> >> In my early life I worked in the medical field and am well aware of the responsibility required of doctors working ER. >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 09:06, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> I did not say Londrigan would be a progressive on domestic issues or even good—just that she would be better than Davis, and I stand by that assertion. >>> >>> As for Gill, I was closely involved in his 2012 campaign, and the speed and degree to which he caved once the DCCC got involved after the primary was deeply disturbing. I seriously question whether he would be able to withstand the corporate onslaught in DC. >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 9:02 AM, David Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>> Londrigan will NOT be better on domestic issues or foreign policy. >>>> >>>> She is a neo-liberal to the core and a war monger and will do whatever she is told to do by Durbin, the DNC and her corporate donors. >>>> That is if she wins, which she won't. >>>> >>>> She will be defeated by a 15-20 % margin, just like Ann Callis ( 18 % loss ) and Wicklund ( 20 % ), and Wicklund spent 1 % of the money Callis did. >>>> She will be defeated because she will not support single payer or a $15 per hour minimum wage, or free post high school education which are issues that would directly help the lives of a large percentage of people in the 13th district, both rural and urban. Nor will she support abolishing NAFTA or the end to imperialist wars and the bloated military budget that is draining our economy dry. >>>> >>>> The only candidate that was NOT a DNC controlled neo-liberal and war monger was David Gill who Durbin, the DNC and the Madigans did everything in their power to make certain he would lose. >>>> >>>> Unless a Green, a populist progressive independent or a Socialist runs in the 13th, I will be voting for None of the above. Because a neo-liberal war monger democrat is no different than a republican. >>>> >>>> David J. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Debra Schrishuhn [mailto:deb.pdamerica at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:10 AM >>>> To: David Johnson >>>> Cc: C G Estabrook; Peace; Karen Aram; >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>> primary (2) >>>> >>>> Quite so, David. At least Londrigan will be better on domestic issues, shows a willingness to listen and get informed on other points of view, and engages the voters more directly than Davis ever has. Let us not forget that before Davis was a Congressman he was staffer and lapdog for John Shimkus--about whom I have nothing good to say. >>>> >>>> Davis is a lost cause. Londrigan will be a step in the right (left?) direction, and as they say, every journey begins with a single step (just couldn't help myself on that one). >>>> >>>> Deb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 3/22/18, David Johnson wrote: >>>>> " Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a >>>>> long time." >>>>> >>>>> That will be a cold day in hell Carl. >>>>> >>>>> It will never happen because Davis is bought and paid for. >>>>> >>>>> David J. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:45 AM >>>>> To: David Johnson; Peace >>>>> Cc: Debra Schrishuhn; Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's >>>>> primary >>>>> (2) >>>>> >>>>> David’s quite right about Tim (who’s even recently asked me to >>>>> lecture to his UI classes - along with Rodney, I admit…) >>>>> >>>>> Rodney may be shamed/pressured into emulating him. “NEVER” is a long time. >>>>> >>>>> But the war-mongering Democrats are today excoriating Trump for >>>>> congratulating Putin on his election, and talking peace with Eurasia! >>>>> >>>>> Idiots. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:23 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed Deb, >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim Johnson was a Champaign county Republican who interacted with >>>>>> his constituents and even helped registered Democrats with >>>>>> problems. He also had libertarian political tendencies in regards >>>>>> to civil liberties and had one of the most favorable voting >>>>>> records in support of Unions . He changed his support of the war >>>>>> in Iraq to opposition while Bush and the Republicans still >>>>>> controlled the Presidency and Congress because he was responding >>>>>> to citizens in his district. Not that he didn't have his faults. >>>>>> Rodney Davis on the other hand is a corporate republican who is a >>>>>> solely owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers et al and doesn’t >>>>>> care what his constituents think. Davis will NEVER bite the hand >>>>>> of his corporate masters. >>>>>> >>>>>> David J. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of >>>>>> Debra Schrishuhn via Peace >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:26 AM >>>>>> To: Karen Aram >>>>>> Cc: peace >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace] Voting anti-war in tomorrow's primary (2) >>>>>> >>>>>> What comes to mind is a paraphrase of one of the best debate lines >>>>>> ever: I knew Tim Johnson, worked with Tim Johnson, and Rodney >>>>>> Davis, you are not Tim Johnson! >>>>>> >>>>>> Deb >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/20/18, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>>>>> Sorry, I don’t buy it, give me a reason why Davis might change >>>>>>> his mind as did Tim Johnson, other than a miracle. I would prefer >>>>>>> a Democrat we can pressure, with our votes. Davis has already had >>>>>>> the opportunity to change his mind on many things due to >>>>>>> constituency pressure, please name one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, lets be clear the Democrat Party maybe pushing Russiagate, >>>>>>> and war against China, but to assume the Republicans are not, is >>>>>>> sheer nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 06:39, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it’s a recognition that any Democratic candidate in this >>>>>>> Congressional district (except Gill) will be a war supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Republican Tim Johnson, Davis’ predecessor, was, too - and >>>>>>> changed in office. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unlikely as it may be, we can hope for the same from Davis - >>>>>>> while the Democratic party pushes Russiagate and war provocations >>>>>>> against Russia and China. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Karen Aram >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree David Gill is the only viable candidate to be supported. >>>>>>> However, Rodney Davis? Are you showing your true Republican >>>>>>> colors, or is this a strategy to “bring it on,” the revolution, >>>>>>> which we surely need. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just as Trump is responsible for waking up the American people to >>>>>>> “politics do matter,” after sleeping for eight years, I suppose >>>>>>> you think Rodney’s re-election might have the same affect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good strategy, but I doubt it will work, the people will just >>>>>>> wait for another chance to elect a Democrat. Pressure on some of >>>>>>> our Democrat Representatives does have an impact, as we are now >>>>>>> told Tammy Duckworth will support the Lee Sanders Bill, given her >>>>>>> support for militarism, that is quite an achievement though we >>>>>>> must be vigilant and keep in mind the Lee Sanders Bill is flawed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I too like Niloofar am surprised and disappointed that Bob would >>>>>>> support >>>>>>> Betsy, when we have a candidate, David Gill who is anti-war as >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> as single payer supporter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 20:58, C G Estabrook >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Gill seems to be the only anti-war candidate for Congress >>>>>>> in IL-13. >>>>>>> He’s the only Democrat who said in answer to direct questions >>>>>>> that US troops (and weapons) should be withdrawn from the Mideast and N. Africa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The other Democrats - Londrigan, Jones, and Ebel - all support US >>>>>>> war-making. Londrigan seems uninformed, as Bob suggests, but Ebel >>>>>>> is even worse: he seems to be one of the "extraordinary number of >>>>>>> former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, >>>>>>> Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department [who] >>>>>>> are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of >>>>>>> military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history” >>>>>>> [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given what the national Democratic party has done to drive Trump >>>>>>> back into the belligerence and war-provocations of the Obama >>>>>>> administration >>>>>>> - ‘Russiagate', notably - I can’t see voting for any Democrats >>>>>>> for Congress. >>>>>>> If Gill is not nominated, I’ll vote for incumbent Rodney Davis - >>>>>>> a war-supporter, yes, but one who might follow the example of his >>>>>>> predecessor, former Rep. Tim Johnson (a Republican), and turn >>>>>>> against the administration’s wars. —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Niloofar Shambayati via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm surprised by your endorsement. She's totally an establishment >>>>>>> candidate. >>>>>>> She has a big smile and no real agenda, except the generic >>>>>>> "caring for families". Like her mentor, Durbin, she doesn't even >>>>>>> support a national health care system (improved medicare for >>>>>>> all). I hope to hear stronger arguments in her favor. Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Niloofar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/robert.naiman/posts/10157099169132656 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I endorse Betsy Dirksen Londrigan for Congress in IL-13. >>>>>>> I like all four serious candidates. I met with all of them. I >>>>>>> went to every forum I could. They're all thoughtful, >>>>>>> knowledgeable, and progressive, their intentions are pure, and they're in it to win it. >>>>>>> I will vigorously support whoever wins the primary, in order to >>>>>>> defeat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> But in the primary, I have to choose one. I choose Betsy Dirksen >>>>>>> Londrigan. >>>>>>> First: I engaged the four candidates about our campaign to end >>>>>>> unauthorized U.S. participation in the catastrophic Saudi war in >>>>>>> Yemen. Of the four candidates, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan listened >>>>>>> to me the best. It wasn't close, actually. I explained how this >>>>>>> war is different from the other wars, and she got it. The first >>>>>>> time I engaged her, she didn't really understand what I was >>>>>>> talking about; but none of them did. Betsy Dirksen Londrigan >>>>>>> said: send me something to read. So I did. The next time I saw >>>>>>> her, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan knew exactly what I was talking about. >>>>>>> Because she read the thing I send her and she understood it. >>>>>>> I don't need a know-it-all representing me in Congress. >>>>>>> Know-it-alls are a dime a dozen. I need someone who listens to >>>>>>> what I have to say and tries to understand it. By that criterion, >>>>>>> it's Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in a walk. >>>>>>> Second: I like the fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is endorsed >>>>>>> by Dick Durbin. It's not that I think Dick Durbin is the alpha and omega. >>>>>>> I've had frustrations with Dick Durbin. But as a practical >>>>>>> matter, on my issues, if we don't have Dick Durbin, we're not even on the field. >>>>>>> But if we do have Dick Durbin, then we can get all the Dick >>>>>>> Durbin people onside. Today was a perfect example. I was very >>>>>>> frustrated that on the eve of the Senate vote on the >>>>>>> Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, I didn't know where Tammy Duckworth was. >>>>>>> So I engaged Durbin's people and said: where's Tammy Duckworth? >>>>>>> Within an hour Tammy Duckworth's staffer, who had been dodging me >>>>>>> and other peace activists, got back with me to confirm that Tammy >>>>>>> Duckworth would vote yes on the Sanders-Lee-Murphy bill. So the >>>>>>> fact that Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is a Dick Durbin person is a >>>>>>> big plus for me, because it gives me great confidence that I can >>>>>>> rely on Betsy Dirksen Londrigan when I need her. >>>>>>> Third: all else equal, I like the fact that she is endorsed by >>>>>>> Emily's List. >>>>>>> Not that I'm totally in love with the politics of Emily's List in >>>>>>> general. >>>>>>> But they are also in it to win it, and I'm confident that if >>>>>>> Betsy Dirksen Londrigan wins the primary, Emily's List will be >>>>>>> all-in to help her win the general, and she's going to need a lot >>>>>>> of money and help to beat Rodney Davis in November. >>>>>>> Fourth: I strongly support increasing the diversity of our >>>>>>> Illinois Congressional delegation. Obviously that doesn't mean I >>>>>>> have to support someone whose politics are diametrically opposed to my own. >>>>>>> But if it's a jump ball, if it's close enough, "the tie goes to >>>>>>> the runner." And, in fact, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is my best >>>>>>> candidate anyway. She points out that only three members of our >>>>>>> current delegation are women, and says that's unacceptable and we >>>>>>> should change that. I agree. She's right about that. So while I >>>>>>> certainly wouldn't make the decision on this criterion alone, and >>>>>>> I wouldn't want anyone else to, I think it's perfectly wonderful >>>>>>> to have this criterion in the mix. Given everything else that's >>>>>>> true, I count this as a strong plus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 22 21:43:53 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 21:43:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ".... It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life...." Chomsky. So much voting for GOPer Rodney Davis! Nazis are never the lesser of two evils. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:26 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History [The whole interview is worth considering.] "Noam Chomsky on the Populist Groundswell, U.S. Elections, the Future of Humanity, and More” By Lynn Parramore {The renowned linguist, cognitive scientist, and historian on where we stand as an economy, as a country, and as human beings} We recently interviewed Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Laureate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. He shares his thoughts with the Institute for New Economic Thinking on foreign policy, dissent in the Internet age, public education, corporate predation, who’s really messing with American elections, climate change, and more. Lynn Parramore: You’ve been looking at politics and international relations for quite a long time. Over the decades, what are the continuities in these areas that stand out in your view? Noam Chomsky: Well the continuities are the message of the Athenians to Melos: “the powerful do what they wish and the weak suffer what they must” [from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War.”] It’s often disguised in humanitarian terms. The modalities and the context change. The situations change but the message stays the same. LP: What do you see as the most significant changes? NC: There are some steps towards imposing constraints and limits on state violence. For the most part, they come from inside. So for example, if you look at the United States and the kinds of actions that John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson could carry out in Vietnam, they were possible because of almost complete lack of public attention. I don’t know if you know, but as late as 1966 in Boston we could barely have an anti-war action because it would be violently broken up with the support of the press and so on. By then, South Vietnam had been practically destroyed. The war had expanded to other areas of Indochina. The Reagan administration, at the very beginning, tried to duplicate what Kennedy had done in 1961 with regard to Central America. So they had a white paper more or less modeled on Kennedy’s white paper that said the Communists are taking over. It was the usual steps, the propaganda, but it collapsed quickly. In the case of the Kennedy white paper, it took years before it was exposed as mostly fraudulent, but the Wall Street Journal, of all places, exposed the Reagan white paper in six months. There were protests by church groups and popular organizations and they had to kind of back off. What happened was bad enough but it was nothing like Indochina. Iraq was the first time in the history of imperialism that there were massive protests before the war was even officially launched. It’s claimed by people that it failed, but I don’t think so. I mean, they never began to do the kinds of things that they could have done. There were no B-52 raids on heavily populated areas or chemical warfare of the kind they did in Indochina. By and large the constraints come from inside, and they understood that. By the time you got to the first Bush administration, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they came out with a national defense policy and strategic policy. What they basically said is that we’re going to have wars against what they called much weaker enemies and these have to be carried out quickly and decisively or else there will be embarrassment—a way of saying that popular reaction is going to set in. And that’s the way it’s been. It’s not pretty, but it’s some kind of constraint. There are increasingly conditions in international law, like the Rome Treaty [the 1957 treaty that established the European Economic Community] and so on, but great powers just ignore them if they can get away with it, and getting away with it means ignoring the constraints of other states, which, in the case of, say, the U.S., don’t amount to much. Or internal constraints from changes inside the society, which have put in conditions of some significance, I think. It’s almost unimaginable now that the U.S. could carry out the kind of war it did in Indochina, which is something recognized by elite opinion. A typical example is Mark Bowden’s op-ed in the New York Times the other day about [Walter] Cronkite and how he changed everything. Well, what did Cronkite say? He said, it doesn’t look as if we’re going to win. That’s the criticism of the war. That’s the way it was perceived at the time, and that’s the way it’s still perceived by intellectual elites. But if you look at public opinion—which doesn’t really get investigated much so it’s not too clear what it means, but it’s interesting—the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was running polls on all sorts of issues in the 70s and 80s, and when the Vietnam War ended in 1975, about 70 percent of the population described the war as fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake. That stayed pretty steady for several years until they stop asking the question. The director of the study, John Rielly, interpreted that as meaning too many American were being killed. Maybe. There’s another possible interpretation of “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” which is that the U.S. was carrying out a crime against humanity. But it was never investigated because there’s too much cognitive dissonance. Elite intellectuals can’t perceive that possibility. Everybody had a comment when the war ended, and so the hawks said, “stab in the back” [i.e. civilian critics undermined the military] and “if we’d fought harder we would have won.” The doves went kind of like Anthony Lewis of the New York Times, who was maybe the most extreme. In 1975 when the war ended, he said the war began with blundering efforts to do good. “Efforts to do good” is virtual tautology, facts irrelevant; and “blundering” means it failed. He said that by 1969 it was clear that it was a disaster because the U.S. could not bring democracy to Vietnam at a cost acceptable to us. That’s the far left critique of the war in 1975. And Bowden, who is writing from a critical point of view, basically reiterated that point a couple days ago: Cronkite’s great contribution was to say, “look, it looks as if we can’t win, and if we can’t win…” I mean, Russian generals said the same in Afghanistan. We don’t honor them for that. LP: When you talked about protests in Understanding Power before the digital age, you mentioned that it was difficult for dissenters and protesters to connect with each other. How has the internet changed that? Protesters are obviously under surveillance when they are online, but they are able to connect with each other more quickly. Has there been a net gain to those who want to object to wars and oppression? Or is this illusory? NC: You may remember, during the Tahrir Square demonstrations in Cairo, which were being organized through social media, at one point [Hosni] Mubarak actually closed down the internet. That increased the mobilization. People just started talking to each other. It’s a different kind of communication. It means a lot more. So I think, yes, social media do offer opportunities for quick organization and transmission, but typically at a pretty superficial level. Face-to-face organizing is something quite different. The same, incidentally, has been found in electoral politics. Andrew Cockburn had an interesting article in Harper’s during the [2016] campaign in which he compared studies on the effect on potential voters of advertising, you know, TV, and the effect of knocking on doors and talking to people. It was overwhelming that the latter was more effective. We’re still human beings. LP: Companies like Google and Facebook increasingly control the information we can access. They’ve even been enlisted to vet stories, to weed out fake news, though there’s evidence that they may be weeding out legitimate dissent. Yet they are often applauded as if they’re doing a service. How is this sort of thing affecting our freedom? NC: It’s service for a bad reason. The younger people just don’t read much, so they want something quick, fast, easy. You go through a newspaper, it takes time. You have to see what’s at the end of the column, not just what’s in the headline. So this kind of instant gratification culture is drawing people to these quick summaries. Practically everybody’s on Facebook (except me). The other thing they’re doing which is kind of interesting has to do with microtargeting, which is being used for electoral manipulation. There are some cases, which have not been discussed as far as I know outside the business press. During the last German election, there was a lot of talk of potential Russian interference, you know, it’s gonna swing the election. Well, it turns out there was foreign interference, but it wasn’t Russian. It was a combination of the Berlin office of Facebook and a media company in the U.S., which works for Trump, Le Pen, Netanyahu, other nice guys. They used Facebook in Berlin to get a demographic analysis of parts of the population to allow them to microtarget ads to individuals in favor of AfD, the neo-Nazi party, which may have been a factor in their unexpectedly high vote in the election. This was reported in Bloomberg BusinessWeek. This was a real case of electoral manipulation but somehow it doesn’t make the headlines. LP: Which brings us to the narrative of Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election. I understand you’re not very impressed with this line. NC: Well it’s very hard to take seriously for a number of reasons. One reason is the work of Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues [“How Money Won Trump the White House”]. There really is manipulation of elections, but it’s not coming from the Russians. It’s coming from the people who buy the elections. Take his study of the 2016 election [“Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election”]. That’s how you interfere with elections. Or the pretty spectacular study that he and his colleagues did about a year ago on Congress “How Money Drives US Congressional Elections,” where you just get a straight line [correlation between money and major party votes in Congress]. You rarely see results like that in the social sciences. That’s massive manipulation. Compared with that, what the Russians might be doing is minuscule. Quite aside from the fact that the U.S. does it all the time in other countries. LP: It’s clear from leaked emails that the Democratic National Committee meddled with Bernie Sanders in his quest for the 2016 presidential nomination by favoring Hillary Clinton when it was supposed to be unbiased towards all candidates. What do you think it would it take for a real reformist candidate, a true populist, to ever win the presidency? NC: What it would actually take is popular organization and activism. With all its flaws, the U.S. is still a pretty free country. In this case, Democratic Party managers had to manipulate to keep Sanders from winning the nomination. His campaign, I think, was really spectacular. I couldn’t have predicted anything like it. It’s a break with over a century of American political history. No corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close—he probably could have won the nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he’d been elected? He couldn’t have done a thing. Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy—you have to build the whole system from the bottom. It’s kind of intriguing now, I’m sure you’ve seen the polls where he turns out to be the most popular political figure. Well, in a functioning democracy, the person who is the most popular political figure should appear somewhere. But nothing he does gets reported. It’s taking place, it’s having effects, but from the point of view of the liberal media, it’s as if it doesn’t exist. LP: What about recent events in California with Senator Dianne Feinstein, who got a big surprise by failing to win the state Democratic Party endorsement for a sixth term? Is this like the Sanders phenomenon, where people who want basic things like universal healthcare and worker protections are making their preferences heard by refusing to support candidates who are unresponsive? NC: She was voted down, and like the Sanders campaign or [Jeremy] Corbyn in England, there is a groundswell, and if it could be turned into something sustained and with a serious base, it could mean a lot. Traditionally, this has always been built around the labor movement, and that’s why the corporate sector is so dedicated to destroying the unions. It’s coming up in the Janus case, which was heard the other day, which will probably be voted in favor of Janus, which will be a lethal blow to public unions. [Mark Janus is the plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME involving the issue of whether government employees represented by a union must pay dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining and resolving grievances]. The whole U.S. private sector is passionate about destroying the union movement. This has been going on for a long time, but now they really think they can strangle it because it’s the core of activism for almost anything. Take a look at, say, healthcare. In Canada, in the 50s, it was the unions who were pressing hard for national healthcare, and kind of interestingly, in the U.S. the same unions were pressing for healthcare for themselves, auto workers in Detroit. These are two pretty similar countries, but with this striking difference in outcomes on healthcare. A more interesting case is England. There’s a pretty good article that just came out in the latest issue of Jacobin, which runs through the history of British healthcare and it’s quite interesting. It began, in England under Bevan in the late 40s. They got what was the best healthcare system in the world—still is, probably, and certainly was then. It started with mine workers in Wales who developed their own cooperative health system on a small scale. Aneurin Bevan was a Welsh mine worker. The cooperative system was picked up by the Labour Party as a program and the Labour Party actually won the election in 1945 and Bevan pushed it through and they got the National Health Service. Well, there’s two points that are critical for the U.S. It’s the unions. That why you have to destroy the unions. You destroy solidarity. It’s same reason for the attack on public schools, the attack on social security. These are all based on the idea that somehow you care about others, the community, and so on, and that’s completely unacceptable in a culture where you want to try to concentrate wealth and power. You don’t want people to have anything to do except to try to gain whatever they can for themselves. In that case, they’ll be very weak, of course. It’s only when you organize together than you can confront private capital. Secondly, there was a political party. The American political system probably wouldn’t be accepted by the European Court of Justice as a legitimate system. There’s no way for independent parties to enter the system. The Labour Party in England started as a very small party. But because the system allows—as most democratic countries do—small parties to function, they were able to develop and work within Parliament and expand and get political figures and the government and finally ended up being a big party. That’s almost impossible in the U.S. If you look at a ballot in the U.S., it says Democrat, Republican, Other. Nobody can break in. It’s a political monopoly. It’s two things that aren’t really political parties. You can’t really be a member of the Democratic Party, you can’t participate in designing its programs. You can be a member of the Labour Party. These are big differences, so I think two huge problems in the U.S. are the deficiencies of the political system, which shows up in the kind of things that Tom Ferguson and his colleagues study—you know, the enormous power of concentrated wealth in determining the outcome of elections and then the policies afterwards. That’s one, and the other is the destruction of the labor movement. LP: Let’s talk about the attack on public schools, which Gordon Lafer has outlined in his book, The One Percent Solution. NC: Yes, a very interesting book. LP: He discusses efforts by ALEC and other corporate-backed groups to dismantle public education, to get legislation passed to replace teachers with online education, increase class sizes, replace public schools with privately-funded charters, and so on. You’ve talked about the history of mass education. How do you see this corporate agenda for American schools? NC: You know, mass public education was, with all its flaws, one of the real contributions to American democracy. It was way ahead of other countries all the way through, including the college level with land grant colleges and so on. Europe just began to match that after World War II. Here it was happening in the late 19th century. Now there’s a real concerted effort to destroy the whole public education system. ALEC and Koch Brothers just recently announced a campaign taking Arizona as the test case because they figure Arizona is probably an easy one since it has probably the lowest per capita expenditure for education and a very right-wing legislature. What they’re trying to do—they describe it openly—is to try to essentially destroy the public education system, turn everything to vouchers and charter schools. It’ll be an interesting battle, and if it works in Arizona they want to do it elsewhere. It’s a huge corporate offensive. It’s very similar to attack on unions. First the Friedrichs [Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in which the Supreme Court deadlocked on the issue of the right of public-sector unions to collect fees from workers they represent, including those who don’t join the union, to cover bargaining and other activities], now the Janus case, and they’ll probably succeed. This right-to-work legislation is just unacceptable in other countries. In fact, in the NAFTA negotiations, at one point Canada proposed that part of a revision should be to ban measures that undermine labor rights like the right-to-work legislation. It’s kind of like using scabs. It’s just not heard of. But Reagan introduced it here—I think the U.S. and South Africa were the only countries that allowed it. In fact, the U.S. has never even ratified the first principle of the International Labour Organization, the right of association. I think the U.S. must be alone, frankly. It’s very much a business-run society. LP: What are students being trained for now in the corporate vision of education that is taking over the country? What kind of future will they have? And what does it do to the idea of a democracy? NC: Students will be controlled and disciplined. The education doesn’t leave any room for interaction, for creative activity, for teachers to do things on their own, for students to find a way to do things, I’ve talked to teacher’s groups. I remember once I was giving a talk and a 6th grade teacher came up to me describing experiences. She said that after one class a little girl came up and said that she was really interested in something that came up and wanted to know how she could do some more on it. And they teacher had to tell her, you can’t do it. You have to study for the MCAS, the Massachusetts version of the regular exam [Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System]. Everything depends on that. Even the teacher’s salary depends on that. So you can’t do anything creative as an individual. You follow the rules. It’s the Marine Corps. You do what you’re told. No associations. It’s a perfect system for creating a deeply authoritarian society. It’s also kind of a two-tiered system. It’s a little bit like what Sam Bowles and Herb Gitnis [co-authors of Schooling in Capitalist America] discussed when they wrote about early mass education. For the general worker, turn them into industrial workers, but for the elite, you have to have creativity: MIT, Harvard. You have to have people to create the next stage of the economy. LP: In the last several years, we’ve had a number of protest movements, Occupy, Black Lives Matter, and the #MeToo movement, which have often met with hostility or dismissal in the liberal press. Take #MeToo: the protest against workplace sexual harassment and violence has shown solidarity along class lines and across countries. For example, Latina farmworkers and Indian feminists back it. Yet some in the liberal press compare #MeToo protesters to McCarthyites and warn of witch hunts, despite the fact that the movement is helping to shift power away from oppressive management towards workers in challenging things like forced arbitration clauses that deny workers the right to take charges to court. NC: It’s a very valid protest and it’s an important movement. Charges do have to be subject to some kind of verification. Just allegation is not enough. As far as I know, the left-oriented groups like EPI [Economic Policy Institute] are in favor of ending forced arbitration, which also affects many other kinds of charges. I think they’re focusing on labor rights. LP: That’s true, but it seems that some may not be recognizing #MeToo as really part of the labor rights struggle. NC: That’s interesting. Yes. LP: Let’s talk about the broader issue of economic inequality. This year, wealthy elites polled at the World Economic Forum in Davos listed inequality as number 7 on their list of global worries. They’re more worried about other things, like data breaches and involuntary migration. Do you think that they may be comforted by the fact that they’ve avoided some scary scenarios, like, for example, a real populist president in the US, and can therefore relax a bit? Should they be more worried? NC: The danger that they perceive is that it might lead to a popular uprising, so you have to control that. There are the standard excuses about merit, which is a joke when you look at the details. I mean, take Bill Gates—a perfectly admirable person, but, as I’m sure he’d be the first to say, he based his fortune on two things, one, decades of work in the state sector which created the technology — the creative, risky work which was done since the 50s. He picked it up and marketed it. The second is the World Trade Organization, which gives him monopoly-pricing rights. I mean, that’s great but… LP: Kind of goes against the Horatio Alger myth [the belief that anybody can get rich just by working hard]. NC: Yes. LP: Finally, as you look ahead, what do you consider to be the biggest threats to human beings in the future? What should we be most concerned about? NC: Climate change and nuclear war. These are really existential threats. And what’s happening now is just astonishing. If media were functioning seriously, every day the lead headline would be this amazing fact—that in the entire world, every country is trying or committed to doing at least something. One country—one!—the most powerful country in history—is committed to trying to destroy the climate. Not just pulling out of the efforts of others, but maximizing the use of the most destructive means. There’s been nothing like this in history. It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life. It’s just missing from the media. In fact, if you read, say, the sensible business press, the Financial Times, BusinessWeek, any of them, when they talk about fossil fuel production, the articles are all just about the prospect for profit. Is the U.S. moving to number one and what are the gains? Not that it’s going to wipe out organized human life. Maybe that’s a footnote somewhere. It’s pretty astonishing. ### > On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:14 AM, 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) > > From: AlterNet Headlines [mailto:replies at alternet.org] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:05 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History | Is John > Bolton Too Much Even for Trump? | Trump's Legal Troubles Growing > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 22:41:07 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:41:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B978C0B-49C0-42AD-82BD-B06AFF6F2E4C@gmail.com> John Bolton is replacing H. R. McMaster as National Security Adviser - a triumph for 'Russiagate.' Which party controlling Congress is more likely to bring us war and rumors of war - the Republicans, who criticized Obama-Clinton war-making, or the Democrats, who brought us Russiagate, because they thought Trump “Putin’s puppet” and so not belligerent enough? Is a Republican- or Democrat-dominated Congress more likely to restrain the neocons? “Lynn Parramore: Finally, as you look ahead, what do you consider to be the biggest threats to human beings in the future? What should we be most concerned about?” “Noam Chomsky: Climate change and nuclear war…" And which is the more immediate threat? —CGE > On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > ".... It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life...." Chomsky. > > So much voting for GOPer Rodney Davis! Nazis are never the lesser of two evils. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:26 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History > > [The whole interview is worth considering.] > > > "Noam Chomsky on the Populist Groundswell, U.S. Elections, the Future of Humanity, and More” > By Lynn Parramore > {The renowned linguist, cognitive scientist, and historian on where we stand as an economy, as a country, and as human beings} > > We recently interviewed Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Laureate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. He shares his thoughts with the Institute for New Economic Thinking on foreign policy, dissent in the Internet age, public education, corporate predation, who’s really messing with American elections, climate change, and more. > > Lynn Parramore: You’ve been looking at politics and international relations for quite a long time. Over the decades, what are the continuities in these areas that stand out in your view? > > Noam Chomsky: Well the continuities are the message of the Athenians to Melos: “the powerful do what they wish and the weak suffer what they must” [from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War.”] It’s often disguised in humanitarian terms. The modalities and the context change. The situations change but the message stays the same. > > LP: What do you see as the most significant changes? > > NC: There are some steps towards imposing constraints and limits on state violence. For the most part, they come from inside. So for example, if you look at the United States and the kinds of actions that John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson could carry out in Vietnam, they were possible because of almost complete lack of public attention. > > I don’t know if you know, but as late as 1966 in Boston we could barely have an anti-war action because it would be violently broken up with the support of the press and so on. By then, South Vietnam had been practically destroyed. The war had expanded to other areas of Indochina. The Reagan administration, at the very beginning, tried to duplicate what Kennedy had done in 1961 with regard to Central America. So they had a white paper more or less modeled on Kennedy’s white paper that said the Communists are taking over. It was the usual steps, the propaganda, but it collapsed quickly. In the case of the Kennedy white paper, it took years before it was exposed as mostly fraudulent, but the Wall Street Journal, of all places, exposed the Reagan white paper in six months. There were protests by church groups and popular organizations and they had to kind of back off. What happened was bad enough but it was nothing like Indochina. > > Iraq was the first time in the history of imperialism that there were massive protests before the war was even officially launched. It’s claimed by people that it failed, but I don’t think so. I mean, they never began to do the kinds of things that they could have done. There were no B-52 raids on heavily populated areas or chemical warfare of the kind they did in Indochina. By and large the constraints come from inside, and they understood that. By the time you got to the first Bush administration, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they came out with a national defense policy and strategic policy. What they basically said is that we’re going to have wars against what they called much weaker enemies and these have to be carried out quickly and decisively or else there will be embarrassment—a way of saying that popular reaction is going to set in. And that’s the way it’s been. It’s not pretty, but it’s some kind of constraint. > > There are increasingly conditions in international law, like the Rome Treaty [the 1957 treaty that established the European Economic Community] and so on, but great powers just ignore them if they can get away with it, and getting away with it means ignoring the constraints of other states, which, in the case of, say, the U.S., don’t amount to much. Or internal constraints from changes inside the society, which have put in conditions of some significance, I think. > > It’s almost unimaginable now that the U.S. could carry out the kind of war it did in Indochina, which is something recognized by elite opinion. A typical example is Mark Bowden’s op-ed in the New York Times the other day about [Walter] Cronkite and how he changed everything. Well, what did Cronkite say? He said, it doesn’t look as if we’re going to win. That’s the criticism of the war. That’s the way it was perceived at the time, and that’s the way it’s still perceived by intellectual elites. But if you look at public opinion—which doesn’t really get investigated much so it’s not too clear what it means, but it’s interesting—the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was running polls on all sorts of issues in the 70s and 80s, and when the Vietnam War ended in 1975, about 70 percent of the population described the war as fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake. That stayed pretty steady for several years until they stop asking the question. The director of the study, John Rielly, interpreted that as meaning too many American were being killed. Maybe. There’s another possible interpretation of “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” which is that the U.S. was carrying out a crime against humanity. But it was never investigated because there’s too much cognitive dissonance. Elite intellectuals can’t perceive that possibility. > > Everybody had a comment when the war ended, and so the hawks said, “stab in the back” [i.e. civilian critics undermined the military] and “if we’d fought harder we would have won.” The doves went kind of like Anthony Lewis of the New York Times, who was maybe the most extreme. In 1975 when the war ended, he said the war began with blundering efforts to do good. “Efforts to do good” is virtual tautology, facts irrelevant; and “blundering” means it failed. He said that by 1969 it was clear that it was a disaster because the U.S. could not bring democracy to Vietnam at a cost acceptable to us. That’s the far left critique of the war in 1975. And Bowden, who is writing from a critical point of view, basically reiterated that point a couple days ago: Cronkite’s great contribution was to say, “look, it looks as if we can’t win, and if we can’t win…” I mean, Russian generals said the same in Afghanistan. We don’t honor them for that. > > LP: When you talked about protests in Understanding Power before the digital age, you mentioned that it was difficult for dissenters and protesters to connect with each other. How has the internet changed that? Protesters are obviously under surveillance when they are online, but they are able to connect with each other more quickly. Has there been a net gain to those who want to object to wars and oppression? Or is this illusory? > > NC: You may remember, during the Tahrir Square demonstrations in Cairo, which were being organized through social media, at one point [Hosni] Mubarak actually closed down the internet. That increased the mobilization. People just started talking to each other. It’s a different kind of communication. It means a lot more. So I think, yes, social media do offer opportunities for quick organization and transmission, but typically at a pretty superficial level. Face-to-face organizing is something quite different. The same, incidentally, has been found in electoral politics. Andrew Cockburn had an interesting article in Harper’s during the [2016] campaign in which he compared studies on the effect on potential voters of advertising, you know, TV, and the effect of knocking on doors and talking to people. It was overwhelming that the latter was more effective. We’re still human beings. > > LP: Companies like Google and Facebook increasingly control the information we can access. They’ve even been enlisted to vet stories, to weed out fake news, though there’s evidence that they may be weeding out legitimate dissent. Yet they are often applauded as if they’re doing a service. How is this sort of thing affecting our freedom? > > NC: It’s service for a bad reason. The younger people just don’t read much, so they want something quick, fast, easy. You go through a newspaper, it takes time. You have to see what’s at the end of the column, not just what’s in the headline. So this kind of instant gratification culture is drawing people to these quick summaries. Practically everybody’s on Facebook (except me). > > The other thing they’re doing which is kind of interesting has to do with microtargeting, which is being used for electoral manipulation. There are some cases, which have not been discussed as far as I know outside the business press. During the last German election, there was a lot of talk of potential Russian interference, you know, it’s gonna swing the election. Well, it turns out there was foreign interference, but it wasn’t Russian. It was a combination of the Berlin office of Facebook and a media company in the U.S., which works for Trump, Le Pen, Netanyahu, other nice guys. They used Facebook in Berlin to get a demographic analysis of parts of the population to allow them to microtarget ads to individuals in favor of AfD, the neo-Nazi party, which may have been a factor in their unexpectedly high vote in the election. This was reported in Bloomberg BusinessWeek. This was a real case of electoral manipulation but somehow it doesn’t make the headlines. > > LP: Which brings us to the narrative of Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election. I understand you’re not very impressed with this line. > > NC: Well it’s very hard to take seriously for a number of reasons. One reason is the work of Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues [“How Money Won Trump the White House”]. There really is manipulation of elections, but it’s not coming from the Russians. It’s coming from the people who buy the elections. Take his study of the 2016 election [“Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election”]. That’s how you interfere with elections. Or the pretty spectacular study that he and his colleagues did about a year ago on Congress “How Money Drives US Congressional Elections,” where you just get a straight line [correlation between money and major party votes in Congress]. You rarely see results like that in the social sciences. That’s massive manipulation. Compared with that, what the Russians might be doing is minuscule. Quite aside from the fact that the U.S. does it all the time in other countries. > > LP: It’s clear from leaked emails that the Democratic National Committee meddled with Bernie Sanders in his quest for the 2016 presidential nomination by favoring Hillary Clinton when it was supposed to be unbiased towards all candidates. What do you think it would it take for a real reformist candidate, a true populist, to ever win the presidency? > > NC: What it would actually take is popular organization and activism. With all its flaws, the U.S. is still a pretty free country. In this case, Democratic Party managers had to manipulate to keep Sanders from winning the nomination. His campaign, I think, was really spectacular. I couldn’t have predicted anything like it. It’s a break with over a century of American political history. No corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close—he probably could have won the nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he’d been elected? He couldn’t have done a thing. Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy—you have to build the whole system from the bottom. > > It’s kind of intriguing now, I’m sure you’ve seen the polls where he turns out to be the most popular political figure. Well, in a functioning democracy, the person who is the most popular political figure should appear somewhere. But nothing he does gets reported. It’s taking place, it’s having effects, but from the point of view of the liberal media, it’s as if it doesn’t exist. > > LP: What about recent events in California with Senator Dianne Feinstein, who got a big surprise by failing to win the state Democratic Party endorsement for a sixth term? Is this like the Sanders phenomenon, where people who want basic things like universal healthcare and worker protections are making their preferences heard by refusing to support candidates who are unresponsive? > > NC: She was voted down, and like the Sanders campaign or [Jeremy] Corbyn in England, there is a groundswell, and if it could be turned into something sustained and with a serious base, it could mean a lot. Traditionally, this has always been built around the labor movement, and that’s why the corporate sector is so dedicated to destroying the unions. It’s coming up in the Janus case, which was heard the other day, which will probably be voted in favor of Janus, which will be a lethal blow to public unions. [Mark Janus is the plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME involving the issue of whether government employees represented by a union must pay dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining and resolving grievances]. > > The whole U.S. private sector is passionate about destroying the union movement. This has been going on for a long time, but now they really think they can strangle it because it’s the core of activism for almost anything. Take a look at, say, healthcare. In Canada, in the 50s, it was the unions who were pressing hard for national healthcare, and kind of interestingly, in the U.S. the same unions were pressing for healthcare for themselves, auto workers in Detroit. These are two pretty similar countries, but with this striking difference in outcomes on healthcare. > > A more interesting case is England. There’s a pretty good article that just came out in the latest issue of Jacobin, which runs through the history of British healthcare and it’s quite interesting. It began, in England under Bevan in the late 40s. They got what was the best healthcare system in the world—still is, probably, and certainly was then. It started with mine workers in Wales who developed their own cooperative health system on a small scale. Aneurin Bevan was a Welsh mine worker. The cooperative system was picked up by the Labour Party as a program and the Labour Party actually won the election in 1945 and Bevan pushed it through and they got the National Health Service. > > Well, there’s two points that are critical for the U.S. It’s the unions. That why you have to destroy the unions. You destroy solidarity. It’s same reason for the attack on public schools, the attack on social security. These are all based on the idea that somehow you care about others, the community, and so on, and that’s completely unacceptable in a culture where you want to try to concentrate wealth and power. You don’t want people to have anything to do except to try to gain whatever they can for themselves. In that case, they’ll be very weak, of course. It’s only when you organize together than you can confront private capital. > > Secondly, there was a political party. The American political system probably wouldn’t be accepted by the European Court of Justice as a legitimate system. There’s no way for independent parties to enter the system. The Labour Party in England started as a very small party. But because the system allows—as most democratic countries do—small parties to function, they were able to develop and work within Parliament and expand and get political figures and the government and finally ended up being a big party. That’s almost impossible in the U.S. If you look at a ballot in the U.S., it says Democrat, Republican, Other. Nobody can break in. It’s a political monopoly. It’s two things that aren’t really political parties. You can’t really be a member of the Democratic Party, you can’t participate in designing its programs. You can be a member of the Labour Party. These are big differences, so I think two huge problems in the U.S. are the deficiencies of the political system, which shows up in the kind of things that Tom Ferguson and his colleagues study—you know, the enormous power of concentrated wealth in determining the outcome of elections and then the policies afterwards. That’s one, and the other is the destruction of the labor movement. > > LP: Let’s talk about the attack on public schools, which Gordon Lafer has outlined in his book, The One Percent Solution. > > NC: Yes, a very interesting book. > > LP: He discusses efforts by ALEC and other corporate-backed groups to dismantle public education, to get legislation passed to replace teachers with online education, increase class sizes, replace public schools with privately-funded charters, and so on. You’ve talked about the history of mass education. How do you see this corporate agenda for American schools? > > NC: You know, mass public education was, with all its flaws, one of the real contributions to American democracy. It was way ahead of other countries all the way through, including the college level with land grant colleges and so on. Europe just began to match that after World War II. Here it was happening in the late 19th century. Now there’s a real concerted effort to destroy the whole public education system. ALEC and Koch Brothers just recently announced a campaign taking Arizona as the test case because they figure Arizona is probably an easy one since it has probably the lowest per capita expenditure for education and a very right-wing legislature. What they’re trying to do—they describe it openly—is to try to essentially destroy the public education system, turn everything to vouchers and charter schools. It’ll be an interesting battle, and if it works in Arizona they want to do it elsewhere. > > It’s a huge corporate offensive. It’s very similar to attack on unions. First the Friedrichs [Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in which the Supreme Court deadlocked on the issue of the right of public-sector unions to collect fees from workers they represent, including those who don’t join the union, to cover bargaining and other activities], now the Janus case, and they’ll probably succeed. This right-to-work legislation is just unacceptable in other countries. In fact, in the NAFTA negotiations, at one point Canada proposed that part of a revision should be to ban measures that undermine labor rights like the right-to-work legislation. It’s kind of like using scabs. It’s just not heard of. But Reagan introduced it here—I think the U.S. and South Africa were the only countries that allowed it. In fact, the U.S. has never even ratified the first principle of the International Labour Organization, the right of association. I think the U.S. must be alone, frankly. It’s very much a business-run society. > > LP: What are students being trained for now in the corporate vision of education that is taking over the country? What kind of future will they have? And what does it do to the idea of a democracy? > > NC: Students will be controlled and disciplined. The education doesn’t leave any room for interaction, for creative activity, for teachers to do things on their own, for students to find a way to do things, I’ve talked to teacher’s groups. I remember once I was giving a talk and a 6th grade teacher came up to me describing experiences. She said that after one class a little girl came up and said that she was really interested in something that came up and wanted to know how she could do some more on it. And they teacher had to tell her, you can’t do it. You have to study for the MCAS, the Massachusetts version of the regular exam [Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System]. Everything depends on that. Even the teacher’s salary depends on that. So you can’t do anything creative as an individual. You follow the rules. It’s the Marine Corps. You do what you’re told. No associations. It’s a perfect system for creating a deeply authoritarian society. > > It’s also kind of a two-tiered system. It’s a little bit like what Sam Bowles and Herb Gitnis [co-authors of Schooling in Capitalist America] discussed when they wrote about early mass education. For the general worker, turn them into industrial workers, but for the elite, you have to have creativity: MIT, Harvard. You have to have people to create the next stage of the economy. > > LP: In the last several years, we’ve had a number of protest movements, Occupy, Black Lives Matter, and the #MeToo movement, which have often met with hostility or dismissal in the liberal press. Take #MeToo: the protest against workplace sexual harassment and violence has shown solidarity along class lines and across countries. For example, Latina farmworkers and Indian feminists back it. Yet some in the liberal press compare #MeToo protesters to McCarthyites and warn of witch hunts, despite the fact that the movement is helping to shift power away from oppressive management towards workers in challenging things like forced arbitration clauses that deny workers the right to take charges to court. > > NC: It’s a very valid protest and it’s an important movement. Charges do have to be subject to some kind of verification. Just allegation is not enough. As far as I know, the left-oriented groups like EPI [Economic Policy Institute] are in favor of ending forced arbitration, which also affects many other kinds of charges. I think they’re focusing on labor rights. > > LP: That’s true, but it seems that some may not be recognizing #MeToo as really part of the labor rights struggle. > > NC: That’s interesting. Yes. > > LP: Let’s talk about the broader issue of economic inequality. This year, wealthy elites polled at the World Economic Forum in Davos listed inequality as number 7 on their list of global worries. They’re more worried about other things, like data breaches and involuntary migration. Do you think that they may be comforted by the fact that they’ve avoided some scary scenarios, like, for example, a real populist president in the US, and can therefore relax a bit? Should they be more worried? > > NC: The danger that they perceive is that it might lead to a popular uprising, so you have to control that. There are the standard excuses about merit, which is a joke when you look at the details. I mean, take Bill Gates—a perfectly admirable person, but, as I’m sure he’d be the first to say, he based his fortune on two things, one, decades of work in the state sector which created the technology — the creative, risky work which was done since the 50s. He picked it up and marketed it. The second is the World Trade Organization, which gives him monopoly-pricing rights. I mean, that’s great but… > > LP: Kind of goes against the Horatio Alger myth [the belief that anybody can get rich just by working hard]. > > NC: Yes. > > LP: Finally, as you look ahead, what do you consider to be the biggest threats to human beings in the future? What should we be most concerned about? > > NC: Climate change and nuclear war. These are really existential threats. And what’s happening now is just astonishing. If media were functioning seriously, every day the lead headline would be this amazing fact—that in the entire world, every country is trying or committed to doing at least something. One country—one!—the most powerful country in history—is committed to trying to destroy the climate. Not just pulling out of the efforts of others, but maximizing the use of the most destructive means. > > There’s been nothing like this in history. It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life. It’s just missing from the media. In fact, if you read, say, the sensible business press, the Financial Times, BusinessWeek, any of them, when they talk about fossil fuel production, the articles are all just about the prospect for profit. Is the U.S. moving to number one and what are the gains? Not that it’s going to wipe out organized human life. Maybe that’s a footnote somewhere. It’s pretty astonishing. > > ### > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:14 AM, 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) >> >> From: AlterNet Headlines [mailto:replies at alternet.org] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:05 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History | Is John >> Bolton Too Much Even for Trump? | Trump's Legal Troubles Growing >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 22:49:32 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:49:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56DD326A-1B71-4C14-8356-92A898A08331@gmail.com> But a Republican-dominated House of Representatives may be less dangerous than a Democrat-dominated one. The Democrats brought us the Russiagate nonsense to encourage more war provocations vs. Russia - while Trump wants to talk with Putin and Kim... The War Party has the bit in its teeth and should be hobbled however possible. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > ".... It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life...." Chomsky. > > So much voting for GOPer Rodney Davis! Nazis are never the lesser of two evils. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:26 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History > > [The whole interview is worth considering.] > > > "Noam Chomsky on the Populist Groundswell, U.S. Elections, the Future of Humanity, and More” > By Lynn Parramore > {The renowned linguist, cognitive scientist, and historian on where we stand as an economy, as a country, and as human beings} > > We recently interviewed Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Laureate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. He shares his thoughts with the Institute for New Economic Thinking on foreign policy, dissent in the Internet age, public education, corporate predation, who’s really messing with American elections, climate change, and more. > > Lynn Parramore: You’ve been looking at politics and international relations for quite a long time. Over the decades, what are the continuities in these areas that stand out in your view? > > Noam Chomsky: Well the continuities are the message of the Athenians to Melos: “the powerful do what they wish and the weak suffer what they must” [from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War.”] It’s often disguised in humanitarian terms. The modalities and the context change. The situations change but the message stays the same. > > LP: What do you see as the most significant changes? > > NC: There are some steps towards imposing constraints and limits on state violence. For the most part, they come from inside. So for example, if you look at the United States and the kinds of actions that John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson could carry out in Vietnam, they were possible because of almost complete lack of public attention. > > I don’t know if you know, but as late as 1966 in Boston we could barely have an anti-war action because it would be violently broken up with the support of the press and so on. By then, South Vietnam had been practically destroyed. The war had expanded to other areas of Indochina. The Reagan administration, at the very beginning, tried to duplicate what Kennedy had done in 1961 with regard to Central America. So they had a white paper more or less modeled on Kennedy’s white paper that said the Communists are taking over. It was the usual steps, the propaganda, but it collapsed quickly. In the case of the Kennedy white paper, it took years before it was exposed as mostly fraudulent, but the Wall Street Journal, of all places, exposed the Reagan white paper in six months. There were protests by church groups and popular organizations and they had to kind of back off. What happened was bad enough but it was nothing like Indochina. > > Iraq was the first time in the history of imperialism that there were massive protests before the war was even officially launched. It’s claimed by people that it failed, but I don’t think so. I mean, they never began to do the kinds of things that they could have done. There were no B-52 raids on heavily populated areas or chemical warfare of the kind they did in Indochina. By and large the constraints come from inside, and they understood that. By the time you got to the first Bush administration, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they came out with a national defense policy and strategic policy. What they basically said is that we’re going to have wars against what they called much weaker enemies and these have to be carried out quickly and decisively or else there will be embarrassment—a way of saying that popular reaction is going to set in. And that’s the way it’s been. It’s not pretty, but it’s some kind of constraint. > > There are increasingly conditions in international law, like the Rome Treaty [the 1957 treaty that established the European Economic Community] and so on, but great powers just ignore them if they can get away with it, and getting away with it means ignoring the constraints of other states, which, in the case of, say, the U.S., don’t amount to much. Or internal constraints from changes inside the society, which have put in conditions of some significance, I think. > > It’s almost unimaginable now that the U.S. could carry out the kind of war it did in Indochina, which is something recognized by elite opinion. A typical example is Mark Bowden’s op-ed in the New York Times the other day about [Walter] Cronkite and how he changed everything. Well, what did Cronkite say? He said, it doesn’t look as if we’re going to win. That’s the criticism of the war. That’s the way it was perceived at the time, and that’s the way it’s still perceived by intellectual elites. But if you look at public opinion—which doesn’t really get investigated much so it’s not too clear what it means, but it’s interesting—the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was running polls on all sorts of issues in the 70s and 80s, and when the Vietnam War ended in 1975, about 70 percent of the population described the war as fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake. That stayed pretty steady for several years until they stop asking the question. The director of the study, John Rielly, interpreted that as meaning too many American were being killed. Maybe. There’s another possible interpretation of “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” which is that the U.S. was carrying out a crime against humanity. But it was never investigated because there’s too much cognitive dissonance. Elite intellectuals can’t perceive that possibility. > > Everybody had a comment when the war ended, and so the hawks said, “stab in the back” [i.e. civilian critics undermined the military] and “if we’d fought harder we would have won.” The doves went kind of like Anthony Lewis of the New York Times, who was maybe the most extreme. In 1975 when the war ended, he said the war began with blundering efforts to do good. “Efforts to do good” is virtual tautology, facts irrelevant; and “blundering” means it failed. He said that by 1969 it was clear that it was a disaster because the U.S. could not bring democracy to Vietnam at a cost acceptable to us. That’s the far left critique of the war in 1975. And Bowden, who is writing from a critical point of view, basically reiterated that point a couple days ago: Cronkite’s great contribution was to say, “look, it looks as if we can’t win, and if we can’t win…” I mean, Russian generals said the same in Afghanistan. We don’t honor them for that. > > LP: When you talked about protests in Understanding Power before the digital age, you mentioned that it was difficult for dissenters and protesters to connect with each other. How has the internet changed that? Protesters are obviously under surveillance when they are online, but they are able to connect with each other more quickly. Has there been a net gain to those who want to object to wars and oppression? Or is this illusory? > > NC: You may remember, during the Tahrir Square demonstrations in Cairo, which were being organized through social media, at one point [Hosni] Mubarak actually closed down the internet. That increased the mobilization. People just started talking to each other. It’s a different kind of communication. It means a lot more. So I think, yes, social media do offer opportunities for quick organization and transmission, but typically at a pretty superficial level. Face-to-face organizing is something quite different. The same, incidentally, has been found in electoral politics. Andrew Cockburn had an interesting article in Harper’s during the [2016] campaign in which he compared studies on the effect on potential voters of advertising, you know, TV, and the effect of knocking on doors and talking to people. It was overwhelming that the latter was more effective. We’re still human beings. > > LP: Companies like Google and Facebook increasingly control the information we can access. They’ve even been enlisted to vet stories, to weed out fake news, though there’s evidence that they may be weeding out legitimate dissent. Yet they are often applauded as if they’re doing a service. How is this sort of thing affecting our freedom? > > NC: It’s service for a bad reason. The younger people just don’t read much, so they want something quick, fast, easy. You go through a newspaper, it takes time. You have to see what’s at the end of the column, not just what’s in the headline. So this kind of instant gratification culture is drawing people to these quick summaries. Practically everybody’s on Facebook (except me). > > The other thing they’re doing which is kind of interesting has to do with microtargeting, which is being used for electoral manipulation. There are some cases, which have not been discussed as far as I know outside the business press. During the last German election, there was a lot of talk of potential Russian interference, you know, it’s gonna swing the election. Well, it turns out there was foreign interference, but it wasn’t Russian. It was a combination of the Berlin office of Facebook and a media company in the U.S., which works for Trump, Le Pen, Netanyahu, other nice guys. They used Facebook in Berlin to get a demographic analysis of parts of the population to allow them to microtarget ads to individuals in favor of AfD, the neo-Nazi party, which may have been a factor in their unexpectedly high vote in the election. This was reported in Bloomberg BusinessWeek. This was a real case of electoral manipulation but somehow it doesn’t make the headlines. > > LP: Which brings us to the narrative of Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election. I understand you’re not very impressed with this line. > > NC: Well it’s very hard to take seriously for a number of reasons. One reason is the work of Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues [“How Money Won Trump the White House”]. There really is manipulation of elections, but it’s not coming from the Russians. It’s coming from the people who buy the elections. Take his study of the 2016 election [“Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election”]. That’s how you interfere with elections. Or the pretty spectacular study that he and his colleagues did about a year ago on Congress “How Money Drives US Congressional Elections,” where you just get a straight line [correlation between money and major party votes in Congress]. You rarely see results like that in the social sciences. That’s massive manipulation. Compared with that, what the Russians might be doing is minuscule. Quite aside from the fact that the U.S. does it all the time in other countries. > > LP: It’s clear from leaked emails that the Democratic National Committee meddled with Bernie Sanders in his quest for the 2016 presidential nomination by favoring Hillary Clinton when it was supposed to be unbiased towards all candidates. What do you think it would it take for a real reformist candidate, a true populist, to ever win the presidency? > > NC: What it would actually take is popular organization and activism. With all its flaws, the U.S. is still a pretty free country. In this case, Democratic Party managers had to manipulate to keep Sanders from winning the nomination. His campaign, I think, was really spectacular. I couldn’t have predicted anything like it. It’s a break with over a century of American political history. No corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close—he probably could have won the nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he’d been elected? He couldn’t have done a thing. Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy—you have to build the whole system from the bottom. > > It’s kind of intriguing now, I’m sure you’ve seen the polls where he turns out to be the most popular political figure. Well, in a functioning democracy, the person who is the most popular political figure should appear somewhere. But nothing he does gets reported. It’s taking place, it’s having effects, but from the point of view of the liberal media, it’s as if it doesn’t exist. > > LP: What about recent events in California with Senator Dianne Feinstein, who got a big surprise by failing to win the state Democratic Party endorsement for a sixth term? Is this like the Sanders phenomenon, where people who want basic things like universal healthcare and worker protections are making their preferences heard by refusing to support candidates who are unresponsive? > > NC: She was voted down, and like the Sanders campaign or [Jeremy] Corbyn in England, there is a groundswell, and if it could be turned into something sustained and with a serious base, it could mean a lot. Traditionally, this has always been built around the labor movement, and that’s why the corporate sector is so dedicated to destroying the unions. It’s coming up in the Janus case, which was heard the other day, which will probably be voted in favor of Janus, which will be a lethal blow to public unions. [Mark Janus is the plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME involving the issue of whether government employees represented by a union must pay dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining and resolving grievances]. > > The whole U.S. private sector is passionate about destroying the union movement. This has been going on for a long time, but now they really think they can strangle it because it’s the core of activism for almost anything. Take a look at, say, healthcare. In Canada, in the 50s, it was the unions who were pressing hard for national healthcare, and kind of interestingly, in the U.S. the same unions were pressing for healthcare for themselves, auto workers in Detroit. These are two pretty similar countries, but with this striking difference in outcomes on healthcare. > > A more interesting case is England. There’s a pretty good article that just came out in the latest issue of Jacobin, which runs through the history of British healthcare and it’s quite interesting. It began, in England under Bevan in the late 40s. They got what was the best healthcare system in the world—still is, probably, and certainly was then. It started with mine workers in Wales who developed their own cooperative health system on a small scale. Aneurin Bevan was a Welsh mine worker. The cooperative system was picked up by the Labour Party as a program and the Labour Party actually won the election in 1945 and Bevan pushed it through and they got the National Health Service. > > Well, there’s two points that are critical for the U.S. It’s the unions. That why you have to destroy the unions. You destroy solidarity. It’s same reason for the attack on public schools, the attack on social security. These are all based on the idea that somehow you care about others, the community, and so on, and that’s completely unacceptable in a culture where you want to try to concentrate wealth and power. You don’t want people to have anything to do except to try to gain whatever they can for themselves. In that case, they’ll be very weak, of course. It’s only when you organize together than you can confront private capital. > > Secondly, there was a political party. The American political system probably wouldn’t be accepted by the European Court of Justice as a legitimate system. There’s no way for independent parties to enter the system. The Labour Party in England started as a very small party. But because the system allows—as most democratic countries do—small parties to function, they were able to develop and work within Parliament and expand and get political figures and the government and finally ended up being a big party. That’s almost impossible in the U.S. If you look at a ballot in the U.S., it says Democrat, Republican, Other. Nobody can break in. It’s a political monopoly. It’s two things that aren’t really political parties. You can’t really be a member of the Democratic Party, you can’t participate in designing its programs. You can be a member of the Labour Party. These are big differences, so I think two huge problems in the U.S. are the deficiencies of the political system, which shows up in the kind of things that Tom Ferguson and his colleagues study—you know, the enormous power of concentrated wealth in determining the outcome of elections and then the policies afterwards. That’s one, and the other is the destruction of the labor movement. > > LP: Let’s talk about the attack on public schools, which Gordon Lafer has outlined in his book, The One Percent Solution. > > NC: Yes, a very interesting book. > > LP: He discusses efforts by ALEC and other corporate-backed groups to dismantle public education, to get legislation passed to replace teachers with online education, increase class sizes, replace public schools with privately-funded charters, and so on. You’ve talked about the history of mass education. How do you see this corporate agenda for American schools? > > NC: You know, mass public education was, with all its flaws, one of the real contributions to American democracy. It was way ahead of other countries all the way through, including the college level with land grant colleges and so on. Europe just began to match that after World War II. Here it was happening in the late 19th century. Now there’s a real concerted effort to destroy the whole public education system. ALEC and Koch Brothers just recently announced a campaign taking Arizona as the test case because they figure Arizona is probably an easy one since it has probably the lowest per capita expenditure for education and a very right-wing legislature. What they’re trying to do—they describe it openly—is to try to essentially destroy the public education system, turn everything to vouchers and charter schools. It’ll be an interesting battle, and if it works in Arizona they want to do it elsewhere. > > It’s a huge corporate offensive. It’s very similar to attack on unions. First the Friedrichs [Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in which the Supreme Court deadlocked on the issue of the right of public-sector unions to collect fees from workers they represent, including those who don’t join the union, to cover bargaining and other activities], now the Janus case, and they’ll probably succeed. This right-to-work legislation is just unacceptable in other countries. In fact, in the NAFTA negotiations, at one point Canada proposed that part of a revision should be to ban measures that undermine labor rights like the right-to-work legislation. It’s kind of like using scabs. It’s just not heard of. But Reagan introduced it here—I think the U.S. and South Africa were the only countries that allowed it. In fact, the U.S. has never even ratified the first principle of the International Labour Organization, the right of association. I think the U.S. must be alone, frankly. It’s very much a business-run society. > > LP: What are students being trained for now in the corporate vision of education that is taking over the country? What kind of future will they have? And what does it do to the idea of a democracy? > > NC: Students will be controlled and disciplined. The education doesn’t leave any room for interaction, for creative activity, for teachers to do things on their own, for students to find a way to do things, I’ve talked to teacher’s groups. I remember once I was giving a talk and a 6th grade teacher came up to me describing experiences. She said that after one class a little girl came up and said that she was really interested in something that came up and wanted to know how she could do some more on it. And they teacher had to tell her, you can’t do it. You have to study for the MCAS, the Massachusetts version of the regular exam [Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System]. Everything depends on that. Even the teacher’s salary depends on that. So you can’t do anything creative as an individual. You follow the rules. It’s the Marine Corps. You do what you’re told. No associations. It’s a perfect system for creating a deeply authoritarian society. > > It’s also kind of a two-tiered system. It’s a little bit like what Sam Bowles and Herb Gitnis [co-authors of Schooling in Capitalist America] discussed when they wrote about early mass education. For the general worker, turn them into industrial workers, but for the elite, you have to have creativity: MIT, Harvard. You have to have people to create the next stage of the economy. > > LP: In the last several years, we’ve had a number of protest movements, Occupy, Black Lives Matter, and the #MeToo movement, which have often met with hostility or dismissal in the liberal press. Take #MeToo: the protest against workplace sexual harassment and violence has shown solidarity along class lines and across countries. For example, Latina farmworkers and Indian feminists back it. Yet some in the liberal press compare #MeToo protesters to McCarthyites and warn of witch hunts, despite the fact that the movement is helping to shift power away from oppressive management towards workers in challenging things like forced arbitration clauses that deny workers the right to take charges to court. > > NC: It’s a very valid protest and it’s an important movement. Charges do have to be subject to some kind of verification. Just allegation is not enough. As far as I know, the left-oriented groups like EPI [Economic Policy Institute] are in favor of ending forced arbitration, which also affects many other kinds of charges. I think they’re focusing on labor rights. > > LP: That’s true, but it seems that some may not be recognizing #MeToo as really part of the labor rights struggle. > > NC: That’s interesting. Yes. > > LP: Let’s talk about the broader issue of economic inequality. This year, wealthy elites polled at the World Economic Forum in Davos listed inequality as number 7 on their list of global worries. They’re more worried about other things, like data breaches and involuntary migration. Do you think that they may be comforted by the fact that they’ve avoided some scary scenarios, like, for example, a real populist president in the US, and can therefore relax a bit? Should they be more worried? > > NC: The danger that they perceive is that it might lead to a popular uprising, so you have to control that. There are the standard excuses about merit, which is a joke when you look at the details. I mean, take Bill Gates—a perfectly admirable person, but, as I’m sure he’d be the first to say, he based his fortune on two things, one, decades of work in the state sector which created the technology — the creative, risky work which was done since the 50s. He picked it up and marketed it. The second is the World Trade Organization, which gives him monopoly-pricing rights. I mean, that’s great but… > > LP: Kind of goes against the Horatio Alger myth [the belief that anybody can get rich just by working hard]. > > NC: Yes. > > LP: Finally, as you look ahead, what do you consider to be the biggest threats to human beings in the future? What should we be most concerned about? > > NC: Climate change and nuclear war. These are really existential threats. And what’s happening now is just astonishing. If media were functioning seriously, every day the lead headline would be this amazing fact—that in the entire world, every country is trying or committed to doing at least something. One country—one!—the most powerful country in history—is committed to trying to destroy the climate. Not just pulling out of the efforts of others, but maximizing the use of the most destructive means. > > There’s been nothing like this in history. It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life. It’s just missing from the media. In fact, if you read, say, the sensible business press, the Financial Times, BusinessWeek, any of them, when they talk about fossil fuel production, the articles are all just about the prospect for profit. Is the U.S. moving to number one and what are the gains? Not that it’s going to wipe out organized human life. Maybe that’s a footnote somewhere. It’s pretty astonishing. > > ### > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:14 AM, 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) >> >> From: AlterNet Headlines [mailto:replies at alternet.org] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:05 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History | Is John >> Bolton Too Much Even for Trump? | Trump's Legal Troubles Growing >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 23 00:27:27 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:27:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History In-Reply-To: <3B978C0B-49C0-42AD-82BD-B06AFF6F2E4C@gmail.com> References: <3B978C0B-49C0-42AD-82BD-B06AFF6F2E4C@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel and Mad Dog. World War 3 here we come! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:41 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History John Bolton is replacing H. R. McMaster as National Security Adviser - a triumph for 'Russiagate.' Which party controlling Congress is more likely to bring us war and rumors of war - the Republicans, who criticized Obama-Clinton war-making, or the Democrats, who brought us Russiagate, because they thought Trump “Putin’s puppet” and so not belligerent enough? Is a Republican- or Democrat-dominated Congress more likely to restrain the neocons? “Lynn Parramore: Finally, as you look ahead, what do you consider to be the biggest threats to human beings in the future? What should we be most concerned about?” “Noam Chomsky: Climate change and nuclear war…" And which is the more immediate threat? —CGE > On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > ".... It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life...." Chomsky. > > So much voting for GOPer Rodney Davis! Nazis are never the lesser of two evils. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:26 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in > Human History > > [The whole interview is worth considering.] > > > "Noam Chomsky on the Populist Groundswell, U.S. Elections, the Future of Humanity, and More” > By Lynn Parramore > {The renowned linguist, cognitive scientist, and historian on where we > stand as an economy, as a country, and as human beings} > > We recently interviewed Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Laureate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. He shares his thoughts with the Institute for New Economic Thinking on foreign policy, dissent in the Internet age, public education, corporate predation, who’s really messing with American elections, climate change, and more. > > Lynn Parramore: You’ve been looking at politics and international relations for quite a long time. Over the decades, what are the continuities in these areas that stand out in your view? > > Noam Chomsky: Well the continuities are the message of the Athenians to Melos: “the powerful do what they wish and the weak suffer what they must” [from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War.”] It’s often disguised in humanitarian terms. The modalities and the context change. The situations change but the message stays the same. > > LP: What do you see as the most significant changes? > > NC: There are some steps towards imposing constraints and limits on state violence. For the most part, they come from inside. So for example, if you look at the United States and the kinds of actions that John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson could carry out in Vietnam, they were possible because of almost complete lack of public attention. > > I don’t know if you know, but as late as 1966 in Boston we could barely have an anti-war action because it would be violently broken up with the support of the press and so on. By then, South Vietnam had been practically destroyed. The war had expanded to other areas of Indochina. The Reagan administration, at the very beginning, tried to duplicate what Kennedy had done in 1961 with regard to Central America. So they had a white paper more or less modeled on Kennedy’s white paper that said the Communists are taking over. It was the usual steps, the propaganda, but it collapsed quickly. In the case of the Kennedy white paper, it took years before it was exposed as mostly fraudulent, but the Wall Street Journal, of all places, exposed the Reagan white paper in six months. There were protests by church groups and popular organizations and they had to kind of back off. What happened was bad enough but it was nothing like Indochina. > > Iraq was the first time in the history of imperialism that there were massive protests before the war was even officially launched. It’s claimed by people that it failed, but I don’t think so. I mean, they never began to do the kinds of things that they could have done. There were no B-52 raids on heavily populated areas or chemical warfare of the kind they did in Indochina. By and large the constraints come from inside, and they understood that. By the time you got to the first Bush administration, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they came out with a national defense policy and strategic policy. What they basically said is that we’re going to have wars against what they called much weaker enemies and these have to be carried out quickly and decisively or else there will be embarrassment—a way of saying that popular reaction is going to set in. And that’s the way it’s been. It’s not pretty, but it’s some kind of constraint. > > There are increasingly conditions in international law, like the Rome Treaty [the 1957 treaty that established the European Economic Community] and so on, but great powers just ignore them if they can get away with it, and getting away with it means ignoring the constraints of other states, which, in the case of, say, the U.S., don’t amount to much. Or internal constraints from changes inside the society, which have put in conditions of some significance, I think. > > It’s almost unimaginable now that the U.S. could carry out the kind of war it did in Indochina, which is something recognized by elite opinion. A typical example is Mark Bowden’s op-ed in the New York Times the other day about [Walter] Cronkite and how he changed everything. Well, what did Cronkite say? He said, it doesn’t look as if we’re going to win. That’s the criticism of the war. That’s the way it was perceived at the time, and that’s the way it’s still perceived by intellectual elites. But if you look at public opinion—which doesn’t really get investigated much so it’s not too clear what it means, but it’s interesting—the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was running polls on all sorts of issues in the 70s and 80s, and when the Vietnam War ended in 1975, about 70 percent of the population described the war as fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake. That stayed pretty steady for several years until they stop asking the question. The director of the study, John Rielly, interpreted that as meaning too many American were being killed. Maybe. There’s another possible interpretation of “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” which is that the U.S. was carrying out a crime against humanity. But it was never investigated because there’s too much cognitive dissonance. Elite intellectuals can’t perceive that possibility. > > Everybody had a comment when the war ended, and so the hawks said, “stab in the back” [i.e. civilian critics undermined the military] and “if we’d fought harder we would have won.” The doves went kind of like Anthony Lewis of the New York Times, who was maybe the most extreme. In 1975 when the war ended, he said the war began with blundering efforts to do good. “Efforts to do good” is virtual tautology, facts irrelevant; and “blundering” means it failed. He said that by 1969 it was clear that it was a disaster because the U.S. could not bring democracy to Vietnam at a cost acceptable to us. That’s the far left critique of the war in 1975. And Bowden, who is writing from a critical point of view, basically reiterated that point a couple days ago: Cronkite’s great contribution was to say, “look, it looks as if we can’t win, and if we can’t win…” I mean, Russian generals said the same in Afghanistan. We don’t honor them for that. > > LP: When you talked about protests in Understanding Power before the digital age, you mentioned that it was difficult for dissenters and protesters to connect with each other. How has the internet changed that? Protesters are obviously under surveillance when they are online, but they are able to connect with each other more quickly. Has there been a net gain to those who want to object to wars and oppression? Or is this illusory? > > NC: You may remember, during the Tahrir Square demonstrations in Cairo, which were being organized through social media, at one point [Hosni] Mubarak actually closed down the internet. That increased the mobilization. People just started talking to each other. It’s a different kind of communication. It means a lot more. So I think, yes, social media do offer opportunities for quick organization and transmission, but typically at a pretty superficial level. Face-to-face organizing is something quite different. The same, incidentally, has been found in electoral politics. Andrew Cockburn had an interesting article in Harper’s during the [2016] campaign in which he compared studies on the effect on potential voters of advertising, you know, TV, and the effect of knocking on doors and talking to people. It was overwhelming that the latter was more effective. We’re still human beings. > > LP: Companies like Google and Facebook increasingly control the information we can access. They’ve even been enlisted to vet stories, to weed out fake news, though there’s evidence that they may be weeding out legitimate dissent. Yet they are often applauded as if they’re doing a service. How is this sort of thing affecting our freedom? > > NC: It’s service for a bad reason. The younger people just don’t read much, so they want something quick, fast, easy. You go through a newspaper, it takes time. You have to see what’s at the end of the column, not just what’s in the headline. So this kind of instant gratification culture is drawing people to these quick summaries. Practically everybody’s on Facebook (except me). > > The other thing they’re doing which is kind of interesting has to do with microtargeting, which is being used for electoral manipulation. There are some cases, which have not been discussed as far as I know outside the business press. During the last German election, there was a lot of talk of potential Russian interference, you know, it’s gonna swing the election. Well, it turns out there was foreign interference, but it wasn’t Russian. It was a combination of the Berlin office of Facebook and a media company in the U.S., which works for Trump, Le Pen, Netanyahu, other nice guys. They used Facebook in Berlin to get a demographic analysis of parts of the population to allow them to microtarget ads to individuals in favor of AfD, the neo-Nazi party, which may have been a factor in their unexpectedly high vote in the election. This was reported in Bloomberg BusinessWeek. This was a real case of electoral manipulation but somehow it doesn’t make the headlines. > > LP: Which brings us to the narrative of Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election. I understand you’re not very impressed with this line. > > NC: Well it’s very hard to take seriously for a number of reasons. One reason is the work of Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues [“How Money Won Trump the White House”]. There really is manipulation of elections, but it’s not coming from the Russians. It’s coming from the people who buy the elections. Take his study of the 2016 election [“Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election”]. That’s how you interfere with elections. Or the pretty spectacular study that he and his colleagues did about a year ago on Congress “How Money Drives US Congressional Elections,” where you just get a straight line [correlation between money and major party votes in Congress]. You rarely see results like that in the social sciences. That’s massive manipulation. Compared with that, what the Russians might be doing is minuscule. Quite aside from the fact that the U.S. does it all the time in other countries. > > LP: It’s clear from leaked emails that the Democratic National Committee meddled with Bernie Sanders in his quest for the 2016 presidential nomination by favoring Hillary Clinton when it was supposed to be unbiased towards all candidates. What do you think it would it take for a real reformist candidate, a true populist, to ever win the presidency? > > NC: What it would actually take is popular organization and activism. With all its flaws, the U.S. is still a pretty free country. In this case, Democratic Party managers had to manipulate to keep Sanders from winning the nomination. His campaign, I think, was really spectacular. I couldn’t have predicted anything like it. It’s a break with over a century of American political history. No corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close—he probably could have won the nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he’d been elected? He couldn’t have done a thing. Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy—you have to build the whole system from the bottom. > > It’s kind of intriguing now, I’m sure you’ve seen the polls where he turns out to be the most popular political figure. Well, in a functioning democracy, the person who is the most popular political figure should appear somewhere. But nothing he does gets reported. It’s taking place, it’s having effects, but from the point of view of the liberal media, it’s as if it doesn’t exist. > > LP: What about recent events in California with Senator Dianne Feinstein, who got a big surprise by failing to win the state Democratic Party endorsement for a sixth term? Is this like the Sanders phenomenon, where people who want basic things like universal healthcare and worker protections are making their preferences heard by refusing to support candidates who are unresponsive? > > NC: She was voted down, and like the Sanders campaign or [Jeremy] Corbyn in England, there is a groundswell, and if it could be turned into something sustained and with a serious base, it could mean a lot. Traditionally, this has always been built around the labor movement, and that’s why the corporate sector is so dedicated to destroying the unions. It’s coming up in the Janus case, which was heard the other day, which will probably be voted in favor of Janus, which will be a lethal blow to public unions. [Mark Janus is the plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME involving the issue of whether government employees represented by a union must pay dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining and resolving grievances]. > > The whole U.S. private sector is passionate about destroying the union movement. This has been going on for a long time, but now they really think they can strangle it because it’s the core of activism for almost anything. Take a look at, say, healthcare. In Canada, in the 50s, it was the unions who were pressing hard for national healthcare, and kind of interestingly, in the U.S. the same unions were pressing for healthcare for themselves, auto workers in Detroit. These are two pretty similar countries, but with this striking difference in outcomes on healthcare. > > A more interesting case is England. There’s a pretty good article that just came out in the latest issue of Jacobin, which runs through the history of British healthcare and it’s quite interesting. It began, in England under Bevan in the late 40s. They got what was the best healthcare system in the world—still is, probably, and certainly was then. It started with mine workers in Wales who developed their own cooperative health system on a small scale. Aneurin Bevan was a Welsh mine worker. The cooperative system was picked up by the Labour Party as a program and the Labour Party actually won the election in 1945 and Bevan pushed it through and they got the National Health Service. > > Well, there’s two points that are critical for the U.S. It’s the unions. That why you have to destroy the unions. You destroy solidarity. It’s same reason for the attack on public schools, the attack on social security. These are all based on the idea that somehow you care about others, the community, and so on, and that’s completely unacceptable in a culture where you want to try to concentrate wealth and power. You don’t want people to have anything to do except to try to gain whatever they can for themselves. In that case, they’ll be very weak, of course. It’s only when you organize together than you can confront private capital. > > Secondly, there was a political party. The American political system probably wouldn’t be accepted by the European Court of Justice as a legitimate system. There’s no way for independent parties to enter the system. The Labour Party in England started as a very small party. But because the system allows—as most democratic countries do—small parties to function, they were able to develop and work within Parliament and expand and get political figures and the government and finally ended up being a big party. That’s almost impossible in the U.S. If you look at a ballot in the U.S., it says Democrat, Republican, Other. Nobody can break in. It’s a political monopoly. It’s two things that aren’t really political parties. You can’t really be a member of the Democratic Party, you can’t participate in designing its programs. You can be a member of the Labour Party. These are big differences, so I think two huge problems in the U.S. are the deficiencies of the political system, which shows up in the kind of things that Tom Ferguson and his colleagues study—you know, the enormous power of concentrated wealth in determining the outcome of elections and then the policies afterwards. That’s one, and the other is the destruction of the labor movement. > > LP: Let’s talk about the attack on public schools, which Gordon Lafer has outlined in his book, The One Percent Solution. > > NC: Yes, a very interesting book. > > LP: He discusses efforts by ALEC and other corporate-backed groups to dismantle public education, to get legislation passed to replace teachers with online education, increase class sizes, replace public schools with privately-funded charters, and so on. You’ve talked about the history of mass education. How do you see this corporate agenda for American schools? > > NC: You know, mass public education was, with all its flaws, one of the real contributions to American democracy. It was way ahead of other countries all the way through, including the college level with land grant colleges and so on. Europe just began to match that after World War II. Here it was happening in the late 19th century. Now there’s a real concerted effort to destroy the whole public education system. ALEC and Koch Brothers just recently announced a campaign taking Arizona as the test case because they figure Arizona is probably an easy one since it has probably the lowest per capita expenditure for education and a very right-wing legislature. What they’re trying to do—they describe it openly—is to try to essentially destroy the public education system, turn everything to vouchers and charter schools. It’ll be an interesting battle, and if it works in Arizona they want to do it elsewhere. > > It’s a huge corporate offensive. It’s very similar to attack on unions. First the Friedrichs [Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in which the Supreme Court deadlocked on the issue of the right of public-sector unions to collect fees from workers they represent, including those who don’t join the union, to cover bargaining and other activities], now the Janus case, and they’ll probably succeed. This right-to-work legislation is just unacceptable in other countries. In fact, in the NAFTA negotiations, at one point Canada proposed that part of a revision should be to ban measures that undermine labor rights like the right-to-work legislation. It’s kind of like using scabs. It’s just not heard of. But Reagan introduced it here—I think the U.S. and South Africa were the only countries that allowed it. In fact, the U.S. has never even ratified the first principle of the International Labour Organization, the right of association. I think the U.S. must be alone, frankly. It’s very much a business-run society. > > LP: What are students being trained for now in the corporate vision of education that is taking over the country? What kind of future will they have? And what does it do to the idea of a democracy? > > NC: Students will be controlled and disciplined. The education doesn’t leave any room for interaction, for creative activity, for teachers to do things on their own, for students to find a way to do things, I’ve talked to teacher’s groups. I remember once I was giving a talk and a 6th grade teacher came up to me describing experiences. She said that after one class a little girl came up and said that she was really interested in something that came up and wanted to know how she could do some more on it. And they teacher had to tell her, you can’t do it. You have to study for the MCAS, the Massachusetts version of the regular exam [Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System]. Everything depends on that. Even the teacher’s salary depends on that. So you can’t do anything creative as an individual. You follow the rules. It’s the Marine Corps. You do what you’re told. No associations. It’s a perfect system for creating a deeply authoritarian society. > > It’s also kind of a two-tiered system. It’s a little bit like what Sam Bowles and Herb Gitnis [co-authors of Schooling in Capitalist America] discussed when they wrote about early mass education. For the general worker, turn them into industrial workers, but for the elite, you have to have creativity: MIT, Harvard. You have to have people to create the next stage of the economy. > > LP: In the last several years, we’ve had a number of protest movements, Occupy, Black Lives Matter, and the #MeToo movement, which have often met with hostility or dismissal in the liberal press. Take #MeToo: the protest against workplace sexual harassment and violence has shown solidarity along class lines and across countries. For example, Latina farmworkers and Indian feminists back it. Yet some in the liberal press compare #MeToo protesters to McCarthyites and warn of witch hunts, despite the fact that the movement is helping to shift power away from oppressive management towards workers in challenging things like forced arbitration clauses that deny workers the right to take charges to court. > > NC: It’s a very valid protest and it’s an important movement. Charges do have to be subject to some kind of verification. Just allegation is not enough. As far as I know, the left-oriented groups like EPI [Economic Policy Institute] are in favor of ending forced arbitration, which also affects many other kinds of charges. I think they’re focusing on labor rights. > > LP: That’s true, but it seems that some may not be recognizing #MeToo as really part of the labor rights struggle. > > NC: That’s interesting. Yes. > > LP: Let’s talk about the broader issue of economic inequality. This year, wealthy elites polled at the World Economic Forum in Davos listed inequality as number 7 on their list of global worries. They’re more worried about other things, like data breaches and involuntary migration. Do you think that they may be comforted by the fact that they’ve avoided some scary scenarios, like, for example, a real populist president in the US, and can therefore relax a bit? Should they be more worried? > > NC: The danger that they perceive is that it might lead to a popular > uprising, so you have to control that. There are the standard excuses > about merit, which is a joke when you look at the details. I mean, > take Bill Gates—a perfectly admirable person, but, as I’m sure he’d be > the first to say, he based his fortune on two things, one, decades of > work in the state sector which created the technology — the creative, > risky work which was done since the 50s. He picked it up and marketed > it. The second is the World Trade Organization, which gives him > monopoly-pricing rights. I mean, that’s great but… > > LP: Kind of goes against the Horatio Alger myth [the belief that anybody can get rich just by working hard]. > > NC: Yes. > > LP: Finally, as you look ahead, what do you consider to be the biggest threats to human beings in the future? What should we be most concerned about? > > NC: Climate change and nuclear war. These are really existential threats. And what’s happening now is just astonishing. If media were functioning seriously, every day the lead headline would be this amazing fact—that in the entire world, every country is trying or committed to doing at least something. One country—one!—the most powerful country in history—is committed to trying to destroy the climate. Not just pulling out of the efforts of others, but maximizing the use of the most destructive means. > > There’s been nothing like this in history. It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life. It’s just missing from the media. In fact, if you read, say, the sensible business press, the Financial Times, BusinessWeek, any of them, when they talk about fossil fuel production, the articles are all just about the prospect for profit. Is the U.S. moving to number one and what are the gains? Not that it’s going to wipe out organized human life. Maybe that’s a footnote somewhere. It’s pretty astonishing. > > ### > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:14 AM, 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) >> >> From: AlterNet Headlines [mailto:replies at alternet.org] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:05 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History | Is >> John Bolton Too Much Even for Trump? | Trump's Legal Troubles Growing >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 23 01:21:36 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 20:21:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History In-Reply-To: References: <3B978C0B-49C0-42AD-82BD-B06AFF6F2E4C@gmail.com> Message-ID: Next week is Holy Week: >. > On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:27 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel and Mad Dog. World War 3 here we come! Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:41 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History > > John Bolton is replacing H. R. McMaster as National Security Adviser - a triumph for 'Russiagate.' > > Which party controlling Congress is more likely to bring us war and rumors of war - the Republicans, who criticized Obama-Clinton war-making, or the Democrats, who brought us Russiagate, because they thought Trump “Putin’s puppet” and so not belligerent enough? > > Is a Republican- or Democrat-dominated Congress more likely to restrain the neocons? > > “Lynn Parramore: Finally, as you look ahead, what do you consider to be the biggest threats to human beings in the future? What should we be most concerned about?” > > “Noam Chomsky: Climate change and nuclear war…" > > And which is the more immediate threat? —CGE > > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> ".... It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life...." Chomsky. >> >> So much voting for GOPer Rodney Davis! Nazis are never the lesser of two evils. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:26 AM >> To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace >> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in >> Human History >> >> [The whole interview is worth considering.] >> >> >> "Noam Chomsky on the Populist Groundswell, U.S. Elections, the Future of Humanity, and More” >> By Lynn Parramore >> {The renowned linguist, cognitive scientist, and historian on where we >> stand as an economy, as a country, and as human beings} >> >> We recently interviewed Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Laureate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. He shares his thoughts with the Institute for New Economic Thinking on foreign policy, dissent in the Internet age, public education, corporate predation, who’s really messing with American elections, climate change, and more. >> >> Lynn Parramore: You’ve been looking at politics and international relations for quite a long time. Over the decades, what are the continuities in these areas that stand out in your view? >> >> Noam Chomsky: Well the continuities are the message of the Athenians to Melos: “the powerful do what they wish and the weak suffer what they must” [from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War.”] It’s often disguised in humanitarian terms. The modalities and the context change. The situations change but the message stays the same. >> >> LP: What do you see as the most significant changes? >> >> NC: There are some steps towards imposing constraints and limits on state violence. For the most part, they come from inside. So for example, if you look at the United States and the kinds of actions that John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson could carry out in Vietnam, they were possible because of almost complete lack of public attention. >> >> I don’t know if you know, but as late as 1966 in Boston we could barely have an anti-war action because it would be violently broken up with the support of the press and so on. By then, South Vietnam had been practically destroyed. The war had expanded to other areas of Indochina. The Reagan administration, at the very beginning, tried to duplicate what Kennedy had done in 1961 with regard to Central America. So they had a white paper more or less modeled on Kennedy’s white paper that said the Communists are taking over. It was the usual steps, the propaganda, but it collapsed quickly. In the case of the Kennedy white paper, it took years before it was exposed as mostly fraudulent, but the Wall Street Journal, of all places, exposed the Reagan white paper in six months. There were protests by church groups and popular organizations and they had to kind of back off. What happened was bad enough but it was nothing like Indochina. >> >> Iraq was the first time in the history of imperialism that there were massive protests before the war was even officially launched. It’s claimed by people that it failed, but I don’t think so. I mean, they never began to do the kinds of things that they could have done. There were no B-52 raids on heavily populated areas or chemical warfare of the kind they did in Indochina. By and large the constraints come from inside, and they understood that. By the time you got to the first Bush administration, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they came out with a national defense policy and strategic policy. What they basically said is that we’re going to have wars against what they called much weaker enemies and these have to be carried out quickly and decisively or else there will be embarrassment—a way of saying that popular reaction is going to set in. And that’s the way it’s been. It’s not pretty, but it’s some kind of constraint. >> >> There are increasingly conditions in international law, like the Rome Treaty [the 1957 treaty that established the European Economic Community] and so on, but great powers just ignore them if they can get away with it, and getting away with it means ignoring the constraints of other states, which, in the case of, say, the U.S., don’t amount to much. Or internal constraints from changes inside the society, which have put in conditions of some significance, I think. >> >> It’s almost unimaginable now that the U.S. could carry out the kind of war it did in Indochina, which is something recognized by elite opinion. A typical example is Mark Bowden’s op-ed in the New York Times the other day about [Walter] Cronkite and how he changed everything. Well, what did Cronkite say? He said, it doesn’t look as if we’re going to win. That’s the criticism of the war. That’s the way it was perceived at the time, and that’s the way it’s still perceived by intellectual elites. But if you look at public opinion—which doesn’t really get investigated much so it’s not too clear what it means, but it’s interesting—the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was running polls on all sorts of issues in the 70s and 80s, and when the Vietnam War ended in 1975, about 70 percent of the population described the war as fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake. That stayed pretty steady for several years until they stop asking the question. The director of the study, John Rielly, interpreted that as meaning too many American were being killed. Maybe. There’s another possible interpretation of “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” which is that the U.S. was carrying out a crime against humanity. But it was never investigated because there’s too much cognitive dissonance. Elite intellectuals can’t perceive that possibility. >> >> Everybody had a comment when the war ended, and so the hawks said, “stab in the back” [i.e. civilian critics undermined the military] and “if we’d fought harder we would have won.” The doves went kind of like Anthony Lewis of the New York Times, who was maybe the most extreme. In 1975 when the war ended, he said the war began with blundering efforts to do good. “Efforts to do good” is virtual tautology, facts irrelevant; and “blundering” means it failed. He said that by 1969 it was clear that it was a disaster because the U.S. could not bring democracy to Vietnam at a cost acceptable to us. That’s the far left critique of the war in 1975. And Bowden, who is writing from a critical point of view, basically reiterated that point a couple days ago: Cronkite’s great contribution was to say, “look, it looks as if we can’t win, and if we can’t win…” I mean, Russian generals said the same in Afghanistan. We don’t honor them for that. >> >> LP: When you talked about protests in Understanding Power before the digital age, you mentioned that it was difficult for dissenters and protesters to connect with each other. How has the internet changed that? Protesters are obviously under surveillance when they are online, but they are able to connect with each other more quickly. Has there been a net gain to those who want to object to wars and oppression? Or is this illusory? >> >> NC: You may remember, during the Tahrir Square demonstrations in Cairo, which were being organized through social media, at one point [Hosni] Mubarak actually closed down the internet. That increased the mobilization. People just started talking to each other. It’s a different kind of communication. It means a lot more. So I think, yes, social media do offer opportunities for quick organization and transmission, but typically at a pretty superficial level. Face-to-face organizing is something quite different. The same, incidentally, has been found in electoral politics. Andrew Cockburn had an interesting article in Harper’s during the [2016] campaign in which he compared studies on the effect on potential voters of advertising, you know, TV, and the effect of knocking on doors and talking to people. It was overwhelming that the latter was more effective. We’re still human beings. >> >> LP: Companies like Google and Facebook increasingly control the information we can access. They’ve even been enlisted to vet stories, to weed out fake news, though there’s evidence that they may be weeding out legitimate dissent. Yet they are often applauded as if they’re doing a service. How is this sort of thing affecting our freedom? >> >> NC: It’s service for a bad reason. The younger people just don’t read much, so they want something quick, fast, easy. You go through a newspaper, it takes time. You have to see what’s at the end of the column, not just what’s in the headline. So this kind of instant gratification culture is drawing people to these quick summaries. Practically everybody’s on Facebook (except me). >> >> The other thing they’re doing which is kind of interesting has to do with microtargeting, which is being used for electoral manipulation. There are some cases, which have not been discussed as far as I know outside the business press. During the last German election, there was a lot of talk of potential Russian interference, you know, it’s gonna swing the election. Well, it turns out there was foreign interference, but it wasn’t Russian. It was a combination of the Berlin office of Facebook and a media company in the U.S., which works for Trump, Le Pen, Netanyahu, other nice guys. They used Facebook in Berlin to get a demographic analysis of parts of the population to allow them to microtarget ads to individuals in favor of AfD, the neo-Nazi party, which may have been a factor in their unexpectedly high vote in the election. This was reported in Bloomberg BusinessWeek. This was a real case of electoral manipulation but somehow it doesn’t make the headlines. >> >> LP: Which brings us to the narrative of Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election. I understand you’re not very impressed with this line. >> >> NC: Well it’s very hard to take seriously for a number of reasons. One reason is the work of Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues [“How Money Won Trump the White House”]. There really is manipulation of elections, but it’s not coming from the Russians. It’s coming from the people who buy the elections. Take his study of the 2016 election [“Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election”]. That’s how you interfere with elections. Or the pretty spectacular study that he and his colleagues did about a year ago on Congress “How Money Drives US Congressional Elections,” where you just get a straight line [correlation between money and major party votes in Congress]. You rarely see results like that in the social sciences. That’s massive manipulation. Compared with that, what the Russians might be doing is minuscule. Quite aside from the fact that the U.S. does it all the time in other countries. >> >> LP: It’s clear from leaked emails that the Democratic National Committee meddled with Bernie Sanders in his quest for the 2016 presidential nomination by favoring Hillary Clinton when it was supposed to be unbiased towards all candidates. What do you think it would it take for a real reformist candidate, a true populist, to ever win the presidency? >> >> NC: What it would actually take is popular organization and activism. With all its flaws, the U.S. is still a pretty free country. In this case, Democratic Party managers had to manipulate to keep Sanders from winning the nomination. His campaign, I think, was really spectacular. I couldn’t have predicted anything like it. It’s a break with over a century of American political history. No corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close—he probably could have won the nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he’d been elected? He couldn’t have done a thing. Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy—you have to build the whole system from the bottom. >> >> It’s kind of intriguing now, I’m sure you’ve seen the polls where he turns out to be the most popular political figure. Well, in a functioning democracy, the person who is the most popular political figure should appear somewhere. But nothing he does gets reported. It’s taking place, it’s having effects, but from the point of view of the liberal media, it’s as if it doesn’t exist. >> >> LP: What about recent events in California with Senator Dianne Feinstein, who got a big surprise by failing to win the state Democratic Party endorsement for a sixth term? Is this like the Sanders phenomenon, where people who want basic things like universal healthcare and worker protections are making their preferences heard by refusing to support candidates who are unresponsive? >> >> NC: She was voted down, and like the Sanders campaign or [Jeremy] Corbyn in England, there is a groundswell, and if it could be turned into something sustained and with a serious base, it could mean a lot. Traditionally, this has always been built around the labor movement, and that’s why the corporate sector is so dedicated to destroying the unions. It’s coming up in the Janus case, which was heard the other day, which will probably be voted in favor of Janus, which will be a lethal blow to public unions. [Mark Janus is the plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME involving the issue of whether government employees represented by a union must pay dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining and resolving grievances]. >> >> The whole U.S. private sector is passionate about destroying the union movement. This has been going on for a long time, but now they really think they can strangle it because it’s the core of activism for almost anything. Take a look at, say, healthcare. In Canada, in the 50s, it was the unions who were pressing hard for national healthcare, and kind of interestingly, in the U.S. the same unions were pressing for healthcare for themselves, auto workers in Detroit. These are two pretty similar countries, but with this striking difference in outcomes on healthcare. >> >> A more interesting case is England. There’s a pretty good article that just came out in the latest issue of Jacobin, which runs through the history of British healthcare and it’s quite interesting. It began, in England under Bevan in the late 40s. They got what was the best healthcare system in the world—still is, probably, and certainly was then. It started with mine workers in Wales who developed their own cooperative health system on a small scale. Aneurin Bevan was a Welsh mine worker. The cooperative system was picked up by the Labour Party as a program and the Labour Party actually won the election in 1945 and Bevan pushed it through and they got the National Health Service. >> >> Well, there’s two points that are critical for the U.S. It’s the unions. That why you have to destroy the unions. You destroy solidarity. It’s same reason for the attack on public schools, the attack on social security. These are all based on the idea that somehow you care about others, the community, and so on, and that’s completely unacceptable in a culture where you want to try to concentrate wealth and power. You don’t want people to have anything to do except to try to gain whatever they can for themselves. In that case, they’ll be very weak, of course. It’s only when you organize together than you can confront private capital. >> >> Secondly, there was a political party. The American political system probably wouldn’t be accepted by the European Court of Justice as a legitimate system. There’s no way for independent parties to enter the system. The Labour Party in England started as a very small party. But because the system allows—as most democratic countries do—small parties to function, they were able to develop and work within Parliament and expand and get political figures and the government and finally ended up being a big party. That’s almost impossible in the U.S. If you look at a ballot in the U.S., it says Democrat, Republican, Other. Nobody can break in. It’s a political monopoly. It’s two things that aren’t really political parties. You can’t really be a member of the Democratic Party, you can’t participate in designing its programs. You can be a member of the Labour Party. These are big differences, so I think two huge problems in the U.S. are the deficiencies of the political system, which shows up in the kind of things that Tom Ferguson and his colleagues study—you know, the enormous power of concentrated wealth in determining the outcome of elections and then the policies afterwards. That’s one, and the other is the destruction of the labor movement. >> >> LP: Let’s talk about the attack on public schools, which Gordon Lafer has outlined in his book, The One Percent Solution. >> >> NC: Yes, a very interesting book. >> >> LP: He discusses efforts by ALEC and other corporate-backed groups to dismantle public education, to get legislation passed to replace teachers with online education, increase class sizes, replace public schools with privately-funded charters, and so on. You’ve talked about the history of mass education. How do you see this corporate agenda for American schools? >> >> NC: You know, mass public education was, with all its flaws, one of the real contributions to American democracy. It was way ahead of other countries all the way through, including the college level with land grant colleges and so on. Europe just began to match that after World War II. Here it was happening in the late 19th century. Now there’s a real concerted effort to destroy the whole public education system. ALEC and Koch Brothers just recently announced a campaign taking Arizona as the test case because they figure Arizona is probably an easy one since it has probably the lowest per capita expenditure for education and a very right-wing legislature. What they’re trying to do—they describe it openly—is to try to essentially destroy the public education system, turn everything to vouchers and charter schools. It’ll be an interesting battle, and if it works in Arizona they want to do it elsewhere. >> >> It’s a huge corporate offensive. It’s very similar to attack on unions. First the Friedrichs [Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in which the Supreme Court deadlocked on the issue of the right of public-sector unions to collect fees from workers they represent, including those who don’t join the union, to cover bargaining and other activities], now the Janus case, and they’ll probably succeed. This right-to-work legislation is just unacceptable in other countries. In fact, in the NAFTA negotiations, at one point Canada proposed that part of a revision should be to ban measures that undermine labor rights like the right-to-work legislation. It’s kind of like using scabs. It’s just not heard of. But Reagan introduced it here—I think the U.S. and South Africa were the only countries that allowed it. In fact, the U.S. has never even ratified the first principle of the International Labour Organization, the right of association. I think the U.S. must be alone, frankly. It’s very much a business-run society. >> >> LP: What are students being trained for now in the corporate vision of education that is taking over the country? What kind of future will they have? And what does it do to the idea of a democracy? >> >> NC: Students will be controlled and disciplined. The education doesn’t leave any room for interaction, for creative activity, for teachers to do things on their own, for students to find a way to do things, I’ve talked to teacher’s groups. I remember once I was giving a talk and a 6th grade teacher came up to me describing experiences. She said that after one class a little girl came up and said that she was really interested in something that came up and wanted to know how she could do some more on it. And they teacher had to tell her, you can’t do it. You have to study for the MCAS, the Massachusetts version of the regular exam [Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System]. Everything depends on that. Even the teacher’s salary depends on that. So you can’t do anything creative as an individual. You follow the rules. It’s the Marine Corps. You do what you’re told. No associations. It’s a perfect system for creating a deeply authoritarian society. >> >> It’s also kind of a two-tiered system. It’s a little bit like what Sam Bowles and Herb Gitnis [co-authors of Schooling in Capitalist America] discussed when they wrote about early mass education. For the general worker, turn them into industrial workers, but for the elite, you have to have creativity: MIT, Harvard. You have to have people to create the next stage of the economy. >> >> LP: In the last several years, we’ve had a number of protest movements, Occupy, Black Lives Matter, and the #MeToo movement, which have often met with hostility or dismissal in the liberal press. Take #MeToo: the protest against workplace sexual harassment and violence has shown solidarity along class lines and across countries. For example, Latina farmworkers and Indian feminists back it. Yet some in the liberal press compare #MeToo protesters to McCarthyites and warn of witch hunts, despite the fact that the movement is helping to shift power away from oppressive management towards workers in challenging things like forced arbitration clauses that deny workers the right to take charges to court. >> >> NC: It’s a very valid protest and it’s an important movement. Charges do have to be subject to some kind of verification. Just allegation is not enough. As far as I know, the left-oriented groups like EPI [Economic Policy Institute] are in favor of ending forced arbitration, which also affects many other kinds of charges. I think they’re focusing on labor rights. >> >> LP: That’s true, but it seems that some may not be recognizing #MeToo as really part of the labor rights struggle. >> >> NC: That’s interesting. Yes. >> >> LP: Let’s talk about the broader issue of economic inequality. This year, wealthy elites polled at the World Economic Forum in Davos listed inequality as number 7 on their list of global worries. They’re more worried about other things, like data breaches and involuntary migration. Do you think that they may be comforted by the fact that they’ve avoided some scary scenarios, like, for example, a real populist president in the US, and can therefore relax a bit? Should they be more worried? >> >> NC: The danger that they perceive is that it might lead to a popular >> uprising, so you have to control that. There are the standard excuses >> about merit, which is a joke when you look at the details. I mean, >> take Bill Gates—a perfectly admirable person, but, as I’m sure he’d be >> the first to say, he based his fortune on two things, one, decades of >> work in the state sector which created the technology — the creative, >> risky work which was done since the 50s. He picked it up and marketed >> it. The second is the World Trade Organization, which gives him >> monopoly-pricing rights. I mean, that’s great but… >> >> LP: Kind of goes against the Horatio Alger myth [the belief that anybody can get rich just by working hard]. >> >> NC: Yes. >> >> LP: Finally, as you look ahead, what do you consider to be the biggest threats to human beings in the future? What should we be most concerned about? >> >> NC: Climate change and nuclear war. These are really existential threats. And what’s happening now is just astonishing. If media were functioning seriously, every day the lead headline would be this amazing fact—that in the entire world, every country is trying or committed to doing at least something. One country—one!—the most powerful country in history—is committed to trying to destroy the climate. Not just pulling out of the efforts of others, but maximizing the use of the most destructive means. >> >> There’s been nothing like this in history. It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life. It’s just missing from the media. In fact, if you read, say, the sensible business press, the Financial Times, BusinessWeek, any of them, when they talk about fossil fuel production, the articles are all just about the prospect for profit. Is the U.S. moving to number one and what are the gains? Not that it’s going to wipe out organized human life. Maybe that’s a footnote somewhere. It’s pretty astonishing. >> >> ### >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:14 AM, 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) >>> >>> From: AlterNet Headlines [mailto:replies at alternet.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:05 AM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Subject: Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History | Is >>> John Bolton Too Much Even for Trump? | Trump's Legal Troubles Growing >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 23 01:45:50 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 01:45:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History In-Reply-To: References: <3B978C0B-49C0-42AD-82BD-B06AFF6F2E4C@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yeah we will need a Miracle to avoid WW3. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:22 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) ; Peace Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History Next week is Holy Week: . On Mar 22, 2018, at 7:27 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel and Mad Dog. World War 3 here we come! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:41 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace >; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History John Bolton is replacing H. R. McMaster as National Security Adviser - a triumph for 'Russiagate.' Which party controlling Congress is more likely to bring us war and rumors of war - the Republicans, who criticized Obama-Clinton war-making, or the Democrats, who brought us Russiagate, because they thought Trump “Putin’s puppet” and so not belligerent enough? Is a Republican- or Democrat-dominated Congress more likely to restrain the neocons? “Lynn Parramore: Finally, as you look ahead, what do you consider to be the biggest threats to human beings in the future? What should we be most concerned about?” “Noam Chomsky: Climate change and nuclear war…" And which is the more immediate threat? —CGE On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: ".... It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life...." Chomsky. So much voting for GOPer Rodney Davis! Nazis are never the lesser of two evils. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 8:26 AM To: Boyle, Francis A >; Peace > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History [The whole interview is worth considering.] > "Noam Chomsky on the Populist Groundswell, U.S. Elections, the Future of Humanity, and More” By Lynn Parramore {The renowned linguist, cognitive scientist, and historian on where we stand as an economy, as a country, and as human beings} We recently interviewed Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Laureate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. He shares his thoughts with the Institute for New Economic Thinking on foreign policy, dissent in the Internet age, public education, corporate predation, who’s really messing with American elections, climate change, and more. Lynn Parramore: You’ve been looking at politics and international relations for quite a long time. Over the decades, what are the continuities in these areas that stand out in your view? Noam Chomsky: Well the continuities are the message of the Athenians to Melos: “the powerful do what they wish and the weak suffer what they must” [from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War.”] It’s often disguised in humanitarian terms. The modalities and the context change. The situations change but the message stays the same. LP: What do you see as the most significant changes? NC: There are some steps towards imposing constraints and limits on state violence. For the most part, they come from inside. So for example, if you look at the United States and the kinds of actions that John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson could carry out in Vietnam, they were possible because of almost complete lack of public attention. I don’t know if you know, but as late as 1966 in Boston we could barely have an anti-war action because it would be violently broken up with the support of the press and so on. By then, South Vietnam had been practically destroyed. The war had expanded to other areas of Indochina. The Reagan administration, at the very beginning, tried to duplicate what Kennedy had done in 1961 with regard to Central America. So they had a white paper more or less modeled on Kennedy’s white paper that said the Communists are taking over. It was the usual steps, the propaganda, but it collapsed quickly. In the case of the Kennedy white paper, it took years before it was exposed as mostly fraudulent, but the Wall Street Journal, of all places, exposed the Reagan white paper in six months. There were protests by church groups and popular organizations and they had to kind of back off. What happened was bad enough but it was nothing like Indochina. Iraq was the first time in the history of imperialism that there were massive protests before the war was even officially launched. It’s claimed by people that it failed, but I don’t think so. I mean, they never began to do the kinds of things that they could have done. There were no B-52 raids on heavily populated areas or chemical warfare of the kind they did in Indochina. By and large the constraints come from inside, and they understood that. By the time you got to the first Bush administration, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they came out with a national defense policy and strategic policy. What they basically said is that we’re going to have wars against what they called much weaker enemies and these have to be carried out quickly and decisively or else there will be embarrassment—a way of saying that popular reaction is going to set in. And that’s the way it’s been. It’s not pretty, but it’s some kind of constraint. There are increasingly conditions in international law, like the Rome Treaty [the 1957 treaty that established the European Economic Community] and so on, but great powers just ignore them if they can get away with it, and getting away with it means ignoring the constraints of other states, which, in the case of, say, the U.S., don’t amount to much. Or internal constraints from changes inside the society, which have put in conditions of some significance, I think. It’s almost unimaginable now that the U.S. could carry out the kind of war it did in Indochina, which is something recognized by elite opinion. A typical example is Mark Bowden’s op-ed in the New York Times the other day about [Walter] Cronkite and how he changed everything. Well, what did Cronkite say? He said, it doesn’t look as if we’re going to win. That’s the criticism of the war. That’s the way it was perceived at the time, and that’s the way it’s still perceived by intellectual elites. But if you look at public opinion—which doesn’t really get investigated much so it’s not too clear what it means, but it’s interesting—the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was running polls on all sorts of issues in the 70s and 80s, and when the Vietnam War ended in 1975, about 70 percent of the population described the war as fundamentally wrong and immoral, not a mistake. That stayed pretty steady for several years until they stop asking the question. The director of the study, John Rielly, interpreted that as meaning too many American were being killed. Maybe. There’s another possible interpretation of “fundamentally wrong and immoral,” which is that the U.S. was carrying out a crime against humanity. But it was never investigated because there’s too much cognitive dissonance. Elite intellectuals can’t perceive that possibility. Everybody had a comment when the war ended, and so the hawks said, “stab in the back” [i.e. civilian critics undermined the military] and “if we’d fought harder we would have won.” The doves went kind of like Anthony Lewis of the New York Times, who was maybe the most extreme. In 1975 when the war ended, he said the war began with blundering efforts to do good. “Efforts to do good” is virtual tautology, facts irrelevant; and “blundering” means it failed. He said that by 1969 it was clear that it was a disaster because the U.S. could not bring democracy to Vietnam at a cost acceptable to us. That’s the far left critique of the war in 1975. And Bowden, who is writing from a critical point of view, basically reiterated that point a couple days ago: Cronkite’s great contribution was to say, “look, it looks as if we can’t win, and if we can’t win…” I mean, Russian generals said the same in Afghanistan. We don’t honor them for that. LP: When you talked about protests in Understanding Power before the digital age, you mentioned that it was difficult for dissenters and protesters to connect with each other. How has the internet changed that? Protesters are obviously under surveillance when they are online, but they are able to connect with each other more quickly. Has there been a net gain to those who want to object to wars and oppression? Or is this illusory? NC: You may remember, during the Tahrir Square demonstrations in Cairo, which were being organized through social media, at one point [Hosni] Mubarak actually closed down the internet. That increased the mobilization. People just started talking to each other. It’s a different kind of communication. It means a lot more. So I think, yes, social media do offer opportunities for quick organization and transmission, but typically at a pretty superficial level. Face-to-face organizing is something quite different. The same, incidentally, has been found in electoral politics. Andrew Cockburn had an interesting article in Harper’s during the [2016] campaign in which he compared studies on the effect on potential voters of advertising, you know, TV, and the effect of knocking on doors and talking to people. It was overwhelming that the latter was more effective. We’re still human beings. LP: Companies like Google and Facebook increasingly control the information we can access. They’ve even been enlisted to vet stories, to weed out fake news, though there’s evidence that they may be weeding out legitimate dissent. Yet they are often applauded as if they’re doing a service. How is this sort of thing affecting our freedom? NC: It’s service for a bad reason. The younger people just don’t read much, so they want something quick, fast, easy. You go through a newspaper, it takes time. You have to see what’s at the end of the column, not just what’s in the headline. So this kind of instant gratification culture is drawing people to these quick summaries. Practically everybody’s on Facebook (except me). The other thing they’re doing which is kind of interesting has to do with microtargeting, which is being used for electoral manipulation. There are some cases, which have not been discussed as far as I know outside the business press. During the last German election, there was a lot of talk of potential Russian interference, you know, it’s gonna swing the election. Well, it turns out there was foreign interference, but it wasn’t Russian. It was a combination of the Berlin office of Facebook and a media company in the U.S., which works for Trump, Le Pen, Netanyahu, other nice guys. They used Facebook in Berlin to get a demographic analysis of parts of the population to allow them to microtarget ads to individuals in favor of AfD, the neo-Nazi party, which may have been a factor in their unexpectedly high vote in the election. This was reported in Bloomberg BusinessWeek. This was a real case of electoral manipulation but somehow it doesn’t make the headlines. LP: Which brings us to the narrative of Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election. I understand you’re not very impressed with this line. NC: Well it’s very hard to take seriously for a number of reasons. One reason is the work of Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues [“How Money Won Trump the White House”]. There really is manipulation of elections, but it’s not coming from the Russians. It’s coming from the people who buy the elections. Take his study of the 2016 election [“Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games: Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election”]. That’s how you interfere with elections. Or the pretty spectacular study that he and his colleagues did about a year ago on Congress “How Money Drives US Congressional Elections,” where you just get a straight line [correlation between money and major party votes in Congress]. You rarely see results like that in the social sciences. That’s massive manipulation. Compared with that, what the Russians might be doing is minuscule. Quite aside from the fact that the U.S. does it all the time in other countries. LP: It’s clear from leaked emails that the Democratic National Committee meddled with Bernie Sanders in his quest for the 2016 presidential nomination by favoring Hillary Clinton when it was supposed to be unbiased towards all candidates. What do you think it would it take for a real reformist candidate, a true populist, to ever win the presidency? NC: What it would actually take is popular organization and activism. With all its flaws, the U.S. is still a pretty free country. In this case, Democratic Party managers had to manipulate to keep Sanders from winning the nomination. His campaign, I think, was really spectacular. I couldn’t have predicted anything like it. It’s a break with over a century of American political history. No corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close—he probably could have won the nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he’d been elected? He couldn’t have done a thing. Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy—you have to build the whole system from the bottom. It’s kind of intriguing now, I’m sure you’ve seen the polls where he turns out to be the most popular political figure. Well, in a functioning democracy, the person who is the most popular political figure should appear somewhere. But nothing he does gets reported. It’s taking place, it’s having effects, but from the point of view of the liberal media, it’s as if it doesn’t exist. LP: What about recent events in California with Senator Dianne Feinstein, who got a big surprise by failing to win the state Democratic Party endorsement for a sixth term? Is this like the Sanders phenomenon, where people who want basic things like universal healthcare and worker protections are making their preferences heard by refusing to support candidates who are unresponsive? NC: She was voted down, and like the Sanders campaign or [Jeremy] Corbyn in England, there is a groundswell, and if it could be turned into something sustained and with a serious base, it could mean a lot. Traditionally, this has always been built around the labor movement, and that’s why the corporate sector is so dedicated to destroying the unions. It’s coming up in the Janus case, which was heard the other day, which will probably be voted in favor of Janus, which will be a lethal blow to public unions. [Mark Janus is the plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME involving the issue of whether government employees represented by a union must pay dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining and resolving grievances]. The whole U.S. private sector is passionate about destroying the union movement. This has been going on for a long time, but now they really think they can strangle it because it’s the core of activism for almost anything. Take a look at, say, healthcare. In Canada, in the 50s, it was the unions who were pressing hard for national healthcare, and kind of interestingly, in the U.S. the same unions were pressing for healthcare for themselves, auto workers in Detroit. These are two pretty similar countries, but with this striking difference in outcomes on healthcare. A more interesting case is England. There’s a pretty good article that just came out in the latest issue of Jacobin, which runs through the history of British healthcare and it’s quite interesting. It began, in England under Bevan in the late 40s. They got what was the best healthcare system in the world—still is, probably, and certainly was then. It started with mine workers in Wales who developed their own cooperative health system on a small scale. Aneurin Bevan was a Welsh mine worker. The cooperative system was picked up by the Labour Party as a program and the Labour Party actually won the election in 1945 and Bevan pushed it through and they got the National Health Service. Well, there’s two points that are critical for the U.S. It’s the unions. That why you have to destroy the unions. You destroy solidarity. It’s same reason for the attack on public schools, the attack on social security. These are all based on the idea that somehow you care about others, the community, and so on, and that’s completely unacceptable in a culture where you want to try to concentrate wealth and power. You don’t want people to have anything to do except to try to gain whatever they can for themselves. In that case, they’ll be very weak, of course. It’s only when you organize together than you can confront private capital. Secondly, there was a political party. The American political system probably wouldn’t be accepted by the European Court of Justice as a legitimate system. There’s no way for independent parties to enter the system. The Labour Party in England started as a very small party. But because the system allows—as most democratic countries do—small parties to function, they were able to develop and work within Parliament and expand and get political figures and the government and finally ended up being a big party. That’s almost impossible in the U.S. If you look at a ballot in the U.S., it says Democrat, Republican, Other. Nobody can break in. It’s a political monopoly. It’s two things that aren’t really political parties. You can’t really be a member of the Democratic Party, you can’t participate in designing its programs. You can be a member of the Labour Party. These are big differences, so I think two huge problems in the U.S. are the deficiencies of the political system, which shows up in the kind of things that Tom Ferguson and his colleagues study—you know, the enormous power of concentrated wealth in determining the outcome of elections and then the policies afterwards. That’s one, and the other is the destruction of the labor movement. LP: Let’s talk about the attack on public schools, which Gordon Lafer has outlined in his book, The One Percent Solution. NC: Yes, a very interesting book. LP: He discusses efforts by ALEC and other corporate-backed groups to dismantle public education, to get legislation passed to replace teachers with online education, increase class sizes, replace public schools with privately-funded charters, and so on. You’ve talked about the history of mass education. How do you see this corporate agenda for American schools? NC: You know, mass public education was, with all its flaws, one of the real contributions to American democracy. It was way ahead of other countries all the way through, including the college level with land grant colleges and so on. Europe just began to match that after World War II. Here it was happening in the late 19th century. Now there’s a real concerted effort to destroy the whole public education system. ALEC and Koch Brothers just recently announced a campaign taking Arizona as the test case because they figure Arizona is probably an easy one since it has probably the lowest per capita expenditure for education and a very right-wing legislature. What they’re trying to do—they describe it openly—is to try to essentially destroy the public education system, turn everything to vouchers and charter schools. It’ll be an interesting battle, and if it works in Arizona they want to do it elsewhere. It’s a huge corporate offensive. It’s very similar to attack on unions. First the Friedrichs [Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in which the Supreme Court deadlocked on the issue of the right of public-sector unions to collect fees from workers they represent, including those who don’t join the union, to cover bargaining and other activities], now the Janus case, and they’ll probably succeed. This right-to-work legislation is just unacceptable in other countries. In fact, in the NAFTA negotiations, at one point Canada proposed that part of a revision should be to ban measures that undermine labor rights like the right-to-work legislation. It’s kind of like using scabs. It’s just not heard of. But Reagan introduced it here—I think the U.S. and South Africa were the only countries that allowed it. In fact, the U.S. has never even ratified the first principle of the International Labour Organization, the right of association. I think the U.S. must be alone, frankly. It’s very much a business-run society. LP: What are students being trained for now in the corporate vision of education that is taking over the country? What kind of future will they have? And what does it do to the idea of a democracy? NC: Students will be controlled and disciplined. The education doesn’t leave any room for interaction, for creative activity, for teachers to do things on their own, for students to find a way to do things, I’ve talked to teacher’s groups. I remember once I was giving a talk and a 6th grade teacher came up to me describing experiences. She said that after one class a little girl came up and said that she was really interested in something that came up and wanted to know how she could do some more on it. And they teacher had to tell her, you can’t do it. You have to study for the MCAS, the Massachusetts version of the regular exam [Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System]. Everything depends on that. Even the teacher’s salary depends on that. So you can’t do anything creative as an individual. You follow the rules. It’s the Marine Corps. You do what you’re told. No associations. It’s a perfect system for creating a deeply authoritarian society. It’s also kind of a two-tiered system. It’s a little bit like what Sam Bowles and Herb Gitnis [co-authors of Schooling in Capitalist America] discussed when they wrote about early mass education. For the general worker, turn them into industrial workers, but for the elite, you have to have creativity: MIT, Harvard. You have to have people to create the next stage of the economy. LP: In the last several years, we’ve had a number of protest movements, Occupy, Black Lives Matter, and the #MeToo movement, which have often met with hostility or dismissal in the liberal press. Take #MeToo: the protest against workplace sexual harassment and violence has shown solidarity along class lines and across countries. For example, Latina farmworkers and Indian feminists back it. Yet some in the liberal press compare #MeToo protesters to McCarthyites and warn of witch hunts, despite the fact that the movement is helping to shift power away from oppressive management towards workers in challenging things like forced arbitration clauses that deny workers the right to take charges to court. NC: It’s a very valid protest and it’s an important movement. Charges do have to be subject to some kind of verification. Just allegation is not enough. As far as I know, the left-oriented groups like EPI [Economic Policy Institute] are in favor of ending forced arbitration, which also affects many other kinds of charges. I think they’re focusing on labor rights. LP: That’s true, but it seems that some may not be recognizing #MeToo as really part of the labor rights struggle. NC: That’s interesting. Yes. LP: Let’s talk about the broader issue of economic inequality. This year, wealthy elites polled at the World Economic Forum in Davos listed inequality as number 7 on their list of global worries. They’re more worried about other things, like data breaches and involuntary migration. Do you think that they may be comforted by the fact that they’ve avoided some scary scenarios, like, for example, a real populist president in the US, and can therefore relax a bit? Should they be more worried? NC: The danger that they perceive is that it might lead to a popular uprising, so you have to control that. There are the standard excuses about merit, which is a joke when you look at the details. I mean, take Bill Gates—a perfectly admirable person, but, as I’m sure he’d be the first to say, he based his fortune on two things, one, decades of work in the state sector which created the technology — the creative, risky work which was done since the 50s. He picked it up and marketed it. The second is the World Trade Organization, which gives him monopoly-pricing rights. I mean, that’s great but… LP: Kind of goes against the Horatio Alger myth [the belief that anybody can get rich just by working hard]. NC: Yes. LP: Finally, as you look ahead, what do you consider to be the biggest threats to human beings in the future? What should we be most concerned about? NC: Climate change and nuclear war. These are really existential threats. And what’s happening now is just astonishing. If media were functioning seriously, every day the lead headline would be this amazing fact—that in the entire world, every country is trying or committed to doing at least something. One country—one!—the most powerful country in history—is committed to trying to destroy the climate. Not just pulling out of the efforts of others, but maximizing the use of the most destructive means. There’s been nothing like this in history. It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life. It’s just missing from the media. In fact, if you read, say, the sensible business press, the Financial Times, BusinessWeek, any of them, when they talk about fossil fuel production, the articles are all just about the prospect for profit. Is the U.S. moving to number one and what are the gains? Not that it’s going to wipe out organized human life. Maybe that’s a footnote somewhere. It’s pretty astonishing. ### On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:14 AM, 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) From: AlterNet Headlines [mailto:replies at alternet.org] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 7:05 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Chomsky: GOP Is Most Dangerous Org in Human History | Is John Bolton Too Much Even for Trump? | Trump's Legal Troubles Growing _______________________________________________ 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 brussel at illinois.edu Fri Mar 23 04:42:32 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:42:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bolton in the Trump war cabinet Message-ID: It is hard to take Carl Estabrook's positions seriously. Trump et al. seeking peace with Russia? China? N. Korea? Trump leading the ever increasing militarization of U.S. society? Hard to have faith (sic) on both Carl and Trump on these issues . Remember that Rodney Davis and more generally Republicans are anti-abortion and anti women’s choice. That may soften Carl’s formidable brain. Now we have the Trump administration nomination of John Bolton, a scary war monger if ever there was one. Why? Here’s the response of Trita Parsi. With Bolton Pick, Trump is Assembling an Iran War Cabinet Washington, DC - Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council, issued the following statement regarding the appointment of John Bolton as National Security Advisor: “Donald Trump may have just effectively declared war on Iran. With the appointment of John Bolton, and nomination of Mike Pompeo at State, Trump is clearly putting together a war cabinet. As the world awaits Trump’s May 12 decision as to whether he will abandon the Iran nuclear deal, all of the signs now point to a decision to move to war footing. “Bolton is an unhinged advocate for waging World War III. He has explicitly called for bombing Iran for the past ten years and has suggested the U.S. engage in nuclear first strikes in North Korea. Bolton’s first order of business will be to convince Trump to exit the Iran nuclear deal and lay the groundwork for the war he has urged over the past decade. Additionally, he has has called for ending all visas for Iranians, shipping bunker busting weapons to Israel, and supporting the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) terrorist organization and other separatist groups inside of Iran. The Iranian-American community and our pro-peace, pro-human rights allies will organize to stop Bolton’s plans from becoming a reality. “Congress must do everything in its power to convince Trump to reconsider this decision and exert maximal pressure to constrain Bolton’s ability to impose irreparable harm to the U.S. and global security. To begin with, the Senate must block Mike Pompeo from becoming Secretary of State. "Bolton now represents the greatest threat to the United States. This is a dangerous time for our country and a slap in the face even to Trump’s supporters who thought he would break from waging disastrous foreign wars and military occupations.“Bolton was a key player in the march to the disastrous war in Iraq that Trump has criticized as a major foreign policy blunder. He famously demonstrated that he was a ‘kiss-up, kick-down sorta guy’ who dismissed intelligence on Iraq’s WMD program that didn’t fit his predetermined policy preference. The fact that one of Trump’s key advisers is likely to stroke the President’s ego while blocking key intelligence or intimidating any objective analysts that might be underneath him is of deep concern. Of further concern, Bolton fails to acknowledge that the Iraq war was a mistake and only regrets that the Bush administration didn’t overthrow more countries while it was in office. “Bolton’s ties to the cultish MEK should also immediately disqualify him. Bolton routinely meets with and accepts payments from the group - which has murdered Iranians and American service members alike and is deeply unpopular among ordinary Iranians. Yet, Bolton sees this illegitimate group that commits human rights abuses against its own members as a ‘viable opposition’ that he wants to use to overthrow the Iranian government. Bolton promised an MEK crowd last July, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!’” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 23 12:09:21 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:09:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bolton in the Trump war cabinet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah Mort.With Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel,and Mad Dog it looks like Trump is preparing for war against Iran and/or North Korea, either both at the same time or else sequentially. World War 3 here we come! Fab. Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:43 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bolton in the Trump war cabinet It is hard to take Carl Estabrook's positions seriously. Trump et al. seeking peace with Russia? China? N. Korea? Trump leading the ever increasing militarization of U.S. society? Hard to have faith (sic) on both Carl and Trump on these issues . Remember that Rodney Davis and more generally Republicans are anti-abortion and anti women’s choice. That may soften Carl’s formidable brain. Now we have the Trump administration nomination of John Bolton, a scary war monger if ever there was one. Why? Here’s the response of Trita Parsi. With Bolton Pick, Trump is Assembling an Iran War Cabinet Washington, DC - Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council, issued the following statement regarding the appointment of John Bolton as National Security Advisor: “Donald Trump may have just effectively declared war on Iran. With the appointment of John Bolton, and nomination of Mike Pompeo at State, Trump is clearly putting together a war cabinet. As the world awaits Trump’s May 12 decision as to whether he will abandon the Iran nuclear deal, all of the signs now point to a decision to move to war footing. “Bolton is an unhinged advocate for waging World War III. He has explicitly called for bombing Iran for the past ten years and has suggested the U.S. engage in nuclear first strikes in North Korea. Bolton’s first order of business will be to convince Trump to exit the Iran nuclear deal and lay the groundwork for the war he has urged over the past decade. Additionally, he has has called for ending all visas for Iranians, shipping bunker busting weapons to Israel, and supporting the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) terrorist organization and other separatist groups inside of Iran. The Iranian-American community and our pro-peace, pro-human rights allies will organize to stop Bolton’s plans from becoming a reality. “Congress must do everything in its power to convince Trump to reconsider this decision and exert maximal pressure to constrain Bolton’s ability to impose irreparable harm to the U.S. and global security. To begin with, the Senate must block Mike Pompeo from becoming Secretary of State. "Bolton now represents the greatest threat to the United States. This is a dangerous time for our country and a slap in the face even to Trump’s supporters who thought he would break from waging disastrous foreign wars and military occupations.“Bolton was a key player in the march to the disastrous war in Iraq that Trump has criticized as a major foreign policy blunder. He famously demonstrated that he was a ‘kiss-up, kick-down sorta guy’ who dismissed intelligence on Iraq’s WMD program that didn’t fit his predetermined policy preference. The fact that one of Trump’s key advisers is likely to stroke the President’s ego while blocking key intelligence or intimidating any objective analysts that might be underneath him is of deep concern. Of further concern, Bolton fails to acknowledge that the Iraq war was a mistake and only regrets that the Bush administration didn’t overthrow more countries while it was in office. “Bolton’s ties to the cultish MEK should also immediately disqualify him. Bolton routinely meets with and accepts payments from the group - which has murdered Iranians and American service members alike and is deeply unpopular among ordinary Iranians. Yet, Bolton sees this illegitimate group that commits human rights abuses against its own members as a ‘viable opposition’ that he wants to use to overthrow the Iranian government. Bolton promised an MEK crowd last July, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!’” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 23 12:33:07 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:33:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bolton in the Trump war cabinet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mad Dog is such a wonderful peacnik. He has publicly stated that whenever he goes into a room he figures out how he is going to kill everyone there. The Adult in the Room. Fab. Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 7:09 AM To: Brussel, Morton K ; Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bolton in the Trump war cabinet Yeah Mort.With Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel,and Mad Dog it looks like Trump is preparing for war against Iran and/or North Korea, either both at the same time or else sequentially. World War 3 here we come! Fab. Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 11:43 PM To: Peace Discuss > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bolton in the Trump war cabinet It is hard to take Carl Estabrook's positions seriously. Trump et al. seeking peace with Russia? China? N. Korea? Trump leading the ever increasing militarization of U.S. society? Hard to have faith (sic) on both Carl and Trump on these issues . Remember that Rodney Davis and more generally Republicans are anti-abortion and anti women’s choice. That may soften Carl’s formidable brain. Now we have the Trump administration nomination of John Bolton, a scary war monger if ever there was one. Why? Here’s the response of Trita Parsi. With Bolton Pick, Trump is Assembling an Iran War Cabinet Washington, DC - Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council, issued the following statement regarding the appointment of John Bolton as National Security Advisor: “Donald Trump may have just effectively declared war on Iran. With the appointment of John Bolton, and nomination of Mike Pompeo at State, Trump is clearly putting together a war cabinet. As the world awaits Trump’s May 12 decision as to whether he will abandon the Iran nuclear deal, all of the signs now point to a decision to move to war footing. “Bolton is an unhinged advocate for waging World War III. He has explicitly called for bombing Iran for the past ten years and has suggested the U.S. engage in nuclear first strikes in North Korea. Bolton’s first order of business will be to convince Trump to exit the Iran nuclear deal and lay the groundwork for the war he has urged over the past decade. Additionally, he has has called for ending all visas for Iranians, shipping bunker busting weapons to Israel, and supporting the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) terrorist organization and other separatist groups inside of Iran. The Iranian-American community and our pro-peace, pro-human rights allies will organize to stop Bolton’s plans from becoming a reality. “Congress must do everything in its power to convince Trump to reconsider this decision and exert maximal pressure to constrain Bolton’s ability to impose irreparable harm to the U.S. and global security. To begin with, the Senate must block Mike Pompeo from becoming Secretary of State. "Bolton now represents the greatest threat to the United States. This is a dangerous time for our country and a slap in the face even to Trump’s supporters who thought he would break from waging disastrous foreign wars and military occupations.“Bolton was a key player in the march to the disastrous war in Iraq that Trump has criticized as a major foreign policy blunder. He famously demonstrated that he was a ‘kiss-up, kick-down sorta guy’ who dismissed intelligence on Iraq’s WMD program that didn’t fit his predetermined policy preference. The fact that one of Trump’s key advisers is likely to stroke the President’s ego while blocking key intelligence or intimidating any objective analysts that might be underneath him is of deep concern. Of further concern, Bolton fails to acknowledge that the Iraq war was a mistake and only regrets that the Bush administration didn’t overthrow more countries while it was in office. “Bolton’s ties to the cultish MEK should also immediately disqualify him. Bolton routinely meets with and accepts payments from the group - which has murdered Iranians and American service members alike and is deeply unpopular among ordinary Iranians. Yet, Bolton sees this illegitimate group that commits human rights abuses against its own members as a ‘viable opposition’ that he wants to use to overthrow the Iranian government. Bolton promised an MEK crowd last July, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!’” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Fri Mar 23 13:02:51 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:02:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WORLD LABOR HOUR - SAT MARCH 25th Message-ID: <006001d3c2a7$41ae5f30$c50b1d90$@comcast.net> WORLD LABOR HOUR SATURDAY MARCH 24th 11 AM - 1 PM Central Time WRFU- 104.5 FM and webcast LIVE worldwide at ; www.wrfu.net FIFTEENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE INVASION OF IRAQ - Trillions of dollars spent, thousands of American lives and over HALF A MILLION Iraqi deaths, chaos and destabilization of the middle east. The justification for the invasion all based on lies perpetuated by the corporate media. Are we currently heading down a similar path ? AND STRIKE FEVER IN PUBLIC EDUCATION SPREADING TO OTHER STATES - After the recent West Virginia Teachers strike, Teachers in Oklahoma , Arizona and other states are preparing for state wide strikes. WRFU - Radio Free Urbana - Listener supported corporate free community radio. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Mar 23 13:18:55 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:18:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bolton in the Trump war cabinet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F1544DE-48C8-43FF-B240-226BF686911A@illinois.edu> What the US political establishment is most afraid of, is that the Trump administration will abandon the belligerence and Eurasian war-provocations of the previous administration - as Trump suggested he would in the campaign (e.g., “All former Bush administration officials should have zero standing on Syria. Iraq was a waste of blood & treasure.” —D. Trump 5 Sep 2013). They’ve gone beyond the realm of fantasy to ensure that he doesn't - Russiagate, ‘Putin’s puppet,’ etc. The establishment’s campaign seems to be working, especially judging from the Pompeo, Haspel, and Bolton appointments (although "John Bolton reportedly promised Trump 'he wouldn't start any wars' as national security adviser” —Business Insider). But Trump keeps crossing them up with his direct contacts with foreign leaders, and tweets to the public: the meeting with Kim, calls to Putin (“DO NOT CONGRATULATE [PUTIN]!” demanded Trump's military staff - surely the now rusticated McMaster). Perhaps it takes an acute foreigner to see the situation clearly. John Pilger wrote before the election, "The CIA has demanded Trump not be elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he not be elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he not be elected. Something is up. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” May the farce be with you. —CGE PS - My Chomskyan anarchist and liberation theology politics are summarily expressed in the maxim, "My political views - I'm basically against anything that kills people or destroys the planet we live on.” (That does include those who haven’t managed to get born yet, given that abortion is the leading cause of death in the US - and disproportionally so in regard to the poor and minorities; as the late Alex Cockburn frequently pointed out, eugenics - ‘weeding out’ the human population - is an American tradition, a legacy of slavery that Germans at the Nuremberg tribunal invoked in their defense.) > On Mar 22, 2018, at 11:42 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > It is hard to take Carl Estabrook's positions seriously. Trump et al. seeking peace with Russia? China? N. Korea? Trump leading the ever increasing militarization of U.S. society? Hard to have faith (sic) on both Carl and Trump on these issues . > > Remember that Rodney Davis and more generally Republicans are anti-abortion and anti women’s choice. That may soften Carl’s formidable brain. > > Now we have the Trump administration nomination of John Bolton, a scary war monger if ever there was one. Why? Here’s the response of Trita Parsi. > > With Bolton Pick, Trump is Assembling an Iran War Cabinet > Washington, DC - Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council, issued the following statement regarding the appointment of John Bolton as National Security Advisor: > > “Donald Trump may have just effectively declared war on Iran. With the appointment of John Bolton, and nomination of Mike Pompeo at State, Trump is clearly putting together a war cabinet. As the world awaits Trump’s May 12 decision as to whether he will abandon the Iran nuclear deal, all of the signs now point to a decision to move to war footing. > > “Bolton is an unhinged advocate for waging World War III. He has explicitly called for bombing Iran for the past ten years and has suggested the U.S. engage in nuclear first strikes in North Korea. Bolton’s first order of business will be to convince Trump to exit the Iran nuclear deal and lay the groundwork for the war he has urged over the past decade. Additionally, he has has called for ending all visas for Iranians, shipping bunker busting weapons to Israel, and supporting the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) terrorist organization and other separatist groups inside of Iran. The Iranian-American community and our pro-peace, pro-human rights allies will organize to stop Bolton’s plans from becoming a reality. > > “Congress must do everything in its power to convince Trump to reconsider this decision and exert maximal pressure to constrain Bolton’s ability to impose irreparable harm to the U.S. and global security. To begin with, the Senate must block Mike Pompeo from becoming Secretary of State. > > "Bolton now represents the greatest threat to the United States. This is a dangerous time for our country and a slap in the face even to Trump’s supporters who thought he would break from waging disastrous foreign wars and military occupations.“Bolton was a key player in the march to the disastrous war in Iraq that Trump has criticized as a major foreign policy blunder. He famously demonstrated that he was a ‘kiss-up, kick-down sorta guy’ who dismissed intelligence on Iraq’s WMD program that didn’t fit his predetermined policy preference. The fact that one of Trump’s key advisers is likely to stroke the President’s ego while blocking key intelligence or intimidating any objective analysts that might be underneath him is of deep concern. Of further concern, Bolton fails to acknowledge that the Iraq war was a mistake and only regrets that the Bush administration didn’t overthrow more countries while it was in office. > > “Bolton’s ties to the cultish MEK should also immediately disqualify him. Bolton routinely meets with and accepts payments from the group - which has murdered Iranians and American service members alike and is deeply unpopular among ordinary Iranians. Yet, Bolton sees this illegitimate group that commits human rights abuses against its own members as a ‘viable opposition’ that he wants to use to overthrow the Iranian government. Bolton promised an MEK crowd last July, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!’” > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Mar 23 13:45:47 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:45:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Strikes around the world. Message-ID: The people are rising up and striking, around the world. These are just the strikes, then we have the protests and demonstrations based on other issues…… * view * History * Science * Philosophy * Workers Struggles * ICFI/Marxist Library * Chronology * Full Archive * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Spanish Amazon staff strike Workers Struggles: Europe, Middle East & Africa WSWS.ORG 23 March 2018 Europe Spanish Amazon staff strike A strike by Amazon logistics workers at the San Fernando de Henares facility in Madrid began at 10 p.m. Tuesday night. Around 2,000 members of the CCOO trade union walked out against a new collective bargaining agreement. The previous one expired more than a year ago and with the new contract Amazon is trying to push through a pay cut and reduce enhancements for working weekends and holidays. The logistics centre is the company’s biggest and Amazon workers ship out orders to Spain and Europe. There are about 1,100 regular Amazon workers and another 900 who work for temporary agencies on site. The stoppage, which lasted through Thursday, mobilized some 98 percent of employees at the Amazon facility. Air France workers strike Air France workers are striking today for a 6 percent pay increase. Pay has been frozen since 2011 at the part state-owned airline. The company has offered a pay rise of just 1 percent in two instalments tied to productivity. The strike takes place in the midst of mass protests against President Emmanuel Macron’s labour reforms The next Air France strike is planned for March 30, as the Easter holidays begin. Strike by public sector workers in Andorra Public sector workers in Andorra went on strike last week, the first major stoppage in the sector since the 1930s, in opposition to government plans to extend the working week. Custom officers, around 80 percent of teachers and other workers set up picket lines. Andorra is a tiny principality between France and Spain with a population of around 77,000. Protest by Croatian telecom workers Workers at the Croatian Telekom (HT) company demonstrated in Zagreb on Saturday to protest wage cuts, and the company’s yearly sackings programme. Every year over the last four years the company has laid off 150 workers, half its permanent staff. The company replaces sacked staff with agency workers at lower wages. This year it sacked 50 as well as some managers. HT’s parent company is Deutsche Telekom. Cypriot waste plant staff strike Around 80 workers at the Koshi waste plant in the southern coastal port city of Larnaca struck on Monday between 6:30 a.m. and 10 p.m. The company refused to sign a new collective working agreement after the old one expired in December last year. The workers have given the company three weeks to sign the new contract, after which they will take indefinite strike action. Strike by bus drivers in Limassol, Cyprus Around 250 bus drivers employed by Emel, the Limassol bus company. held a 48-hour strike beginning Tuesday. They were seeking restoration of concessions in wages and benefits made in 2014. The members of the Sek trade union confederation gave warning of the strike a month ago and last-minute talks failed. German telecom workers strike Repair, customer services and sales employees at Deutsche Telekom struck in regions with the exception of Saxony, Tuesday and Wednesday this week. Around 3,500 workers were involved in the strike in pursuit of a 5.5 percent pay rise for all 55,000 Deutsche Telekom staff. Public sector workers in Bavaria, Germany strike Public sector workers across Bavaria struck Tuesday to Thursday as part of a series of rolling strikes to be held before Easter. Services hit included public administration, hospitals and childcare. The Verdi union members are fighting for a 6 percent pay rise covering 2.3 million public sector employees. Portuguese teachers’ strike Teachers in Portugal began a four-day strike on March 13 over career progression and pay scales. Around two-thirds of the workforce, members of the National Federation of Teachers, came out. Swiss United Nations staff strike Staff at the United Nations headquarters based in the Swiss capital of Geneva held a one-day strike on March 16. Out of 10 percent of the 9,500 staff who were balloted, 90 percent voted to strike. They were protesting a 3.5 percent cut in pay, set to rise to 5 percent in June. Strike by bus drivers in Aberdeen, Scotland Bus drivers at First Bus in Aberdeen, Scotland went on strike Monday following a strike on March 16. The action is part of 11 days of action by the Unite union, members who oppose company plans to change break periods. Further strike scheduled by rail guards at two UK rail franchises Rail guards working for South Western Railway are to strike over the Easter period from March 30 to April 3, in opposition to the company’s plans to extend the use of driver only operated (DOO) trains. Rail guards at Northern Rail will hold a 24-hour strike on Monday, March 26, followed by a 24-hour strike on Thursday, March 29. DOO threatens 6,000 guards’ jobs as well as passenger safety. These are the latest strikes in a long-running dispute, which began April 2016. The Rail, Maritime and Transport Union are calling only sporadic, limited strikes at separate private rail franchises and are opposed to mobilizing its members nationally in a joint offensive. Workers at UK arbitration body Acas vote to strike Staff working for UK government reconciliation service Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) have voted by a more than 80 percent majority to strike, in a 65 percent turnout. Management have failed to address concerns of members of the Public and Commercial Services union who are in dispute over a number of issues including their increased workload and lack of resources. Workers in several sectors prepare to strike in Finland Today’s proposed strike of shipmates and officers, affecting cargo vessels and ferry services, has been postponed until April 6, following the intervention of the Finnish Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. The dispute is over pay and working hours. Around 2,500 electrical workers employed by the Service Sector Employers group (Palta) are threatening to strike for nine days beginning April 9. About 5,000 IT and energy sector workers are set to walk out on March 26. The walkout by members of the Finnish Electrical Workers’ Union would hit power production. Finance workers are threatening strike action over pay and plans by banks and finance companies to impose weekend working. Members of the Pro trade union working for the OP Financial Group will walk out from March 26 till March 29. Staff at Danske and other banks are threatening to strike between April 9 and 12. Employees at the Nordea Bank in the Nousu trade union may strike from April 3 to 6. Middle East Israeli Civil Administration staff strike Israeli Civil Administration staff responsible for running daily affairs in the West Bank began a strike on March 14 and continued it this week. They are protesting heavy workloads, and the failure of the government to implement promises to improve pensions made three years ago. Africa Continuing protests in neglected northeastern Moroccan city of Jerada Thousands of residents of Jerada marched through the Moroccan city on March 16 in protest at dire living conditions. The city was the centre of the Moroccan coal industry until the mine closed 20 years ago. Many residents try to eke out a living by extracting coal from the abandoned mine to sell to well-off locals known as “coal barons”—many of whom are elected officials. Last December, two workers died when a shaft collapsed. Protests, which take place regularly, have been brutally attacked by police. Many of the residents suffer from silicosis due to mining activity. Zimbabwean teachers to join medical staff on strike for wages and conditions Zimbabwean teachers plan to join strikes by hospital doctors, junior doctors and nurses if their demands are not met by the second education semester. Junior doctors, who earn half the poverty datum line (PDL), are demanding that their income be lifted above the poverty level and the implementation of a 2014 agreement. Doctors and nurses followed the juniors on strike as they don’t have drugs and the necessary facilities to carry out their jobs. On Tuesday, anaesthesia registrars and other vital staff joined the strike, despite government claims the strike had been called off. Members of seven teachers’ unions will strike in May to demand the government lifts their earnings above the PDL. They will demonstrate at president Mnangagwa’s office on March 27. Togo teachers and medical staff strike for better pay and conditions Togo health workers and teachers organised in the Workers Synergy union federation have been on selective strike since February over wages and conditions. The strike continued this week. Health workers haven’t the necessary equipment to carry out their work in the hospitals. Other workers in the Workers Synergy began national strike action to demand the government release jailed striking teachers. South African toll road workers stop scabbing operation South African tollgate operators, on strike since Monday at the Marianhill toll plaza in KwaZulu-Natal, have stopped a scabbing operation. Pickets turned out at 5 a.m. Monday morning and set up roadblocks with burning tyres at the toll sites in KwaZulu-Natal. Intertoll Africa was given a two-day strike warning on Friday after workers rejected a pay offer put by the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union. The union initially called for a minimum monthly wage of R7,000 and R11,000 for supervisors—the average pay is R2,900. The company, a subsidiary of Group 5, is offering R3,970 and R7,066 respectively. Around 25 workers maintained the picket at the N3 motorway tollgates, with no tolls in operation at motorways N1, N2 and N4. South African solar energy workers strike against poor wages and benefits Workers employed on a solar energy project in South Africa are on indefinite strike at Abengoa, South Africa. The National Union of Metalworkers are demanding an increase in wages and allowances. Abengoa is developing alternatives to coal burning at Eskom South Africa’s power generating company—a transition that threatens five power plants in Mpumalanga and 30,000 jobs. South African health workers protest pay, conditions and corruption South African workers in health and social development have taken go-slow action for several weeks over pay and working conditions. The National Education Health and Allied Workers Union South Africa has organized a demonstration against corruption this Tuesday in Mahikeng, capital city of North-West Province. Members of the Democratic Nursing Organisation of South Africa will join them. Nigerian general strike threatened over embezzlement of workers’ contributions Members of Nigeria’s United Labour Congress (ULC) have threatened a general strike if the government does not investigate the embezzlement of over N30 billion of workers’ pensions and savings contributions. A whistle-blower leaked that the Nigerian Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF), run by government ministers and trade union leaders, has been looted for years. Board members in the period 2012 to 2015 siphoned off N18 billion, (US $50 million) diverting money by e-payment mandate into their own accounts. Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari commissions the board annually and appointed the president of the Nigerian Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers, Frank Kokori, as chairman in 2017. Nigeria’s Labour Minister said, “N5bn was taken in one day, that’s not the only amount missing. Over N30bn (US $83.3million) cannot be accounted for and the members of the past board participated actively in the looting.” The Trust Fund’s accounts have not been audited for five years. ULC members served on the NSITF board. Kenyan lecturers continue strike while appealing back to work order Lecturers at Kenya’s universities are continuing their strike despite the Labour Court ordering them back to work on Monday. Workers are challenging the ruling on the grounds they were not present to put their case. The strike of 27,000 university staff and 9,000 lecturers began on March 1, against low salaries and poor facilities—shutting 33 universities and affecting 600,000 students. The court also demanded that the university vice chancellors put forward—within the next 30 days—a counterproposal with the unions on the 2017-21 outstanding collective bargaining agreement. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Mar 23 16:35:44 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:35:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Professor Boyle on Dershowitz and other things, a few years ago Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0uvHTYx3kw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 23 18:07:48 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 18:07:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dershowitz Retires from Harvard Law School 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, December 22, 2013 7:25 AM To: Killeacle Subject: FW: Dershowitz Retires from Harvard Law School Alan Dershowitz Retires From Harvard Law School By Francis Boyle 21 December, 2013 Countercurrents.org Alan Dershowitz, a prominent advocate for Israel, is retiring from Harvard Law School. Dershowitz Accused of War Crimes - On one issue-the Jewish settlements in the occupied lands-Israel has {already} been found, by an international court, to be in violation of international law. This has caused a firestorm of reaction from Israel, and its apologists, like Harvard's Alan Dershowitz. But, Francis Boyle and a number of other American human rights advocates have taken on Dershowitz on, and are ready to do it again. The settlements are "clearly illegal and criminal," said Boyle. "All the settlements, as the World Court ruled in the advisory opinion on the [Separation] Wall, all these settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, and a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention is a war crime. All these so-called settlers are committing war crimes, except the children, who are obviously not old enough to formulate a criminal intent. "Indeed, Alan Dershowitz began attacking the World Court for this ruling and attacking their credibility, and this, that, and the other. "Well, Dershowitz is not a trained international lawyer; he's not a trained human rights lawyer. I debated him once, and he sort of gratuitously conceded that I was the expert on these subjects. "But in any event, what Dershowitz was not aware of, was that in the advisory committee proceedings, the American judge, Thomas Buergenthal, {who is a Holocaust survivor, himself}, joined the ruling-he dissented against a lot of other things by the World Court [International Court of Justice]-but Judge Buergenthal ruled that the settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. And to Judge Buergenthal's credit-I've known him for many years; I have a lot of respect and admiration for him-he made this ruling. "So, in other words, Dershowitz was attacking the integrity of a Holocaust survivor. But of course, that doesn't surprise me: He attacked [Prof.] Norman Finkelstein's mother; he also attacked Prof. Israel Shahak, one of the leaders of the peace movement in Israel, himself a Holocaust survivor, unfortunately, no longer with us, but a great man. "I've dealt with [Shahak], I have great respect, and indeed, he was going to have a lecture tour here in the United States, in, I guess, the Fall of 1990, and he was coming to speak in Champaign, [Ill.], and the organizers of his lecture tour asked me if I would put him up in my home as my guest, in order to conserve on expenses, and I agreed. And I was greatly looking forward again to meeting Professor Shahak.... But as you know, with the Gulf crisis, Professor Shahak decided to cancel his lecture tour and stay home with his own people, which was certainly understandable. "Dershowitz couldn't care less. Whatever kind of outright character assassination he has to apply to anyone, even Holocaust survivors like Judge Buergenthal, Professor Shahak, Norman Finkelstein's mother, it doesn't bother Dershowitz. Indeed, my understanding is, he's trying to run to become President of Israel, to take Peres's place. Well, fine, it would be great to get him out of Harvard Law School-my dis-alma mater!-and ship him over to Israel with all the other war criminals over there. "In fact, I say that, because Dershowitz admitted, publicly, that he is part of a Mossad committee that authorized the assassination of Palestinians. "You can find that article on counterpunch.org, by Prof. [Liquat Ali] Khan. Well, the Palestinians are all protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and for Dershowitz to authorize their murder is a war crime. So, Dershowitz is a {prima facie} war criminal, who should be prosecuted himself. "And there he is, teaching at the Harvard Law School, and advocating torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes against the Palestinians. As you know, he said, `Well, we should just be obliterating their villages. You know, if they do this, there's a terror bombing here, we [should] destroy one of their villages.' "And, of course, Dershowitz also advocates torture here, in America. The guy's shameless. "I remember, [when] I started [at Harvard], Dershowitz started as an assistant professor, and his first big case was defending a pornographic film star in `Deep Throat.' Dershowitz likes to present himself as some great defender of the First Amendment.... Well, as Catherine McKinnon has, I think, taught us all, pornography is a form of violence against women: It's a human rights matter. So, it doesn't surprise me that Dershowitz started his career defending pornographers and pornography, and was and still is greatly proud of it-and now he moves on to defending war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and in addition, over the years, became a war criminal himself. "But the sum of it is, he's still teaching there at Harvard Law School. So, I hope he goes back to Israel and becomes President, sure! Be great to see him go: Bon voyage." 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). ________________________________ Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:fboyle at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 6:16 PM To: Killeacle Subject: Dershowitz Retires from Harvard Law School News Alan Dershowitz Retires From Harvard Law School CounterCurrents.org Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on ... See all stories on this topic > ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 23 18:12:36 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 18:12:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dershowitz Retires from Harvard Law School In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "I've dealt with [Shahak], I have great respect, and indeed, he was going to have a lecture tour here in the United States, in, I guess, the Fall of 1990, and he was coming to speak in Champaign, [Ill.], and the organizers of his lecture tour asked me if I would put him up in my home as my guest, in order to conserve on expenses, and I agreed. And I was greatly looking forward again to meeting Professor Shahak.... But as you know, with the Gulf crisis, Professor Shahak decided to cancel his lecture tour and stay home with his own people, which was certainly understandable. It's been a long time. But it might have been Bob Naiman who asked me to host Shahak in my home when he came to town? RIP. Fab. Francis 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-discuss On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:08 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dershowitz Retires from Harvard Law School Francis 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, December 22, 2013 7:25 AM To: Killeacle > Subject: FW: Dershowitz Retires from Harvard Law School Alan Dershowitz Retires From Harvard Law School By Francis Boyle 21 December, 2013 Countercurrents.org Alan Dershowitz, a prominent advocate for Israel, is retiring from Harvard Law School. Dershowitz Accused of War Crimes - On one issue-the Jewish settlements in the occupied lands-Israel has {already} been found, by an international court, to be in violation of international law. This has caused a firestorm of reaction from Israel, and its apologists, like Harvard's Alan Dershowitz. But, Francis Boyle and a number of other American human rights advocates have taken on Dershowitz on, and are ready to do it again. The settlements are "clearly illegal and criminal," said Boyle. "All the settlements, as the World Court ruled in the advisory opinion on the [Separation] Wall, all these settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, and a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention is a war crime. All these so-called settlers are committing war crimes, except the children, who are obviously not old enough to formulate a criminal intent. "Indeed, Alan Dershowitz began attacking the World Court for this ruling and attacking their credibility, and this, that, and the other. "Well, Dershowitz is not a trained international lawyer; he's not a trained human rights lawyer. I debated him once, and he sort of gratuitously conceded that I was the expert on these subjects. "But in any event, what Dershowitz was not aware of, was that in the advisory committee proceedings, the American judge, Thomas Buergenthal, {who is a Holocaust survivor, himself}, joined the ruling-he dissented against a lot of other things by the World Court [International Court of Justice]-but Judge Buergenthal ruled that the settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. And to Judge Buergenthal's credit-I've known him for many years; I have a lot of respect and admiration for him-he made this ruling. "So, in other words, Dershowitz was attacking the integrity of a Holocaust survivor. But of course, that doesn't surprise me: He attacked [Prof.] Norman Finkelstein's mother; he also attacked Prof. Israel Shahak, one of the leaders of the peace movement in Israel, himself a Holocaust survivor, unfortunately, no longer with us, but a great man. "I've dealt with [Shahak], I have great respect, and indeed, he was going to have a lecture tour here in the United States, in, I guess, the Fall of 1990, and he was coming to speak in Champaign, [Ill.], and the organizers of his lecture tour asked me if I would put him up in my home as my guest, in order to conserve on expenses, and I agreed. And I was greatly looking forward again to meeting Professor Shahak.... But as you know, with the Gulf crisis, Professor Shahak decided to cancel his lecture tour and stay home with his own people, which was certainly understandable. "Dershowitz couldn't care less. Whatever kind of outright character assassination he has to apply to anyone, even Holocaust survivors like Judge Buergenthal, Professor Shahak, Norman Finkelstein's mother, it doesn't bother Dershowitz. Indeed, my understanding is, he's trying to run to become President of Israel, to take Peres's place. Well, fine, it would be great to get him out of Harvard Law School-my dis-alma mater!-and ship him over to Israel with all the other war criminals over there. "In fact, I say that, because Dershowitz admitted, publicly, that he is part of a Mossad committee that authorized the assassination of Palestinians. "You can find that article on counterpunch.org, by Prof. [Liquat Ali] Khan. Well, the Palestinians are all protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and for Dershowitz to authorize their murder is a war crime. So, Dershowitz is a {prima facie} war criminal, who should be prosecuted himself. "And there he is, teaching at the Harvard Law School, and advocating torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes against the Palestinians. As you know, he said, `Well, we should just be obliterating their villages. You know, if they do this, there's a terror bombing here, we [should] destroy one of their villages.' "And, of course, Dershowitz also advocates torture here, in America. The guy's shameless. "I remember, [when] I started [at Harvard], Dershowitz started as an assistant professor, and his first big case was defending a pornographic film star in `Deep Throat.' Dershowitz likes to present himself as some great defender of the First Amendment.... Well, as Catherine McKinnon has, I think, taught us all, pornography is a form of violence against women: It's a human rights matter. So, it doesn't surprise me that Dershowitz started his career defending pornographers and pornography, and was and still is greatly proud of it-and now he moves on to defending war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and in addition, over the years, became a war criminal himself. "But the sum of it is, he's still teaching there at Harvard Law School. So, I hope he goes back to Israel and becomes President, sure! Be great to see him go: Bon voyage." 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). ________________________________ Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:fboyle at illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 6:16 PM To: Killeacle Subject: Dershowitz Retires from Harvard Law School News Alan Dershowitz Retires From Harvard Law School CounterCurrents.org Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on ... See all stories on this topic > ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Fri Mar 23 21:07:16 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:07:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel/Palestine, BDS, etc. Message-ID: As mentioned on today's News from Neptune: DI blurb on referendum: The only referendum that failed 3,133 to 1,700 reads as follows: Shall the University divest, or withdraw investments, from specified companies in the University’s BlackRock portfolio that actively normalize, engage in, or fund human rights violations as defined by the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? DI Letter from Cary Nelson et al.: Last month student senators listened attentively to two hours of public comment from UIUC students and faculty. The topic: should there be yet another referendum on this spring’s ballot about whether the university should divest from companies doing business in Israel? That issue was widely debated on campus last year, and the referendum was soundly defeated. Although people spoke on both sides of the issue, on one point speakers from both sides agreed. Jewish and Palestinian students alike testified that they felt harassed and threatened by the hate speech the campus debate generated. Campus discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be civil, but contests to win a forthcoming vote often are not. Competition aimed at obtaining a victory involves passions of a different character. At the student government meeting, referendum advocates made their strategy clear: they were going to reintroduce the referendum year after year. A clear expression of student opinion opposing it in a democratic vote didn’t matter. They were not giving up. That strategy has already been followed on other campuses, sometimes with annual votes taking place for a decade. Arguing over a divestment resolution as a result crowds out every other topic — from tuition levels, to class size, to loan programs — that students care about and where their advocacy can make a difference. On divestment, a campus vote amounts to empty symbolism. No Board of Trustees is going to let students, faculty, or staff decide investment policy. Investment policy is a Board fiduciary responsibility. A broad brush condemnation of a series of companies, moreover, simply invites Board dismissal. Divestment is actually a complex subject that gets confused and falsified by the resulting tweets and posters and slogans. Some companies that do business on the West Bank actually make Palestinians’ lives easier, but they are nonetheless targeted for protests. A number of companies do not sell directly to Israel. They sell to the US Defense Department, where Israel makes approved purchases, drawing on funds appropriated by the US Congress. What would happen to a US company that told the Pentagon it would have to approve the Defense Department’s customer list? Many targeted US corporations have offices and headquarters in Illinois. They offer internships to UI students. They hire students’ parents and relatives. Such companies have reason to expect fair and specific engagement from UI groups, not uniformed condemnation. Yet at the campus student government debate last month, companies in all these categories were basically accused of war crimes. That is not a carefully reasoned position. National BDS web sites target any company, among others, that sells to the Israeli army, including companies that sell shoes and binoculars, even when the same models are marketed to civilian consumers here and abroad. The University has important research collaborations with Israeli faculty members and their institutions. It has study abroad programs for students. Academic freedom provides that students and faculty have the right to pursue those options. The same Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement that promotes divestment urges universities to eliminate all those relationships. It even says faculty members should refuse to write letters of recommendation for students wanting to study in Israel. The local and national groups that endorse divestment endorse those demands as well. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is among the important topics that should be studied and discussed on campus. But a divestment debate is not a good way to do so. There are courses offered in our institution that encourage a critical approach to studying Israel and Palestine. These engage in nuance and context, providing students the opportunity to learn in detail. By contrast the rhetoric surrounding the divestment debate can be shallow, informed by simplistic slogans. We do not need another acrimonious divestment debate at UIUC. Faculty Signatories: Brian F. Allan, Entomology Ilana Redstone Akresh, Sociology Richard S. Akresh, Economics May Berenbaum, Entomology Jeffrey R. Brown, Dean, College of Business Nigel D. Goldenfeld, Physics Diane Gottheil, Medicine Rachel S. Harris, Comparative Literature Richard Herman, Chancellor emeritus Richard L. Kaplan, Law Deborah Katz-Downie, Plant Biology Michael H. Leroy, Labor & Industrial Relations Cary Nelson, English Gene E. Robinson, Entomology Jacqueline Ross, Law Richard J. Ross, Law Paula A. Treichler, Media & Cinema Paul M. Weichsel, Mathematics Reprinted from The Daily Illini, with additional names added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 23 21:17:39 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 21:17:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel/Palestine, BDS, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah and Cary Nelson is the die-hard bigot and racist against Palestinians who orchestrated the illegal firing of Salaita, throwing him his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, destroying his academic career, and gutting our Native American Studies Program. A two-fer for his bigotry and racism against both Palestinians and American Indians. After a long struggle, we convinced the University of Illinois Board of Trustees to divest from the genocidal/apartheid White Racist Afrikaner regime in South Africa. We can convince the BOT to divest from the genocidal/apartheid/racist Zionist regime in Israel and for the exact same reasons. Fab. Francis 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-discuss On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 4:07 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel/Palestine, BDS, etc. As mentioned on today's News from Neptune: DI blurb on referendum: The only referendum that failed 3,133 to 1,700 reads as follows: Shall the University divest, or withdraw investments, from specified companies in the University’s BlackRock portfolio that actively normalize, engage in, or fund human rights violations as defined by the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? DI Letter from Cary Nelson et al.: Last month student senators listened attentively to two hours of public comment from UIUC students and faculty. The topic: should there be yet another referendum on this spring’s ballot about whether the university should divest from companies doing business in Israel? That issue was widely debated on campus last year, and the referendum was soundly defeated. Although people spoke on both sides of the issue, on one point speakers from both sides agreed. Jewish and Palestinian students alike testified that they felt harassed and threatened by the hate speech the campus debate generated. Campus discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be civil, but contests to win a forthcoming vote often are not. Competition aimed at obtaining a victory involves passions of a different character. At the student government meeting, referendum advocates made their strategy clear: they were going to reintroduce the referendum year after year. A clear expression of student opinion opposing it in a democratic vote didn’t matter. They were not giving up. That strategy has already been followed on other campuses, sometimes with annual votes taking place for a decade. Arguing over a divestment resolution as a result crowds out every other topic — from tuition levels, to class size, to loan programs — that students care about and where their advocacy can make a difference. On divestment, a campus vote amounts to empty symbolism. No Board of Trustees is going to let students, faculty, or staff decide investment policy. Investment policy is a Board fiduciary responsibility. A broad brush condemnation of a series of companies, moreover, simply invites Board dismissal. Divestment is actually a complex subject that gets confused and falsified by the resulting tweets and posters and slogans. Some companies that do business on the West Bank actually make Palestinians’ lives easier, but they are nonetheless targeted for protests. A number of companies do not sell directly to Israel. They sell to the US Defense Department, where Israel makes approved purchases, drawing on funds appropriated by the US Congress. What would happen to a US company that told the Pentagon it would have to approve the Defense Department’s customer list? Many targeted US corporations have offices and headquarters in Illinois. They offer internships to UI students. They hire students’ parents and relatives. Such companies have reason to expect fair and specific engagement from UI groups, not uniformed condemnation. Yet at the campus student government debate last month, companies in all these categories were basically accused of war crimes. That is not a carefully reasoned position. National BDS web sites target any company, among others, that sells to the Israeli army, including companies that sell shoes and binoculars, even when the same models are marketed to civilian consumers here and abroad. The University has important research collaborations with Israeli faculty members and their institutions. It has study abroad programs for students. Academic freedom provides that students and faculty have the right to pursue those options. The same Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement that promotes divestment urges universities to eliminate all those relationships. It even says faculty members should refuse to write letters of recommendation for students wanting to study in Israel. The local and national groups that endorse divestment endorse those demands as well. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is among the important topics that should be studied and discussed on campus. But a divestment debate is not a good way to do so. There are courses offered in our institution that encourage a critical approach to studying Israel and Palestine. These engage in nuance and context, providing students the opportunity to learn in detail. By contrast the rhetoric surrounding the divestment debate can be shallow, informed by simplistic slogans. We do not need another acrimonious divestment debate at UIUC. Faculty Signatories: Brian F. Allan, Entomology Ilana Redstone Akresh, Sociology Richard S. Akresh, Economics May Berenbaum, Entomology Jeffrey R. Brown, Dean, College of Business Nigel D. Goldenfeld, Physics Diane Gottheil, Medicine Rachel S. Harris, Comparative Literature Richard Herman, Chancellor emeritus Richard L. Kaplan, Law Deborah Katz-Downie, Plant Biology Michael H. Leroy, Labor & Industrial Relations Cary Nelson, English Gene E. Robinson, Entomology Jacqueline Ross, Law Richard J. Ross, Law Paula A. Treichler, Media & Cinema Paul M. Weichsel, Mathematics Reprinted from The Daily Illini, with additional names added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Mar 23 21:21:35 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 21:21:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" In-Reply-To: <94eb2c0b06609f64760566b35937@google.com> References: <94eb2c0b06609f64760566b35937@google.com> Message-ID: Yeah and Cary Nelson is the die-hard bigot and racist against Palestinians who orchestrated the illegal firing of Salaita, throwing him his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, destroying his academic career, and gutting our Native American Studies Program. A two-fer for his bigotry and racism against both Palestinians and American Indians. After a long struggle, we convinced the University of Illinois Board of Trustees to divest from the genocidal/apartheid White Racist Afrikaner regime in South Africa. We can convince the BOT to divest from the genocidal/apartheid/racist Zionist regime in Israel and for the exact same reasons. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 6:16 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" [https://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4G6uo7hLAq4/mqdefault.jpg] Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians by UPTV6 University of Illinois College of Law professor Francis Boyle speaks to the grave injustice that is the treatment of the Palestinian people both within the West Bank and Gaza, as well as within Israel proper. His areas of expertise include Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Jurisprudence, and ... Help center • Report spam ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Mar 23 21:58:59 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 21:58:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] BDS Message-ID: https://youtu.be/4G6uo7hLAq4 From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Mar 23 22:00:13 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 22:00:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" References: Message-ID: From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 4:22 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" Yeah and Cary Nelson is the die-hard bigot and racist against Palestinians who orchestrated the illegal firing of Salaita, throwing him his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, destroying his academic career, and gutting our Native American Studies Program. A two-fer for his bigotry and racism against both Palestinians and American Indians. After a long struggle, we convinced the University of Illinois Board of Trustees to divest from the genocidal/apartheid White Racist Afrikaner regime in South Africa. We can convince the BOT to divest from the genocidal/apartheid/racist Zionist regime in Israel and for the exact same reasons. Fab. From: Francis Boyle via YouTube > Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 6:16 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" [https://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4G6uo7hLAq4/mqdefault.jpg] Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians by UPTV6 University of Illinois College of Law professor Francis Boyle speaks to the grave injustice that is the treatment of the Palestinian people both within the West Bank and Gaza, as well as within Israel proper. His areas of expertise include Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Jurisprudence, and ... Help center • Report spam ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 23 22:37:01 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 17:37:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel/Palestine, BDS, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noam Chomsky on BDS and How the Israeli Occupation is “Much Worse Than Apartheid” Interview with Amy Goodman | Democracy Now!, August 11, 2014 AMY GOODMAN: Noam, I wanted to ask you about your recent piece for The Nation on Israel-Palestine and BDS. You were critical of the effectiveness of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. One of the many responses came from Yousef Munayyer, the executive director of the Jerusalem Fund and its educational program, the Palestine Center. He wrote, quote, “Chomsky’s criticism of BDS seems to be that it hasn’t changed the power dynamic yet, and thus that it can’t. There is no doubt the road ahead is a long one for BDS, but there is also no doubt the movement is growing … All other paths toward change, including diplomacy and armed struggle, have so far proved ineffective, and some have imposed significant costs on Palestinian life and livelihood.” Could you respond? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, actually, I did respond. You can find it on The Nation website. But in brief, far from being critical of BDS, I was strongly supportive of it. One of the oddities of what’s called the BDS movement is that they can’t—many of the activists just can’t see support as support unless it becomes something like almost worship: repeat the catechism. If you take a look at that article, it very strongly supported these tactics. In fact, I was involved in them and supporting them before the BDS movement even existed. They’re the right tactics. But it should be second nature to activists—and it usually is—that you have to ask yourself, when you conduct some tactic, when you pursue it, what the effect is going to be on the victims. You don’t pursue a tactic because it makes you feel good. You pursue it because it’s going—you estimate that it’ll help the victims. And you have to make choices. This goes way back. You know, say, back during the Vietnam War, there were debates about whether you should resort to violent tactics, say Weathermen-style tactics. You could understand the motivation—people were desperate—but the Vietnamese were strongly opposed. And many of us, me included, were also opposed, not because the horrors don’t justify some strong action, but because the consequences would be harm to the victims. The tactics would increase support for the violence, which in fact is what happened. Those questions arise all the time. Unfortunately, the Palestinian solidarity movements have been unusual in their unwillingness to think these things through. That was pointed out recently again by Raja Shehadeh, the leading figure in—lives in Ramallah, a longtime supporter, the founder of Al-Haq, the legal organization, a very significant and powerful figure. He pointed out that the Palestinian leadership has tended to focus on what he called absolutes, absolute justice—this is the absolute justice that we want—and not to pay attention to pragmatic policies. That’s been very obvious for decades. It used to drive people like Eqbal Ahmad, the really committed and knowledgeable militant—used to drive him crazy. They just couldn’t listen to pragmatic questions, which are what matter for success in a popular movement, a nationalist movement. And the ones who understand that can succeed; the ones who don’t understand it can’t. If you talk about— AMY GOODMAN: What choices do you feel that the BDS movement, that activists should make? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, they’re very simple, very clear. In fact, I discussed them in the article. Those actions that have been directed against the occupation have been quite successful, very successful. Most of them don’t have anything to do with the BDS movement. So take, say, one of the most extreme and most successful is the European Union decision, directive, to block any connection to any institution, governmental or private, that has anything to do with the Occupied Territories. That’s a pretty strong move. That’s the kind of move that was taken with regard to South Africa. Just a couple of months ago, the Presbyterian Church here called for divestment from any multinational corporation that’s involved in any way in the occupation. And there’s been case after case like that. That makes perfect sense. There are also—so far, there haven’t been any sanctions, so BDS is a little misleading. It’s BD, really. But there could be sanctions. And there’s an obvious way to proceed. There has been for years, and has plenty of support. In fact, Amnesty International called for it during the Cast Lead operations. That’s an arms embargo. For the U.S. to impose an arms embargo, or even to discuss it, would be a major issue, major contribution. That’s the most important of the possible sanctions. And there’s a basis for it. U.S. arms to Israel are in violation of U.S. law, direct violation of U.S. law. You look at U.S. foreign assistance law, it bars any military assistance to any one country, unit, whatever, engaged in consistent human rights violations. Well, you know, Israel’s violation of human rights violations is so extreme and consistent that you hardly have to argue about it. That means that U.S. aid to Israel is in—military aid, is in direct violation of U.S. law. And as Pillay pointed out before, the U.S. is a high-contracting party to the Geneva Conventions, so it’s violating its own extremely serious international commitments by not imposing—working to impose the Geneva Conventions. That’s an obligation for the high-contracting parties, like the U.S. And that means to impose—to prevent a violation of international humanitarian law, and certainly not to abet it. So the U.S. is both in violation of its commitments to international humanitarian law and also in violation of U.S. domestic law. And there’s some understanding of that. AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to get your response, Noam, to Nicholas Kristof on the issue of Palestinian nonviolence. Writing in The New York Times last month, Kristof wrote, quote, “Palestinian militancy has accomplished nothing but increasing the misery of the Palestinian people. If Palestinians instead turned more to huge Gandhi-style nonviolence resistance campaigns, the resulting videos would reverberate around the world and Palestine would achieve statehood and freedom.” Noam Chomsky, your response? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, first of all, that’s a total fabrication. Palestinian nonviolence has been going on for a long time, very significant nonviolent actions. I haven’t seen the reverberations in Kristof’s columns, for example, or anywhere. I mean, there is among popular movements, but not what he’s describing. There’s also a good deal of cynicism in those comments. What he should be doing is preaching nonviolence to the United States, the leading perpetrator of violence in the world. Hasn’t been reported here, but an international poll last December—Gallup here and its counterpart in England, the leading polling agencies—it was an international poll of public opinion. One of the questions that was asked is: Which country is the greatest threat to world peace? Guess who was first. Nobody even close. The United States was way in the lead. Far behind was Pakistan, and that was probably because mostly of the Indian vote. Well, that’s what Nicholas Kristof should be commenting on. He should be calling for nonviolence where he is, where we are, where you and I are. That would make a big difference in the world. And, of course, nonviolence in our client states, like Israel, where we provide directly the means for the violence, or Saudi Arabia, extreme, brutal, fundamentalist state, where we send them tens of billions of dollars of military aid, and on and on, in ways that are not discussed. That would make sense. It’s easy to preach nonviolence to some victim somewhere, saying, “You shouldn’t be violent. We’ll be as violent as we like, but you not be violent.” That aside, the recommendation is correct, and in fact it’s been a recommendation of people dedicated to Palestinian rights for many years. Eqbal Ahmad, who I mentioned, 40 years—you know, his background, he was active in the Algerian resistance, a long, long history of both very acute political analysis and direct engagement in Third World struggles, he was very close to the PLO—consistently urged this, as many, many people did, me included. And, in fact, there’s been plenty of it. Not enough. But as I say, it’s very easy to recommend to victims, “You be nice guys.” That’s cheap. Even if it’s correct, it’s cheap. What matters is what we say about ourselves. Are we going to be nice guys? That’s the important thing, particularly when it’s the United States, the country which, quite rightly, is regarded by the—internationally as the leading threat to world peace, and the decisive threat in the Israeli case. AMY GOODMAN: Noam, Mohammed Suliman, a Palestinian human rights worker in Gaza, wrote in The Huffington Post during the Israeli assault, quote, “The reality is that if Palestinians stop resisting, Israel won’t stop occupying, as its leaders repeatedly affirm. The besieged Jews of the Warsaw ghetto had a motto ‘to live and die in dignity.’ As I sit in my own besieged ghetto,” he writes, “I think how Palestinians have honored this universal value. We live in dignity and we die in dignity, refusing to accept subjugation. We’re tired of war. … But I also can no longer tolerate the return to a deeply unjust status quo. I can no longer agree to live in this open-air prison.” Your response to what Mohammed Suliman wrote? NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, several points again. First, about the Warsaw Ghetto, there’s a very interesting debate going on right now in Israel in the Hebrew press as to whether the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was justified. It began with an article, I think by a survivor, who went through many details and argued that the uprising, which was sort of a rogue element, he said, actually seriously endangered the Jews of the—surviving Jews in the ghetto and harmed them. Then came responses, and there’s a debate about it. But that’s exactly the kind of question you want to ask all the time: What’s going to be the effect of the action on the victims? It’s not a trivial question in the case of the Warsaw Ghetto. Obviously, maybe the Nazis are the extreme in brutality in human history, and you have to surely sympathize and support the ghetto inhabitants and survivors and the victims, of course. But nevertheless, the tactical question arises. This is not open. And it arises here, too, all the time, if you’re serious about concern for the victims. But his general point is accurate, and it’s essentially what I was trying to say before. Israel wants quiet, wants the Palestinians to be nice and quiet and nonviolent, the way Nicholas Kristof urges. And then what will Israel do? We don’t have to guess. It’s what they have been doing, and they’ll continue, as long as there’s no resistance to it. What they’re doing is, briefly, taking over whatever they want, whatever they see as of value in the West Bank, leaving Palestinians in essentially unviable cantons, pretty much imprisoned; separating the West Bank from Gaza in violation of the solemn commitments of the Oslo Accords; keeping Gaza under siege and on a diet; meanwhile, incidentally, taking over the Golan Heights, already annexed in violation of explicit Security Council orders; vastly expanding Jerusalem way beyond any historical size, annexing it in violation of Security Council orders; huge infrastructure projects, which make it possible for people living in the nice hills of the West Bank to get to Tel Aviv in a few minutes without seeing any Arabs. That’s what they’ll continue doing, just as they have been, as long as the United States supports it. That’s the decisive point, and that’s what we should be focusing on. We’re here. We can do things here. And that happens to be of critical significance in this case. That’s going to be—it’s not the only factor, but it’s the determinative factor in what the outcome will be. AMY GOODMAN: MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, author of, among many other books, Gaza in Crisis. After break, he’ll talk about how Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories compare to what happened in apartheid South Africa. Stay with us. [break] AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we continue our conversation with MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident and linguist. He’s written over a hundred books, including Gaza in Crisis. I spoke with him on Thursday in the midst of the initial 72-hour ceasefire. I asked Professor Chomsky about Congress unanimously passing resolutions last month in support of Israel. NOAM CHOMSKY: That’s right, because—and that’s exactly what we have to combat, by organization and action. Take South Africa again. It wasn’t until the 1980s that Congress began to pass sanctions. As I said, Reagan vetoed them and then violated them when they were passed over his veto, but at least they were passing them. But that’s decades after massive protests were developing around the world. In fact, BDS-style tactics—there was never a BDS movement—BDS-style tactics began to be carried out on a popular level in the United States beginning in the late ’70s, but really picking up in the ’80s. That’s decades after large-scale actions of that kind were being taken elsewhere. And ultimately, that had an effect. Well, we’re not there yet. You have to recall—it’s important to recall that by the time Congress was passing sanctions against South Africa, even the American business community, which really is decisive at determining policy, had pretty much turned against apartheid. Just wasn’t worth it for them. And as I said, the agreement that was finally reached was acceptable to them—difference from the Israeli case. We’re not there now. Right now Israel is one of the top recipients of U.S. investment. Warren Buffett, for example, recently bought—couple of billion dollars spent on some factory in Israel, an installment, and said that this is the best place for investment outside the United States. Intel is setting up its major new generation chip factory there. Military industry is closely linked to Israel. All of this is quite different from the South Africa case. And we have to work, as it’ll take a lot of work to get there, but it has to be done. AMY GOODMAN: And yet, Noam, you say that the analogy between Israel’s occupation of the terrories and apartheid South Africa is a dubious one. Why? NOAM CHOMSKY: Many reasons. Take, say, the term “apartheid.” In the Occupied Territories, what Israel is doing is much worse than apartheid. To call it apartheid is a gift to Israel, at least if by “apartheid” you mean South African-style apartheid. What’s happening in the Occupied Territories is much worse. There’s a crucial difference. The South African Nationalists needed the black population. That was their workforce. It was 85 percent of the workforce of the population, and that was basically their workforce. They needed them. They had to sustain them. The bantustans were horrifying, but South Africa did try to sustain them. They didn’t put them on a diet. They tried to keep them strong enough to do the work that they needed for the country. They tried to get international support for the bantustans. The Israeli relationship to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is totally different. They just don’t want them. They want them out, or at least in prison. And they’re acting that way. That’s a very striking difference, which means that the apartheid analogy, South African apartheid, to the Occupied Territories is just a gift to Israeli violence. It’s much worse than that. If you look inside Israel, there’s plenty of repression and discrimination. I’ve written about it extensively for decades. But it’s not apartheid. It’s bad, but it’s not apartheid. So the term, I just don’t think is applicable. > On Mar 23, 2018, at 4:07 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > As mentioned on today's News from Neptune: > > DI blurb on referendum: > > The only referendum that failed 3,133 to 1,700 reads as follows: Shall the University divest, or withdraw investments, from specified companies in the University’s BlackRock portfolio that actively normalize, engage in, or fund human rights violations as defined by the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? > > > DI Letter from Cary Nelson et al.: > > Last month student senators listened attentively to two hours of public comment from UIUC students and faculty. The topic: should there be yet another referendum on this spring’s ballot about whether the university should divest from companies doing business in Israel? That issue was widely debated on campus last year, and the referendum was soundly defeated. > > Although people spoke on both sides of the issue, on one point speakers from both sides agreed. Jewish and Palestinian students alike testified that they felt harassed and threatened by the hate speech the campus debate generated. Campus discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be civil, but contests to win a forthcoming vote often are not. Competition aimed at obtaining a victory involves passions of a different character. > > At the student government meeting, referendum advocates made their strategy clear: they were going to reintroduce the referendum year after year. A clear expression of student opinion opposing it in a democratic vote didn’t matter. They were not giving up. > > That strategy has already been followed on other campuses, sometimes with annual votes taking place for a decade. Arguing over a divestment resolution as a result crowds out every other topic — from tuition levels, to class size, to loan programs — that students care about and where their advocacy can make a difference. > > On divestment, a campus vote amounts to empty symbolism. No Board of Trustees is going to let students, faculty, or staff decide investment policy. Investment policy is a Board fiduciary responsibility. A broad brush condemnation of a series of companies, moreover, simply invites Board dismissal. > > Divestment is actually a complex subject that gets confused and falsified by the resulting tweets and posters and slogans. Some companies that do business on the West Bank actually make Palestinians’ lives easier, but they are nonetheless targeted for protests. A number of companies do not sell directly to Israel. They sell to the US Defense Department, where Israel makes approved purchases, drawing on funds appropriated by the US Congress. What would happen to a US company that told the Pentagon it would have to approve the Defense Department’s customer list? Many targeted US corporations have offices and headquarters in Illinois. They offer internships to UI students. They hire students’ parents and relatives. Such companies have reason to expect fair and specific engagement from UI groups, not uniformed condemnation. > > Yet at the campus student government debate last month, companies in all these categories were basically accused of war crimes. That is not a carefully reasoned position. National BDS web sites target any company, among others, that sells to the Israeli army, including companies that sell shoes and binoculars, even when the same models are marketed to civilian consumers here and abroad. > > The University has important research collaborations with Israeli faculty members and their institutions. It has study abroad programs for students. Academic freedom provides that students and faculty have the right to pursue those options. The same Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement that promotes divestment urges universities to eliminate all those relationships. It even says faculty members should refuse to write letters of recommendation for students wanting to study in Israel. The local and national groups that endorse divestment endorse those demands as well. > > The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is among the important topics that should be studied and discussed on campus. But a divestment debate is not a good way to do so. There are courses offered in our institution that encourage a critical approach to studying Israel and Palestine. These engage in nuance and context, providing students the opportunity to learn in detail. By contrast the rhetoric surrounding the divestment debate can be shallow, informed by simplistic slogans. > > We do not need another acrimonious divestment debate at UIUC. > > Faculty Signatories: > > Brian F. Allan, Entomology > > Ilana Redstone Akresh, Sociology > > Richard S. Akresh, Economics > > May Berenbaum, Entomology > > Jeffrey R. Brown, Dean, College of Business > > Nigel D. Goldenfeld, Physics > > Diane Gottheil, Medicine > > Rachel S. Harris, Comparative Literature > > Richard Herman, Chancellor emeritus > > Richard L. Kaplan, Law > > Deborah Katz-Downie, Plant Biology > > Michael H. Leroy, Labor & Industrial Relations > > Cary Nelson, English > > Gene E. Robinson, Entomology > > Jacqueline Ross, Law > > Richard J. Ross, Law > > Paula A. Treichler, Media & Cinema > > Paul M. Weichsel, Mathematics > > Reprinted from The Daily Illini, with additional names added. > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Mar 24 01:30:03 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 20:30:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Color revolution Message-ID: <6B3E03CC-9F7E-4CD0-806D-688A64BEE3F0@gmail.com> A deep state conspiracy, to break [Trump's] presidency, is underway. Consider. To cut through the Russophobia rampant here, Trump decided to make a direct phone call to Vladimir Putin. And in that call, Trump, like Angela Merkel, congratulated Putin on his re-election victory. Instantly, the briefing paper for the president’s call was leaked to the Post. In bold letters it read, “DO NOT CONGRATULATE.” Whereupon, the Beltway went ballistic. How could Trump congratulate Putin, whose election was a sham? Why did he not charge Putin with the Salisbury poisoning? Why did Trump not denounce Putin for interfering with “our democracy”? Amazing. A disloyal White House staffer betrays his trust and leaks a confidential paper to sabotage the foreign policy of a duly elected president, and he is celebrated in this capital city... Not only have journalists given up any pretense of neutrality in this campaign to bring down the president, ex-national security officers of the highest rank are starting to sound like resisters. Ex-CIA Director John Brennan openly speculated Tuesday that the president may have been compromised by Moscow and become an asset of the Kremlin. “I think he’s afraid of the president of Russia,” Brennan said of Trump and Putin. “The Russians, I think, have had long experience with Mr. Trump and may have things they could expose.” If Brennan has evidence Trump is compromised, he should relay it to Robert Mueller. If he does not, this is speculation of an especially ugly variety for someone once entrusted with America’s highest secrets. What is going on in this city is an American version of the “color revolutions” we have employed to dump over governments in places like Georgia and Ukraine. Goal: Break Trump’s presidency, remove him, discredit his election as contaminated by Kremlin collusion, upend the democratic verdict of 2016, and ash-can Trump’s agenda of populist conservatism. Then, return America to the open borders, free trade, democracy-crusading Bushite globalism beloved by our Beltway elites. Trump, in a way, is the indispensable man of the populist right. In the 2016 primaries, no other Republican candidate shared his determination to secure the border, bring back manufacturing or end the endless wars in the Middle East that have so bled and bankrupted our nation. Whether the Assads rule in Damascus, the Chinese fortify Scarborough Shoal, or the Taliban return to Kabul are not existential threats... Trump seems now to recognize that the special counsel’s office of Robert Mueller, which this city sees as the instrument of its deliverance, is a mortal threat to his presidency. Mueller’s team wishes to do to Trump what Archibald Cox’s team sought to do to Nixon: Drive him out of office or set him up for the kill by a Democratic Congress in 2019. Trump appears to recognize that the struggle with Mueller is now a political struggle — to the death. Hence Trump’s hiring of Joe diGenova and the departure of John Dowd from his legal team. In the elegant phrase of Michael Corleone, diGenova is a wartime consigliere. He believes that Trump is the target of a conspiracy, where Jim Comey’s FBI put in the fix to prevent Hillary’s prosecution, and then fabricated a crime of collusion with Russia to take down the new president the American people had elected. The Trump White House is behaving as if it were the prospective target of a coup d’etat. And it is not wrong to think so. --Patrick J. Buchanan ### From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Mar 24 14:37:00 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:37:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Senate Votes to Continue Yemen Devastation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005d01d3c37d$92406b60$b6c14220$@comcast.net> From: David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 8:20 AM Subject: Senate Votes to Continue Yemen Devastation . About . Archives . From the Archive Series . In Case You Missed. . October Surprise Series . Video Interviews . VIPS Memos Senate Votes to Continue Yemen Devastation March 22, 2018 Save On Tuesday, the Senate voted down a resolution that would have withdrawn US support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen, choosing instead to continue to illegally assist what the UN has called "the world's largest humanitarian crisis," reports Dennis J. Bernstein and Shireen Al-Adeimi in this interview. By Dennis J. Bernstein Shireen Al-Adeimi is a doctoral candidate at Harvard University. But she is having a hard time focusing on her studies, when friends and family back home in Yemen are under violent attack by the heavily armed, US-backed Saudi forces, with many going hungry as a result of the Saudi blockade. Al-Adeimi said on Tuesday, March 20, "This month marks the third anniversary of the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led war on Yemen. Despite the dire humanitarian crisis, however, the United States continues to sell arms to the Saudis and provide them with military support." Image removed by sender. A Saudi military member stands next to a damaged building in the area of the presidential palace in the southern city of Aden, Yemen. Sep 27, 2015. (Flickr Ahmed Farwan) Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Ut.), and Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) had introduced a bill that aimed to force a withdrawal of the United States from the Saudi-led war, based on violations of the War Powers Act. But the Bill, Senate Joint Resolution 54, cosponsored by 10 senators, was voted down 55-44 on Tuesday. Of course it was no surprise, given the amount of lobbying money spent by the Saudis to buy congressional silence and support. The bill also was met with fierce opposition by various Trump administration officials. The American Conservative Magazine reported that "the media has been laying out the red carpet for Crown Prince bin Salman in Washington. What the establishment press won't tell you is that no less than 25 American lobbying firms worked for the Saudi Arabian government in 2017 to the tune of $16 million, to burnish their image, manage the message, and get massive military contracts for the weapons of war that are now being used to kill, maim and slowly starve millions of civilians in Yemen today." I spoke with Shireen Al-Adeimi on Tuesday, March 20, directly following the vote by Congress to continue aid for the US-supported, Saudi-led slaughter. Dennis Bernstein: Shireen, what is your response to the Senate voting to continue aid to the Saudis? Shireen Al-Adeimi: It is very disappointing because it ensures that millions more Yemenis will continue to suffer. On average, 130 children die every day in Yemen due to malnutrition and disease caused by the Saudi-led blockade. Many more will die because of US bombs which are dropped from Saudi jets. People continue to die for no reason at all. DB: Could you give us a little background? SAA: The Saudis began bombing Yemen in March, 2015. Right now, some 80% of a population of 24 million people are in desperate need of humanitarian aid. Yemen is experiencing the world's worst cholera outbreak in modern history, with over 1 million cases. There is a severe water crisis affecting 15 million people in Yemen. Hundreds of thousands have died of malnutrition and disease because Saudi Arabia is not only bombing Yemen but is also blockading Yemen by land, sea and air, ensuring that no aid or medicine can come into the country. The Saudis have created what the UN calls "the worst humanitarian crisis on earth today." DB: Could you describe the United States' role in all of this? SAA: In January, the US Army published an article detailing their support for the Saudis, including training Saudi soldiers, advising military personnel, maintaining and upgrading vehicles and aircraft, providing courses on communication and navigation, and providing Saudi jets with mid-air refueling. This is in addition to the billions in weapon sales between the US and Saudi Arabia every year. The bottom line is that the United States is benefiting from this relationship with the Saudis and it doesn't seem to matter that this has caused such a humanitarian toll in the process. Estimates are that over 75% of the targets in Yemen have been civilian targets. DB: Is there a notable difference between the policies of the last administration and those of the Trump administration? SAA: Absolutely not. This began under the Obama administration, which sold billions in weapons to the Saudis and provided them with the logistical services I just mentioned. The Trump policy in Yemen is basically on autopilot, following blindly what the Obama administration did. This is very much a bipartisan effort. Image removed by sender. King Salman greets President Obama and the First Lady during a state visit to Saudi Arabia on Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) DB: Tell us more about how this is evolving on the ground. SAA: People have lost their jobs. There is no future to look forward to. People who were once wealthy or middle-class are now resorting to begging on the streets and selling their possessions. Three million are displaced internally because there is nowhere to go with the blockade in place. People can't find water, they can't find food, they can't find medicine or fuel. They can't decide whether to take a sick child to the hospital or provide them with food. It is as bad as it can get. DB: The Saudi prince was just in D.C. He said that he really feels for the people of Yemen and that he is working on easing the blockade because he understands how devastating it has been. What is your response to that? SAA: It is a complete fabrication. They are the ones imposing the blockade, they are the ones bombing a sovereign country. They have no business in Yemen at all. And then to claim that it is the Houthis who are preventing food and medicine from coming into the country is completely absurd. In fact, the Saudis have acknowledged that they are using starvation as a weapon. They have already bombed most hospitals in Yemen. Four times they bombed Doctors without Borders hospitals. So far they have caused the death of at least 10,000 civilians through airstrikes and tens of thousands more through disease and malnutrition caused by the blockade. DB: The US media has once again dropped the ball. SAA: MSNBC reported on Yemen once in 2017 and not once since then. There is no reporting on the humanitarian crisis, on the resolutions before Congress. When it comes to the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, people just don't want to go there. DB: What are human rights organizations saying about the potential for famine? SAA: The UN has designated Yemen a level 3 for famine out of a range of 1 to 4, but when you have people already dying of starvation it doesn't matter much what level they establish. In 2015, 15,000 children died of hunger and disease in Yemen and a similar number in 2016. We are not at the brink of famine, we are already there. People are dying of starvation every day. DB: Is it possible to get through to folks on the ground there? Is there outreach from the country for support? SAA: Organizations such as Oxfam and Save the Children do have their ships there and they do bring in aid and food to the 7 million people who depend on it every day. But even that flow is obstructed by the Saudis. The cost of fuel has increased 200%. Family members like myself are sending cash, as are organizations like Doctors without Borders, to keep people employed and afloat. Kids are dying of diseases that are completely preventable. No one has to die from cholera. DB: How do you explain these congress people who support this ongoing war and famine in Yemen? Are they owned by the weapons manufacturers? SAA: Some claim that it protects Saudi interests and prevents Iran from spreading its tentacles in the region. But they undoubtedly have contact to the Saudis and to the weapons manufacturers who want to maintain their interests in Saudi Arabia. Dennis J. Bernstein is a host of "Flashpoints" on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom. You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1073 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Mar 24 14:37:18 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 09:37:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Bolton's appointment: Another warning of new US wars In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006c01d3c37d$9ca89aa0$d5f9cfe0$@comcast.net> From: David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 8:17 AM Subject: Bolton's appointment: Another warning of new US wars Bolton's appointment: Another warning of new US wars http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/24/bolt-m24.html Image removed by sender. Bolton's appointment: Another warning of new US wars www.wsws.org Bolton is notorious for his advocacy of illegal wars of aggression, his contempt for the UN and international law, and his belligerent stance towards US rivals such as China and Russia. By Peter Symonds 24 March 2018 The appointment of the notorious warmonger John Bolton as Trump's national security adviser on Thursday is a clear sign that the White House is being put on a war footing. Bolton is well known for his advocacy of illegal wars of aggression, in particular against North Korea and Iran, his contempt for the UN and international law, and his belligerent stance towards US rivals such as China and Russia. North Korea is immediately within Trump's crosshairs. The president indicated earlier this month that he would meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in May. However, the installation of Bolton in place of H.R. McMaster and the hawkish Mike Pompeo as US secretary of state in place of Rex Tillerson two weeks ago demonstrates that the purpose of any meeting will not be to negotiate, but to deliver a US ultimatum or stage a provocation. Bolton is an open advocate of pre-emptive military attacks on North Korea on the pretext of ending the so-called military threat posed by its nuclear arsenal. Just last month, he seized on Pompeo's remark that North Korea was "a handful of months" from having a nuclear missile capable of reaching the US, to set out a sham legal case in the Wall Street Journal for attacking North Korea. "We should not wait until the last minute," he emphasised. In another Wall Street Journal comment last August, Bolton scathingly dismissed any prospect of a deal with North Korea and declared that "some sort of strike is likely unavoidable unless China agrees to regime change in Pyongyang." While well aware of the huge casualties that such a war would bring to South Korea and Japan, he nevertheless insisted that the US had no option but to carry out pre-emptive strikes on North Korea and set out several strategies up to and including a full-scale air war and invasion. Bolton is a bitter critic of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran done under the Obama administration that placed severe limitations on that country's nuclear programs, and is thus in tune with Trump's threat to withdraw from the agreement in May if it is not drastically changed. In a bellicose comment in 2015 in the New York Times entitled "To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran," he advocated US military strikes combined with a concerted effort for regime change in Tehran. Likewise Bolton is a strident advocate of a confrontational approach to China, pushing for far stronger action to challenge Chinese maritime claims in the South China and East China Seas. His views on Taiwan are in line with the Trump administration's questioning of the "One China policy" and steps towards forging closer ties with Taiwan-moves that would gravely undermine relations between the US and China and greatly heighten the danger of conflict. Writing in the Wall Street Journal in 2016, Bolton called on the US to play the "Taiwan card" by upgrading official ties with the island that China regards as an integral part of its territory. "For a new US president willing to act boldly, there are opportunities to halt and then reverse China's seemingly inexorable march toward hegemony in East Asia," he wrote. The appointment of Bolton has provoked alarm in sections of the American political establishment and media. Democratic Senator Bob Menendez declared that while Trump might view Bolton as a sympathetic sycophant, "I would remind him that Mr Bolton has a reckless approach to advancing the safety and security of Americans-far outside any political party." Richard Painter, a former White House lawyer under President George Bush, described Bolton as "by far the most dangerous man" of that administration. "Hiring him as the president's top national security adviser is an invitation to war, perhaps nuclear war. This must be stopped at all costs," he told the Guardian. In its editorial yesterday "Yes, John Bolton really is that dangerous," the New York Times warned: "There are few people more likely than Mr Bolton is to lead the country into war . Coupled with his nomination of the hard-line CIA director, Mike Pompeo, as secretary of state, Mr Trump is indulging his worst nationalist instincts. Mr Bolton, in particular, believes the United States can do what it wants without regard to international law, treaties or the political commitments of previous administrations." While it is certainly true that Bolton is an infamous advocate of criminal wars, such criticisms and warnings ring completely hollow. There is no anti-war faction of the American ruling class as the past quarter century of US invasions and interventions demonstrates. Rather the bitter political infighting and crisis in Washington revolves around how best to use US military might to shore up its position in the geopolitical order and which rival or rivals to attack first. Significantly, the New York Times editorial cites Bolton's attitude to Russia as his one saving grace. "Mr Bolton's position on Russia," it declares, "that NATO must have a strong response to the Kremlin-linked poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain is somewhat better than Mr Trump's." This remark reflects the right-wing campaign waged by the newspaper in league with the Democrats and sections of the military-intelligence apparatus to remove Trump over his alleged collusion with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election campaign. This is nothing less than a push for confrontation and war with Russia. Bolton, in fact, has a militarist response to any challenge posed to US imperialist interests-China and Russia alike. In a series of tweets over the past month, he has called for the US to strengthen its allies in Central and Eastern Europe against alleged Russian cyber war; a strategic response to new Russian nuclear missiles to show "we will not let Russia push the US and its allies around;" and "a long term strategy to deal with countries like Russia and China with longstanding rulers." Bolton's appointment as Trump's national security adviser does not require congressional confirmation. The only way to block his installation would be through a broad campaign which the Democrats and other critics are not about to initiate as it would mean alerting the public about the danger of war and risk triggering an anti-war movement that would rapidly go beyond their control. Bolton was one of the gang of war criminals in the Bush administration that invented and promoted the lies about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction that were used as the pretext for the brutal US-led invasion and occupation. Neither Bolton nor anyone else was prosecuted under the Obama administration, which intensified the drive to war against Russia and China. As a result, Trump is able to install Bolton as his administration prepares for even more disastrous wars. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 740 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 24 14:38:59 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 14:38:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] PS: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" Message-ID: And we also got rid of Chief Illiniwak. I still remember Chancellor Mort Weir calling an Emergency Press Conference to announce that Chief Iliniwak is here to stay! LOL! Does anyone know where Mort is these days? To the same effect: And then the Board of Trustees adopted their Resolution that Chief Illiniwak is the “honored symbol” of the University of Illiniwaks that to the best of my knowledge is still on the books. But the White Racist Frat Boy no longer cavorts at half times desecrating everything American Indians hold Dear and Sacred. In their Bloodlust to destroy the Career and Life and Family of the Palestinian Steven Salaita the local CU Zionists Nelson et al. also destroyed our Native American Studies Program that was intended as partial reparations for Chief Illiniwak. A two-fer for their die-hard bigotry and racism against Palestinians and American Indians. Fab. D in BDS Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 4:22 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" Yeah and Cary Nelson is the die-hard bigot and racist against Palestinians who orchestrated the illegal firing of Salaita, throwing him his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, destroying his academic career, and gutting our Native American Studies Program. A two-fer for his bigotry and racism against both Palestinians and American Indians. After a long struggle, we convinced the University of Illinois Board of Trustees to divest from the genocidal/apartheid White Racist Afrikaner regime in South Africa. We can convince the BOT to divest from the genocidal/apartheid/racist Zionist regime in Israel and for the exact same reasons. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube > Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 6:16 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" [https://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4G6uo7hLAq4/mqdefault.jpg] Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians by UPTV6 University of Illinois College of Law professor Francis Boyle speaks to the grave injustice that is the treatment of the Palestinian people both within the West Bank and Gaza, as well as within Israel proper. His areas of expertise include Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Jurisprudence, and ... Help center • Report spam ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 24 14:46:34 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 14:46:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Bolton's appointment: Another warning of new US wars In-Reply-To: <006c01d3c37d$9ca89aa0$d5f9cfe0$@comcast.net> References: <006c01d3c37d$9ca89aa0$d5f9cfe0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Yeah, Bolton signed the PNAC Report-The Mein Kampf of the NeoCons. Another member of the Yale Law School Mafia like Killer Koh, His Poo John Yoo, and the Trump/KillerKoh College of Law. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 9:37 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Bolton's appointment: Another warning of new US wars From: David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 8:17 AM Subject: Bolton's appointment: Another warning of new US wars Bolton's appointment: Another warning of new US wars http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/24/bolt-m24.html [Image removed by sender.] Bolton's appointment: Another warning of new US wars www.wsws.org Bolton is notorious for his advocacy of illegal wars of aggression, his contempt for the UN and international law, and his belligerent stance towards US rivals such as China and Russia. By Peter Symonds 24 March 2018 The appointment of the notorious warmonger John Bolton as Trump's national security adviser on Thursday is a clear sign that the White House is being put on a war footing. Bolton is well known for his advocacy of illegal wars of aggression, in particular against North Korea and Iran, his contempt for the UN and international law, and his belligerent stance towards US rivals such as China and Russia. North Korea is immediately within Trump's crosshairs. The president indicated earlier this month that he would meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in May. However, the installation of Bolton in place of H.R. McMaster and the hawkish Mike Pompeo as US secretary of state in place of Rex Tillerson two weeks ago demonstrates that the purpose of any meeting will not be to negotiate, but to deliver a US ultimatum or stage a provocation. Bolton is an open advocate of pre-emptive military attacks on North Korea on the pretext of ending the so-called military threat posed by its nuclear arsenal. Just last month, he seized on Pompeo's remark that North Korea was "a handful of months" from having a nuclear missile capable of reaching the US, to set out a sham legal case in the Wall Street Journal for attacking North Korea. "We should not wait until the last minute," he emphasised. In another Wall Street Journal comment last August, Bolton scathingly dismissed any prospect of a deal with North Korea and declared that "some sort of strike is likely unavoidable unless China agrees to regime change in Pyongyang." While well aware of the huge casualties that such a war would bring to South Korea and Japan, he nevertheless insisted that the US had no option but to carry out pre-emptive strikes on North Korea and set out several strategies up to and including a full-scale air war and invasion. Bolton is a bitter critic of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran done under the Obama administration that placed severe limitations on that country's nuclear programs, and is thus in tune with Trump's threat to withdraw from the agreement in May if it is not drastically changed. In a bellicose comment in 2015 in the New York Times entitled "To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran," he advocated US military strikes combined with a concerted effort for regime change in Tehran. Likewise Bolton is a strident advocate of a confrontational approach to China, pushing for far stronger action to challenge Chinese maritime claims in the South China and East China Seas. His views on Taiwan are in line with the Trump administration's questioning of the "One China policy" and steps towards forging closer ties with Taiwan-moves that would gravely undermine relations between the US and China and greatly heighten the danger of conflict. Writing in the Wall Street Journal in 2016, Bolton called on the US to play the "Taiwan card" by upgrading official ties with the island that China regards as an integral part of its territory. "For a new US president willing to act boldly, there are opportunities to halt and then reverse China's seemingly inexorable march toward hegemony in East Asia," he wrote. The appointment of Bolton has provoked alarm in sections of the American political establishment and media. Democratic Senator Bob Menendez declared that while Trump might view Bolton as a sympathetic sycophant, "I would remind him that Mr Bolton has a reckless approach to advancing the safety and security of Americans-far outside any political party." Richard Painter, a former White House lawyer under President George Bush, described Bolton as "by far the most dangerous man" of that administration. "Hiring him as the president's top national security adviser is an invitation to war, perhaps nuclear war. This must be stopped at all costs," he told the Guardian. In its editorial yesterday "Yes, John Bolton really is that dangerous," the New York Times warned: "There are few people more likely than Mr Bolton is to lead the country into war ... Coupled with his nomination of the hard-line CIA director, Mike Pompeo, as secretary of state, Mr Trump is indulging his worst nationalist instincts. Mr Bolton, in particular, believes the United States can do what it wants without regard to international law, treaties or the political commitments of previous administrations." While it is certainly true that Bolton is an infamous advocate of criminal wars, such criticisms and warnings ring completely hollow. There is no anti-war faction of the American ruling class as the past quarter century of US invasions and interventions demonstrates. Rather the bitter political infighting and crisis in Washington revolves around how best to use US military might to shore up its position in the geopolitical order and which rival or rivals to attack first. Significantly, the New York Times editorial cites Bolton's attitude to Russia as his one saving grace. "Mr Bolton's position on Russia," it declares, "that NATO must have a strong response to the Kremlin-linked poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain is somewhat better than Mr Trump's." This remark reflects the right-wing campaign waged by the newspaper in league with the Democrats and sections of the military-intelligence apparatus to remove Trump over his alleged collusion with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election campaign. This is nothing less than a push for confrontation and war with Russia. Bolton, in fact, has a militarist response to any challenge posed to US imperialist interests-China and Russia alike. In a series of tweets over the past month, he has called for the US to strengthen its allies in Central and Eastern Europe against alleged Russian cyber war; a strategic response to new Russian nuclear missiles to show "we will not let Russia push the US and its allies around;" and "a long term strategy to deal with countries like Russia and China with longstanding rulers." Bolton's appointment as Trump's national security adviser does not require congressional confirmation. The only way to block his installation would be through a broad campaign which the Democrats and other critics are not about to initiate as it would mean alerting the public about the danger of war and risk triggering an anti-war movement that would rapidly go beyond their control. Bolton was one of the gang of war criminals in the Bush administration that invented and promoted the lies about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction that were used as the pretext for the brutal US-led invasion and occupation. Neither Bolton nor anyone else was prosecuted under the Obama administration, which intensified the drive to war against Russia and China. As a result, Trump is able to install Bolton as his administration prepares for even more disastrous wars. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 740 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 24 14:49:56 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 14:49:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Senate Votes to Continue Yemen Devastation References: <005d01d3c37d$92406b60$b6c14220$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Senate Votes to Continue Yemen Devastation March 22, 2018 On Tuesday, the Senate voted down a resolution that would have withdrawn US support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen, choosing instead to continue to illegally assist what the UN has called “the world’s largest humanitarian crisis,” reports Dennis J. Bernstein and Shireen Al-Adeimi in this interview. By Dennis J. Bernstein Shireen Al-Adeimi is a doctoral candidate at Harvard University. But she is having a hard time focusing on her studies, when friends and family back home in Yemen are under violent attack by the heavily armed, US-backed Saudi forces, with many going hungry as a result of the Saudi blockade. Al-Adeimi said on Tuesday, March 20, “This month marks the third anniversary of the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led war on Yemen. Despite the dire humanitarian crisis, however, the United States continues to sell arms to the Saudis and provide them with military support.” [cid:image001.jpg at 01D3C353.A8E729A0] A Saudi military member stands next to a damaged building in the area of the presidential palace in the southern city of Aden, Yemen. Sep 27, 2015. (Flickr Ahmed Farwan) Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Ut.), and Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) had introduced a bill that aimed to force a withdrawal of the United States from the Saudi-led war, based on violations of the War Powers Act. But the Bill, Senate Joint Resolution 54, cosponsored by 10 senators, was voted down 55-44 on Tuesday. Of course it was no surprise, given the amount of lobbying money spent by the Saudis to buy congressional silence and support. The bill also was met with fierce opposition by various Trump administration officials. The American Conservative Magazine reported that “the media has been laying out the red carpet for Crown Prince bin Salman in Washington. What the establishment press won’t tell you is that no less than 25 American lobbying firms worked for the Saudi Arabian government in 2017 to the tune of $16 million, to burnish their image, manage the message, and get massive military contracts for the weapons of war that are now being used to kill, maim and slowly starve millions of civilians in Yemen today.” I spoke with Shireen Al-Adeimi on Tuesday, March 20, directly following the vote by Congress to continue aid for the US-supported, Saudi-led slaughter. Dennis Bernstein: Shireen, what is your response to the Senate voting to continue aid to the Saudis? Shireen Al-Adeimi: It is very disappointing because it ensures that millions more Yemenis will continue to suffer. On average, 130 children die every day in Yemen due to malnutrition and disease caused by the Saudi-led blockade. Many more will die because of US bombs which are dropped from Saudi jets. People continue to die for no reason at all. DB: Could you give us a little background? SAA: The Saudis began bombing Yemen in March, 2015. Right now, some 80% of a population of 24 million people are in desperate need of humanitarian aid. Yemen is experiencing the world’s worst cholera outbreak in modern history, with over 1 million cases. There is a severe water crisis affecting 15 million people in Yemen. Hundreds of thousands have died of malnutrition and disease because Saudi Arabia is not only bombing Yemen but is also blockading Yemen by land, sea and air, ensuring that no aid or medicine can come into the country. The Saudis have created what the UN calls “the worst humanitarian crisis on earth today.” DB: Could you describe the United States’ role in all of this? SAA: In January, the US Army published an article detailing their support for the Saudis, including training Saudi soldiers, advising military personnel, maintaining and upgrading vehicles and aircraft, providing courses on communication and navigation, and providing Saudi jets with mid-air refueling. This is in addition to the billions in weapon sales between the US and Saudi Arabia every year. The bottom line is that the United States is benefiting from this relationship with the Saudis and it doesn’t seem to matter that this has caused such a humanitarian toll in the process. Estimates are that over 75% of the targets in Yemen have been civilian targets. DB: Is there a notable difference between the policies of the last administration and those of the Trump administration? SAA: Absolutely not. This began under the Obama administration, which sold billions in weapons to the Saudis and provided them with the logistical services I just mentioned. The Trump policy in Yemen is basically on autopilot, following blindly what the Obama administration did. This is very much a bipartisan effort. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D3C353.A8E729A0] King Salman greets President Obama and the First Lady during a state visit to Saudi Arabia on Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) DB: Tell us more about how this is evolving on the ground. SAA: People have lost their jobs. There is no future to look forward to. People who were once wealthy or middle-class are now resorting to begging on the streets and selling their possessions. Three million are displaced internally because there is nowhere to go with the blockade in place. People can’t find water, they can’t find food, they can’t find medicine or fuel. They can’t decide whether to take a sick child to the hospital or provide them with food. It is as bad as it can get. DB: The Saudi prince was just in D.C. He said that he really feels for the people of Yemen and that he is working on easing the blockade because he understands how devastating it has been. What is your response to that? SAA: It is a complete fabrication. They are the ones imposing the blockade, they are the ones bombing a sovereign country. They have no business in Yemen at all. And then to claim that it is the Houthis who are preventing food and medicine from coming into the country is completely absurd. In fact, the Saudis have acknowledged that they are using starvation as a weapon. They have already bombed most hospitals in Yemen. Four times they bombed Doctors without Borders hospitals. So far they have caused the death of at least 10,000 civilians through airstrikes and tens of thousands more through disease and malnutrition caused by the blockade. DB: The US media has once again dropped the ball. SAA: MSNBC reported on Yemen once in 2017 and not once since then. There is no reporting on the humanitarian crisis, on the resolutions before Congress. When it comes to the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, people just don’t want to go there. DB: What are human rights organizations saying about the potential for famine? SAA: The UN has designated Yemen a level 3 for famine out of a range of 1 to 4, but when you have people already dying of starvation it doesn’t matter much what level they establish. In 2015, 15,000 children died of hunger and disease in Yemen and a similar number in 2016. We are not at the brink of famine, we are already there. People are dying of starvation every day. DB: Is it possible to get through to folks on the ground there? Is there outreach from the country for support? SAA: Organizations such as Oxfam and Save the Children do have their ships there and they do bring in aid and food to the 7 million people who depend on it every day. But even that flow is obstructed by the Saudis. The cost of fuel has increased 200%. Family members like myself are sending cash, as are organizations like Doctors without Borders, to keep people employed and afloat. Kids are dying of diseases that are completely preventable. No one has to die from cholera. DB: How do you explain these congress people who support this ongoing war and famine in Yemen? Are they owned by the weapons manufacturers? SAA: Some claim that it protects Saudi interests and prevents Iran from spreading its tentacles in the region. But they undoubtedly have contact to the Saudis and to the weapons manufacturers who want to maintain their interests in Saudi Arabia. Dennis J. Bernstein is a host of “Flashpoints” on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom. You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1073 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1044 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 24 14:58:12 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 14:58:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Senate Votes to Continue Yemen Devastation In-Reply-To: <005d01d3c37d$92406b60$b6c14220$@comcast.net> References: <005d01d3c37d$92406b60$b6c14220$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Yeah, outright genocide by the Saudis against the Yemenis that is aided and abetted by us in violation of the Genocide Convention that was started by my fellow Magna Cum Laude Graduate of Harvard Law School Obama. The Harvard Law Mafia with Killer Koh. See Charlie Savage, Power Wars. The Nazis had their lawyers too. The Nazis had their law schools too: In Cambridge, Champaign, New Haven, Hyde Park, etc. fab. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 9:37 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Senate Votes to Continue Yemen Devastation From: David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 8:20 AM Subject: Senate Votes to Continue Yemen Devastation * About * Archives * From the Archive Series * In Case You Missed... * October Surprise Series * Video Interviews * VIPS Memos Senate Votes to Continue Yemen Devastation March 22, 2018 Save On Tuesday, the Senate voted down a resolution that would have withdrawn US support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen, choosing instead to continue to illegally assist what the UN has called "the world's largest humanitarian crisis," reports Dennis J. Bernstein and Shireen Al-Adeimi in this interview. By Dennis J. Bernstein Shireen Al-Adeimi is a doctoral candidate at Harvard University. But she is having a hard time focusing on her studies, when friends and family back home in Yemen are under violent attack by the heavily armed, US-backed Saudi forces, with many going hungry as a result of the Saudi blockade. Al-Adeimi said on Tuesday, March 20, "This month marks the third anniversary of the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led war on Yemen. Despite the dire humanitarian crisis, however, the United States continues to sell arms to the Saudis and provide them with military support." [Image removed by sender.] A Saudi military member stands next to a damaged building in the area of the presidential palace in the southern city of Aden, Yemen. Sep 27, 2015. (Flickr Ahmed Farwan) Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Ut.), and Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) had introduced a bill that aimed to force a withdrawal of the United States from the Saudi-led war, based on violations of the War Powers Act. But the Bill, Senate Joint Resolution 54, cosponsored by 10 senators, was voted down 55-44 on Tuesday. Of course it was no surprise, given the amount of lobbying money spent by the Saudis to buy congressional silence and support. The bill also was met with fierce opposition by various Trump administration officials. The American Conservative Magazine reported that "the media has been laying out the red carpet for Crown Prince bin Salman in Washington. What the establishment press won't tell you is that no less than 25 American lobbying firms worked for the Saudi Arabian government in 2017 to the tune of $16 million, to burnish their image, manage the message, and get massive military contracts for the weapons of war that are now being used to kill, maim and slowly starve millions of civilians in Yemen today." I spoke with Shireen Al-Adeimi on Tuesday, March 20, directly following the vote by Congress to continue aid for the US-supported, Saudi-led slaughter. Dennis Bernstein: Shireen, what is your response to the Senate voting to continue aid to the Saudis? Shireen Al-Adeimi: It is very disappointing because it ensures that millions more Yemenis will continue to suffer. On average, 130 children die every day in Yemen due to malnutrition and disease caused by the Saudi-led blockade. Many more will die because of US bombs which are dropped from Saudi jets. People continue to die for no reason at all. DB: Could you give us a little background? SAA: The Saudis began bombing Yemen in March, 2015. Right now, some 80% of a population of 24 million people are in desperate need of humanitarian aid. Yemen is experiencing the world's worst cholera outbreak in modern history, with over 1 million cases. There is a severe water crisis affecting 15 million people in Yemen. Hundreds of thousands have died of malnutrition and disease because Saudi Arabia is not only bombing Yemen but is also blockading Yemen by land, sea and air, ensuring that no aid or medicine can come into the country. The Saudis have created what the UN calls "the worst humanitarian crisis on earth today." DB: Could you describe the United States' role in all of this? SAA: In January, the US Army published an article detailing their support for the Saudis, including training Saudi soldiers, advising military personnel, maintaining and upgrading vehicles and aircraft, providing courses on communication and navigation, and providing Saudi jets with mid-air refueling. This is in addition to the billions in weapon sales between the US and Saudi Arabia every year. The bottom line is that the United States is benefiting from this relationship with the Saudis and it doesn't seem to matter that this has caused such a humanitarian toll in the process. Estimates are that over 75% of the targets in Yemen have been civilian targets. DB: Is there a notable difference between the policies of the last administration and those of the Trump administration? SAA: Absolutely not. This began under the Obama administration, which sold billions in weapons to the Saudis and provided them with the logistical services I just mentioned. The Trump policy in Yemen is basically on autopilot, following blindly what the Obama administration did. This is very much a bipartisan effort. [Image removed by sender.] King Salman greets President Obama and the First Lady during a state visit to Saudi Arabia on Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) DB: Tell us more about how this is evolving on the ground. SAA: People have lost their jobs. There is no future to look forward to. People who were once wealthy or middle-class are now resorting to begging on the streets and selling their possessions. Three million are displaced internally because there is nowhere to go with the blockade in place. People can't find water, they can't find food, they can't find medicine or fuel. They can't decide whether to take a sick child to the hospital or provide them with food. It is as bad as it can get. DB: The Saudi prince was just in D.C. He said that he really feels for the people of Yemen and that he is working on easing the blockade because he understands how devastating it has been. What is your response to that? SAA: It is a complete fabrication. They are the ones imposing the blockade, they are the ones bombing a sovereign country. They have no business in Yemen at all. And then to claim that it is the Houthis who are preventing food and medicine from coming into the country is completely absurd. In fact, the Saudis have acknowledged that they are using starvation as a weapon. They have already bombed most hospitals in Yemen. Four times they bombed Doctors without Borders hospitals. So far they have caused the death of at least 10,000 civilians through airstrikes and tens of thousands more through disease and malnutrition caused by the blockade. DB: The US media has once again dropped the ball. SAA: MSNBC reported on Yemen once in 2017 and not once since then. There is no reporting on the humanitarian crisis, on the resolutions before Congress. When it comes to the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, people just don't want to go there. DB: What are human rights organizations saying about the potential for famine? SAA: The UN has designated Yemen a level 3 for famine out of a range of 1 to 4, but when you have people already dying of starvation it doesn't matter much what level they establish. In 2015, 15,000 children died of hunger and disease in Yemen and a similar number in 2016. We are not at the brink of famine, we are already there. People are dying of starvation every day. DB: Is it possible to get through to folks on the ground there? Is there outreach from the country for support? SAA: Organizations such as Oxfam and Save the Children do have their ships there and they do bring in aid and food to the 7 million people who depend on it every day. But even that flow is obstructed by the Saudis. The cost of fuel has increased 200%. Family members like myself are sending cash, as are organizations like Doctors without Borders, to keep people employed and afloat. Kids are dying of diseases that are completely preventable. No one has to die from cholera. DB: How do you explain these congress people who support this ongoing war and famine in Yemen? Are they owned by the weapons manufacturers? SAA: Some claim that it protects Saudi interests and prevents Iran from spreading its tentacles in the region. But they undoubtedly have contact to the Saudis and to the weapons manufacturers who want to maintain their interests in Saudi Arabia. Dennis J. Bernstein is a host of "Flashpoints" on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom. You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1073 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1044 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 24 15:09:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:09:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The disaster in Yemen Message-ID: To be clear, the Yemen destruction began in March 2015 under the Obama Administration, but it is completely supported by the Trump Administration. The Saudi's could not do this if it weren't for the US. They need our bombs, our training and our logistics. This has been known since March 2015, and it hasn’t changed. So, whose policy is it? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 24 15:26:49 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:26:49 +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?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Thursday, March 30, 2017 12:00 PM 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Mar 24 15:40:01 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 10:40:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The disaster in Yemen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69753E3D-BC0F-47D7-A9E1-CB52293BCDB8@gmail.com> Yes. It’s US government policy, as it was in the Obama administration. As similar crimes were US government policy in the Kennedy administration. There are no ‘anti-war liberals’ in the US government. Driving Trump from office, as the political establishment wishes to do, is a conscious attempt to distract the US public from the war crimes that the establishment supports, encourages, and wishes to expand, in pursuit of the profits of the one percent. Trump is not the problem, and concentration on him - Russiagate, Mueller - is an establishment plot. We should work to build an American anti-war movement, co-otped by liberals (Obama, Sanders, Warren et al.) in this century. —CGE > On Mar 24, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > To be clear, the Yemen destruction began in March 2015 under the Obama Administration, but it is completely supported by the Trump Administration. > The Saudi's could not do this if it weren't for the US. They need our bombs, our training and our logistics. This has been known since March 2015, and it hasn't changed. > So, whose policy is it? > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 24 15:50:52 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:50:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The disaster in Yemen In-Reply-To: <69753E3D-BC0F-47D7-A9E1-CB52293BCDB8@gmail.com> References: <69753E3D-BC0F-47D7-A9E1-CB52293BCDB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: We are in agreement on who is responsible, the “Deep State, political establishment, elite, one percent, etc.etc.” which comprises many, the Pentagon, the CIA, and our corporate owned Congress goes along with it. Yes, the potential impeachment of Trump is a distraction, like so many other things, which is why any concentration on Russiagate, which includes “defending Trump” is a distraction, and serves to divide between Dems and Repubs., left and right, bickering at one another over who is “the greater evil.” Which is why I generally refuse to indulge in conversations related to electoral politics, russiagate, or other nonsense. To be clear, there are issues within, related to domestic, such as racism, gun violence in the US, austerity policies, climate change, as well as poor social services which includes lack of health care, high taxes, etc. that are very important issues of concern. To refer to them as merely Identity Politics does a disservice to the victims, even if they are also a distraction from US foreign policy. We need to unite in common cause, to change the system. The system of capitalism is the root of all, and until this is recognized the abuse and exploitation will continue. > On Mar 24, 2018, at 08:40, C G Estabrook wrote: > > Yes. It’s US government policy, as it was in the Obama administration. As similar crimes were US government policy in the Kennedy administration. > > There are no ‘anti-war liberals’ in the US government. Driving Trump from office, as the political establishment wishes to do, is a conscious attempt to distract the US public from the war crimes that the establishment supports, encourages, and wishes to expand, in pursuit of the profits of the one percent. > > Trump is not the problem, and concentration on him - Russiagate, Mueller - is an establishment plot. > > We should work to build an American anti-war movement, co-otped by liberals (Obama, Sanders, Warren et al.) in this century. > > —CGE > >> On Mar 24, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> To be clear, the Yemen destruction began in March 2015 under the Obama Administration, but it is completely supported by the Trump Administration. >> The Saudi's could not do this if it weren't for the US. They need our bombs, our training and our logistics. This has been known since March 2015, and it hasn't changed. >> So, whose policy is it? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From divisek at yahoo.com Sat Mar 24 16:44:12 2018 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 16:44:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Color revolution In-Reply-To: <6B3E03CC-9F7E-4CD0-806D-688A64BEE3F0@gmail.com> References: <6B3E03CC-9F7E-4CD0-806D-688A64BEE3F0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1262932202.4620049.1521909852135@mail.yahoo.com> Hi Carl, Thanks for posting this.  But I noticed that you eliminated some paragraphs.  Why? Dianna On Friday, March 23, 2018, 8:30:46 PM CDT, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: A deep state conspiracy, to break [Trump's] presidency, is underway. Consider. To cut through the Russophobia rampant here, Trump decided to make a direct phone call to Vladimir Putin. And in that call, Trump, like Angela Merkel, congratulated Putin on his re-election victory. Instantly, the briefing paper for the president’s call was leaked to the Post. In bold letters it read, “DO NOT CONGRATULATE.” Whereupon, the Beltway went ballistic. How could Trump congratulate Putin, whose election was a sham? Why did he not charge Putin with the Salisbury poisoning? Why did Trump not denounce Putin for interfering with “our democracy”? Amazing. A disloyal White House staffer betrays his trust and leaks a confidential paper to sabotage the foreign policy of a duly elected president, and he is celebrated in this capital city... Not only have journalists given up any pretense of neutrality in this campaign to bring down the president, ex-national security officers of the highest rank are starting to sound like resisters. Ex-CIA Director John Brennan openly speculated Tuesday that the president may have been compromised by Moscow and become an asset of the Kremlin. “I think he’s afraid of the president of Russia,” Brennan said of Trump and Putin. “The Russians, I think, have had long experience with Mr. Trump and may have things they could expose.” If Brennan has evidence Trump is compromised, he should relay it to Robert Mueller. If he does not, this is speculation of an especially ugly variety for someone once entrusted with America’s highest secrets. What is going on in this city is an American version of the “color revolutions” we have employed to dump over governments in places like Georgia and Ukraine. Goal: Break Trump’s presidency, remove him, discredit his election as contaminated by Kremlin collusion, upend the democratic verdict of 2016, and ash-can Trump’s agenda of populist conservatism. Then, return America to the open borders, free trade, democracy-crusading Bushite globalism beloved by our Beltway elites. Trump, in a way, is the indispensable man of the populist right. In the 2016 primaries, no other Republican candidate shared his determination to secure the border, bring back manufacturing or end the endless wars in the Middle East that have so bled and bankrupted our nation. Whether the Assads rule in Damascus, the Chinese fortify Scarborough Shoal, or the Taliban return to Kabul are not existential threats... Trump seems now to recognize that the special counsel’s office of Robert Mueller, which this city sees as the instrument of its deliverance, is a mortal threat to his presidency. Mueller’s team wishes to do to Trump what Archibald Cox’s team sought to do to Nixon: Drive him out of office or set him up for the kill by a Democratic Congress in 2019. Trump appears to recognize that the struggle with Mueller is now a political struggle — to the death. Hence Trump’s hiring of Joe diGenova and the departure of John Dowd from his legal team. In the elegant phrase of Michael Corleone, diGenova is a wartime consigliere. He believes that Trump is the target of a conspiracy, where Jim Comey’s FBI put in the fix to prevent Hillary’s prosecution, and then fabricated a crime of collusion with Russia to take down the new president the American people had elected. The Trump White House is behaving as if it were the prospective target of a coup d’etat. And it is not wrong to think so. --Patrick J. Buchanan ### _______________________________________________ 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 Mar 24 20:59:15 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 20:59:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] From the Greanville Post: China and the US trade war Message-ID: China warns trade war will directly hit US consumers & financial markets March 24, 2018 Posted by Addison dePitt [http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/VIRULENTCAPITALISM.jpg] HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT. [http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EditorsNote3.jpg]The appalling incompetents and hypocrites in charge of US foreign and domestic policy, (under Trump especially vile as they reek of rancid jingoism), have now determined that a trade war with China is a good idea, as part of (a) showing the misguided Trumpian base —the “deplorables”—that the man is thinking of them—jobs, jobs, jobs—and (b) as part of the empire’s search for ways to isolate and damage China’s trajectory to the top. Buried in all this colossal nonsense is the fact that (c) China never “stole” a single job, as Trump & Co.—and the presstitutes would have us believe—but, quite the opposite, the jobs were “exported” to China and other low-wage nations by a collective, cold-blooded decision of the US corporate ruling class, to minimise their wage bill and max profits, a “runaway” phenomenon that started way back, at least in the 1970s; and (d) such a move will profoundly destabilise the fragile US economy by removing a longstanding income subsidy to the American consumer, courtesy of Chinese sweat. Obviously these idiots do not even consider the inevitable repercussions of their opportunistic and flamboyant short-term policies at home. Where is the replacement income going to come when the Chinese imports cost far more? From higher wages at the local WalMarts or burger joint—assuming jobs are to be had? Expect no answers from the supreme assholes in charge, let alone from the imbecile in chief. In any case, do not forget this is not so much a Trumpian crime as it is a fully systemic, bipartisan betrayal of working Americans. But we’re used to that. Why should we expect any consideration from a government run by and for billionaires? Dateline: 24 Mar, 2018 03:27Edited time: 24 Mar, 2018 09:05 ________________________________ [http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/chinese-computer-products.jpg] © Damien Meyer / AFP American consumers will be the biggest losers if a full-fledged US-China trade war breaks out, Beijing has warned, after President Donald Trump signed a memorandum to impose new tariffs targeting over $50bn of Chinese imports. “The US’ persistence in advancing the Section 301 investigation and publishing the so-called findings to pick a trade war will undoubtedly undermine the interests of American consumers, enterprises and the financial market directly,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said, a day after the US President ordered the US Trade Representative (USTR) to levy tariffs on at least $50 billion of Chinese imports. The move is designed to cut the US trade deficit and prevent alleged misappropriation of US intellectual property. ________________________________ [FILE PHOTO: Aluminum ingots are piled up at a bonded storage area at the Dagang Terminal of Qingdao Port, China © Fayen Wong]China hits back at Trump, announces retaliatory tariffs on $3bn of US goods Trump’s Thursday announcement of the new duties was accompanied by the 215-page USTR’s Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act investigation report into China’s technology strategy, which, among other things, accuses Beijing of engaging in cyber espionage, intellectual property theft and pursuing aggressive investments and acquisitions in the US. “We have a tremendous intellectual property theft situation going on,” Trump said. Beijing slammed Trump’s accusations as “unacceptable” and brushed aside all allegations of intellectual property theft. “China’s innovation achievements are earned by the wisdom and sweat of 1.3 billion Chinese people, not by stealing and not by robbing anyone,” Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying insisted, during Friday’s press briefing. “Such achievements may make the US feel worried, but as the largest economy in the world, the US is supposed to be above making groundless accusations and blowing things out of proportion.” The Foreign Ministry explained that low-cost and labor-intensive products from China have “considerably lowered” the consumption cost for the American consumer, all while helping the US deal with inflation. “The American consumers and enterprises will bear the brunt” of a trade war with China, Hua noted. The spokeswoman also slammed statements from Trump’s economic adviser, Peter Navarro, who accused China of benefiting from bilateral trade much more than Washington benefits from trading with China. “In making his remarks, [Navarro] is a little bit too arrogant. He has apparently miscalculated the situation and underestimated China’s resolve and capability to defend its own legitimate rights and interests as well as the price the US has to pay for its recklessness and willfulness,” the spokeswoman noted. [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/875388705258831872/H4_uLagc_normal.jpg]RT dispatch [✔]@RT_com US to China: Buy more American gas if you don’t want more tariffs https://on.rt.com/91qa 11:54 AM – Mar 23, 2018 [https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/977187201472696320/8IvpZDcz?format=jpg&name=600x314] US “friendly” suggestion to China: Buy more American gas if you don’t want more tariffs — RT Business… Donald Trump’s economic adviser has a suggestion as to how China can avoid more tariffs on its goods – buy more liquefied natural gas (LNG) from America. Although the USTR was given 15 days by Trump to propose a list of Chinese products that will be targeted, China’s commerce ministry has already threatened to take legal action against the US through the World Trade Organization. The ministry is also contemplating targeting 128 American products through an imposition of a 15 percent tariff on American steel pipes, fruit and on wine imports. It also wants to slap the US with a 25 percent tariff on pork and recycled aluminum imports. Amid the looming threat of a trade war escalation, the World Trade Organization’s Director-General Roberto Azevedo urged the sides to talk, warning that there will be “no winners” in this confrontation. “Disrupting trade flows will jeopardize the global economy at a time when economic recovery, though fragile, has been increasingly evident around the world. I again call for restraint and urgent dialogue as the best path forward to resolve these problems,” Azevedo said Friday. View image on Twitter [View image on Twitter] [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/938519996367486976/0MdDTGE4_normal.jpg]Internet Association The Internet Association, a Silicon Valley lobbying group comprising such giants a -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 24 22:21:42 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 22:21:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] PS Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" Message-ID: And concerning the Nelson et al. letter I should also point out that the then Acting Dean of the Trump/KillerKoh College of Law circulated to the entire Law School Community a perfectly bootlicking letter to Chancellor Wise {Sic!} approving her illegally firing Steven Salaita, destroying his academic career, throwing him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, and destroying our Native American Studies Program that was intended to constitute partial reparations for Chief Illiniwak. No surprise there! The Faculty at the University of Illiniwaks Trump/Killer Koh College of Law have always been a Gang of bigots and racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims of Color and against American Indians. Shithole indeed! Fab Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 9:39 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: [Peace-discuss] PS: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" And we also got rid of Chief Illiniwak. I still remember Chancellor Mort Weir calling an Emergency Press Conference to announce that Chief Iliniwak is here to stay! LOL! Does anyone know where Mort is these days? To the same effect: And then the Board of Trustees adopted their Resolution that Chief Illiniwak is the “honored symbol” of the University of Illiniwaks that to the best of my knowledge is still on the books. But the White Racist Frat Boy no longer cavorts at half times desecrating everything American Indians hold Dear and Sacred. In their Bloodlust to destroy the Career and Life and Family of the Palestinian Steven Salaita the local CU Zionists Nelson et al. also destroyed our Native American Studies Program that was intended as partial reparations for Chief Illiniwak. A two-fer for their die-hard bigotry and racism against Palestinians and American Indians. Fab. D in BDS Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 4:22 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" Yeah and Cary Nelson is the die-hard bigot and racist against Palestinians who orchestrated the illegal firing of Salaita, throwing him his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, destroying his academic career, and gutting our Native American Studies Program. A two-fer for his bigotry and racism against both Palestinians and American Indians. After a long struggle, we convinced the University of Illinois Board of Trustees to divest from the genocidal/apartheid White Racist Afrikaner regime in South Africa. We can convince the BOT to divest from the genocidal/apartheid/racist Zionist regime in Israel and for the exact same reasons. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube > Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 6:16 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" [https://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4G6uo7hLAq4/mqdefault.jpg] Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians by UPTV6 University of Illinois College of Law professor Francis Boyle speaks to the grave injustice that is the treatment of the Palestinian people both within the West Bank and Gaza, as well as within Israel proper. His areas of expertise include Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Jurisprudence, and ... Help center • Report spam ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 24 22:35:38 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 22:35:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] PS Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" Message-ID: [cid:image003.png at 01D3C396.84613470] Francis 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, March 24, 2018 5:22 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: PS Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" And concerning the Nelson et al. letter I should also point out that the then Acting Dean of the Trump/KillerKoh College of Law circulated to the entire Law School Community a perfectly bootlicking letter to Chancellor Wise {Sic!} approving her illegally firing Steven Salaita, destroying his academic career, throwing him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, and destroying our Native American Studies Program that was intended to constitute partial reparations for Chief Illiniwak. No surprise there! The Faculty at the University of Illiniwaks Trump/Killer Koh College of Law have always been a Gang of bigots and racists against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims of Color and against American Indians. Shithole indeed! Fab Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 9:39 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: [Peace-discuss] PS: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" And we also got rid of Chief Illiniwak. I still remember Chancellor Mort Weir calling an Emergency Press Conference to announce that Chief Iliniwak is here to stay! LOL! Does anyone know where Mort is these days? To the same effect: And then the Board of Trustees adopted their Resolution that Chief Illiniwak is the “honored symbol” of the University of Illiniwaks that to the best of my knowledge is still on the books. But the White Racist Frat Boy no longer cavorts at half times desecrating everything American Indians hold Dear and Sacred. In their Bloodlust to destroy the Career and Life and Family of the Palestinian Steven Salaita the local CU Zionists Nelson et al. also destroyed our Native American Studies Program that was intended as partial reparations for Chief Illiniwak. A two-fer for their die-hard bigotry and racism against Palestinians and American Indians. Fab. D in BDS Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 4:22 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" Yeah and Cary Nelson is the die-hard bigot and racist against Palestinians who orchestrated the illegal firing of Salaita, throwing him his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, destroying his academic career, and gutting our Native American Studies Program. A two-fer for his bigotry and racism against both Palestinians and American Indians. After a long struggle, we convinced the University of Illinois Board of Trustees to divest from the genocidal/apartheid White Racist Afrikaner regime in South Africa. We can convince the BOT to divest from the genocidal/apartheid/racist Zionist regime in Israel and for the exact same reasons. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube > Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 6:16 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" [https://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4G6uo7hLAq4/mqdefault.jpg] Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians by UPTV6 University of Illinois College of Law professor Francis Boyle speaks to the grave injustice that is the treatment of the Palestinian people both within the West Bank and Gaza, as well as within Israel proper. His areas of expertise include Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Jurisprudence, and ... Help center • Report spam ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 451907 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Mar 25 12:49:23 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 12:49:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel/Palestine, BDS, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: These Campus Zionists are MORAL LEPERS for having gotten Salaita illegally fired, destroying his entire Academic Career, throwing him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, and destroying our Native American Studies Program that was designed as partial reparation for Chief Illiniwak. Fab. D in BDS. Francis 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, March 23, 2018 4:18 PM To: David Green Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel/Palestine, BDS, etc. Yeah and Cary Nelson is the die-hard bigot and racist against Palestinians who orchestrated the illegal firing of Salaita, throwing him his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, destroying his academic career, and gutting our Native American Studies Program. A two-fer for his bigotry and racism against both Palestinians and American Indians. After a long struggle, we convinced the University of Illinois Board of Trustees to divest from the genocidal/apartheid White Racist Afrikaner regime in South Africa. We can convince the BOT to divest from the genocidal/apartheid/racist Zionist regime in Israel and for the exact same reasons. Fab. Francis 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-discuss > On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 4:07 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel/Palestine, BDS, etc. As mentioned on today's News from Neptune: DI blurb on referendum: The only referendum that failed 3,133 to 1,700 reads as follows: Shall the University divest, or withdraw investments, from specified companies in the University’s BlackRock portfolio that actively normalize, engage in, or fund human rights violations as defined by the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? DI Letter from Cary Nelson et al.: Last month student senators listened attentively to two hours of public comment from UIUC students and faculty. The topic: should there be yet another referendum on this spring’s ballot about whether the university should divest from companies doing business in Israel? That issue was widely debated on campus last year, and the referendum was soundly defeated. Although people spoke on both sides of the issue, on one point speakers from both sides agreed. Jewish and Palestinian students alike testified that they felt harassed and threatened by the hate speech the campus debate generated. Campus discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be civil, but contests to win a forthcoming vote often are not. Competition aimed at obtaining a victory involves passions of a different character. At the student government meeting, referendum advocates made their strategy clear: they were going to reintroduce the referendum year after year. A clear expression of student opinion opposing it in a democratic vote didn’t matter. They were not giving up. That strategy has already been followed on other campuses, sometimes with annual votes taking place for a decade. Arguing over a divestment resolution as a result crowds out every other topic — from tuition levels, to class size, to loan programs — that students care about and where their advocacy can make a difference. On divestment, a campus vote amounts to empty symbolism. No Board of Trustees is going to let students, faculty, or staff decide investment policy. Investment policy is a Board fiduciary responsibility. A broad brush condemnation of a series of companies, moreover, simply invites Board dismissal. Divestment is actually a complex subject that gets confused and falsified by the resulting tweets and posters and slogans. Some companies that do business on the West Bank actually make Palestinians’ lives easier, but they are nonetheless targeted for protests. A number of companies do not sell directly to Israel. They sell to the US Defense Department, where Israel makes approved purchases, drawing on funds appropriated by the US Congress. What would happen to a US company that told the Pentagon it would have to approve the Defense Department’s customer list? Many targeted US corporations have offices and headquarters in Illinois. They offer internships to UI students. They hire students’ parents and relatives. Such companies have reason to expect fair and specific engagement from UI groups, not uniformed condemnation. Yet at the campus student government debate last month, companies in all these categories were basically accused of war crimes. That is not a carefully reasoned position. National BDS web sites target any company, among others, that sells to the Israeli army, including companies that sell shoes and binoculars, even when the same models are marketed to civilian consumers here and abroad. The University has important research collaborations with Israeli faculty members and their institutions. It has study abroad programs for students. Academic freedom provides that students and faculty have the right to pursue those options. The same Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement that promotes divestment urges universities to eliminate all those relationships. It even says faculty members should refuse to write letters of recommendation for students wanting to study in Israel. The local and national groups that endorse divestment endorse those demands as well. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is among the important topics that should be studied and discussed on campus. But a divestment debate is not a good way to do so. There are courses offered in our institution that encourage a critical approach to studying Israel and Palestine. These engage in nuance and context, providing students the opportunity to learn in detail. By contrast the rhetoric surrounding the divestment debate can be shallow, informed by simplistic slogans. We do not need another acrimonious divestment debate at UIUC. Faculty Signatories: Brian F. Allan, Entomology Ilana Redstone Akresh, Sociology Richard S. Akresh, Economics May Berenbaum, Entomology Jeffrey R. Brown, Dean, College of Business Nigel D. Goldenfeld, Physics Diane Gottheil, Medicine Rachel S. Harris, Comparative Literature Richard Herman, Chancellor emeritus Richard L. Kaplan, Law Deborah Katz-Downie, Plant Biology Michael H. Leroy, Labor & Industrial Relations Cary Nelson, English Gene E. Robinson, Entomology Jacqueline Ross, Law Richard J. Ross, Law Paula A. Treichler, Media & Cinema Paul M. Weichsel, Mathematics Reprinted from The Daily Illini, with additional names added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Mar 25 13:46:44 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 08:46:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE meeting today Message-ID: AWARE meets today, Sunday 25 March, at HAMMERHEAD COFFEE >, on the NW corner of University and Wright streets in Champaign, 5-6pm. We'll discuss the news of US government war-making and local anti-war activities, including our regular demonstration on the first Saturday of the month (April 7). ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 01:28:02 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 20:28:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday Message-ID: <8BF7EA43-8FD2-49F3-83E4-4E707138A599@gmail.com> THIS THURSDAY - NOT TO BE MISSED ============================= Tariq Ali - "The Broken Ladder: The Global Left Fifty Years After 1968" March 29, 7:30pm 210 Levis Faculty Center At the end of the Cold War, the notion of revolution seemed to have been placed among the relics of history. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” and Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” emerged as bold, alternative frameworks to imagine the course of history after the age of political revolutions had come to an end. Then, the so called Arab Springs and the re-emergence of radical narratives of transformation, from Ukraine to Venezuela, have forced intellectuals and politicians to reconsider the actuality and the meaning of revolutions in the age of globalization. Also,======================== Joint Area Centers Symposium (JACS) "Revolutions: Past and Futures of Radical Transformations" March 30, 9:30am-6:30pm Levis Faculty Center, Music Room The symposium will be articulated around 4 themes: 1) religion and revolution, 2) anti-colonialism, 3) violence and transformation, and 4) gender, race, minorities and revolution. The goal of the symposium is to bring experts from different disciplines and different geographical areas to articulate the productiveness or the anachronism of the concept of revolution in multiple cultural contexts. Scholars from and experts on China, India, Latin America, Europe and Africa will provide a truly transnational perspective to the symposium. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 26 01:43:51 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 01:43:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: <8BF7EA43-8FD2-49F3-83E4-4E707138A599@gmail.com> References: <8BF7EA43-8FD2-49F3-83E4-4E707138A599@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carl Will Tariq Ali be speaking at the Levi Center in the Music Room, as is the other program? On Mar 25, 2018, at 18:28, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: THIS THURSDAY - NOT TO BE MISSED ============================= Tariq Ali - "The Broken Ladder: The Global Left Fifty Years After 1968" March 29, 7:30pm 210 Levis Faculty Center At the end of the Cold War, the notion of revolution seemed to have been placed among the relics of history. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” and Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” emerged as bold, alternative frameworks to imagine the course of history after the age of political revolutions had come to an end. Then, the so called Arab Springs and the re-emergence of radical narratives of transformation, from Ukraine to Venezuela, have forced intellectuals and politicians to reconsider the actuality and the meaning of revolutions in the age of globalization. Also,======================== Joint Area Centers Symposium (JACS) "Revolutions: Past and Futures of Radical Transformations" March 30, 9:30am-6:30pm Levis Faculty Center, Music Room The symposium will be articulated around 4 themes: 1) religion and revolution, 2) anti-colonialism, 3) violence and transformation, and 4) gender, race, minorities and revolution. The goal of the symposium is to bring experts from different disciplines and different geographical areas to articulate the productiveness or the anachronism of the concept of revolution in multiple cultural contexts. Scholars from and experts on China, India, Latin America, Europe and Africa will provide a truly transnational perspective to the symposium. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 01:49:11 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 20:49:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: References: <8BF7EA43-8FD2-49F3-83E4-4E707138A599@gmail.com> Message-ID: He speaks at the Levis Faculty Center (second floor) Thursday night. (Long, narow room; should be crowded) I believe he’s on the panel in the Levis Faculty Center, Music Room, on Friday. (Rather a small room.) > On Mar 25, 2018, at 8:43 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl > > Will Tariq Ali be speaking at the Levi Center in the Music Room, as is the other program? > >> On Mar 25, 2018, at 18:28, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> THIS THURSDAY - NOT TO BE MISSED >> ============================= >> Tariq Ali - "The Broken Ladder: >> The Global Left Fifty Years After 1968" >> >> March 29, 7:30pm >> 210 Levis Faculty Center >> >> At the end of the Cold War, the notion of revolution seemed to have been placed among the relics of history. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” and Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” emerged as bold, alternative frameworks to imagine the course of history after the age of political revolutions had come to an end. Then, the so called Arab Springs and the re-emergence of radical narratives of transformation, from Ukraine to Venezuela, have forced intellectuals and politicians to reconsider the actuality and the meaning of revolutions in the age of globalization. >> >> Also,======================== >> Joint Area Centers Symposium (JACS) >> "Revolutions: Past and Futures of Radical Transformations" >> >> March 30, 9:30am-6:30pm >> Levis Faculty Center, Music Room >> >> The symposium will be articulated around 4 themes: 1) religion and revolution, 2) anti-colonialism, 3) violence and transformation, and 4) gender, race, minorities and revolution. The goal of the symposium is to bring experts from different disciplines and different geographical areas to articulate the productiveness or the anachronism of the concept of revolution in multiple cultural contexts. Scholars from and experts on China, India, Latin America, Europe and Africa will provide a truly transnational perspective to the symposium. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Mon Mar 26 01:59:41 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 01:59:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag.mpg" In-Reply-To: <94eb2c0b8ece164a400568471777@google.com> References: <94eb2c0b8ece164a400568471777@google.com> Message-ID: Aint much Left of the Left after 50 years. Fab Woodstock Generation Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 8:57 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag.mpg" [https://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dATyZBEeDJ4/mqdefault.jpg] Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag.mpg by TheModernDayPirate Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag Help center • Report spam ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 26 02:04:34 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 02:04:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag.mpg" In-Reply-To: References: <94eb2c0b8ece164a400568471777@google.com> Message-ID: Yep, Woodstock represents why there ain’t much left of the Left after 50 years. Too much sex, drugs and rock & roll. On Mar 25, 2018, at 18:59, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Aint much Left of the Left after 50 years. Fab Woodstock Generation Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 8:57 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag.mpg" [https://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dATyZBEeDJ4/mqdefault.jpg] Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag.mpg by TheModernDayPirate Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag Help center • Report spam ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA _______________________________________________ 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 Mar 26 02:07:13 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 02:07:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] One of my favorites from "67" Message-ID: https://www.google.com/search?q=buffalo+springfield+for+what+it%27s+worth&oq=buffalo+springfield&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j69i61j0l4.11235j0j7&sourceid=chr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Mar 26 02:36:27 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 02:36:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young - Woodstock" In-Reply-To: <000000000000d405fa0568479d59@google.com> References: <000000000000d405fa0568479d59@google.com> Message-ID: Yeah, but it sure was fun while it lasted. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 9:35 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young - Woodstock" [https://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1sH0uR2u7Hs/mqdefault.jpg] Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young - Woodstock by PeaceFrogMan1 (WMG owns this not me) (Lyrics) Well, I came upon a child of God He was walking along the road And I asked him, Tell where are you going? This he told me Said, I'm going down to Yasgur's Farm, Gonna join in a rock and roll band. Got to get back to the land and set my soul free. We are stardust, we are golden, We are billion year old carbon, And we got to get ourselves back to the garden. Well, then can I walk beside you? I have come to lose the smog, And I feel myself a cog in somethin' turning. But then maybe it's the time of man. And I don't know who I am, But life is for learning. We are stardust, we are golden, We are billion year old carbon, And we got to get ourselves back to the garden. We are stardust, we are golden, We are billion year old carbon, And we got to get ourselves back to the garden. By the time we got to Woodstock, We were half a million strong And everywhere was a song and a celebration. And I dreamed I saw the bomber je... Help center • Report spam ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Mar 26 11:58:27 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 06:58:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001b01d3c4f9$c089e640$419db2c0$@comcast.net> https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/24/dems-kept-cheerleading-bush-era-neocon s-now-theres-one-in-the-white-house/ Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House March 24, 2018 Save Dems are criticizing Trump's National Security Advisor pick, not because he's a warmonger who was one of the original members of the Project for a New American Century, but because he's allegedly too soft on Russia, Caitlin Johnstone explains. By Caitlin Johnstone As so many of us have been dreading, PNAC's favorite bloodthirsty child killer John Bolton has been added to the Trump administration. And as many half-jokingly predicted, Democrats seized on this opportunity to accuse Bolton of being a Kremlin agent. Image removed by sender. Former UN ambassador and prominent neocon John Bolton That's right, John Bolton, the guy who has been trying to start a war with Russia since long before the name Vladimir Putin meant anything to the average Democrat, is being accused of colluding with Russia. Count on Democrats to oppose the most virulent neocon in Washington by accusing him of not being hawkish enough. "John Bolton once suggested Russian hack of DNC may have been a false flag operation by Obama Admin," fretted lead Democratic Russiagater Adam Schiff, mistaking brazen partisan hackery for actual skepticism about a likely intelligence community false flag. "Don't forget the reason for H.R. McMaster's departure: He criticized Russia," added Democratic Coalition co-founder Scott Dworkin. "McMaster said publicly that Russia needed to face serious consequences for what they've done in Syria & for the gas attack in the UK. John Bolton would never say anything like that." "Trump has outdone himself by selecting Bolton," Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch tweeted with a link to a story about Bolton having appeared in a 2013 video for a Russian gun rights group. "In one appointment, he simultaneously increased the influence of the NRA in his Admin. & found another way to tie himself to Russia. Does he still claim he hires the best people? #TrumpRussia." "Bolton is *pre-indictment* for many crimes against America," tweeted renowned professional intelligence LARPer Eric Garland. Was he referring to Bolton's unforgivable war crimes? Of course not. "He's owned by Russia," Garland explained. There are of course many, many, many extremely legitimate reasons to criticize John Bolton, and none of them involve being too soft on Russia. Not only is he a PNAC signatory who played a major role in manufacturing the lies that led to the Iraq invasion, but he still insists that that invasion was a great idea. He's advocated for escalations and acts of military violence against every single government that is in any way oppositional to U.S. hegemony including Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia and China, and account after account of his personal behavior toward people he's worked with indicate that he is in all likelihood an actual, literal psychopath. But Democratic opposition to Bolton, even when it doesn't get sucked up into idiotic Russia conspiracy theory, appears to be receiving a relatively lukewarm response from mainstream America. It certainly isn't attracting the urgent attention it should be, and certainly isn't eliciting the level of viral interest as a new "bombshell" Russiagate revelation. And why should it? Propagandists have been pacing rank-and-file Democrats into embracing Iraq-raping Bush-era neocons for more than a year now. In addition to Democrats being forced to spend 2016 gaslighting themselves into believing that a warmongering neocon who supported the Iraq war would make a great First Female President, they have also been manipulated by the cult of blind anti-Trumpism into accepting neoconservative death worshippers like Bill Kristol, David Frum and Max Boot into their #Resistance fold. "One of the most amazing outcomes of the Trump administration is the number of neo-conservatives that are now my friends and I am aligned with," MSNBC pundit Joy Reid openly admitted in an interview last year. "I found myself agreeing on a panel with Bill Kristol. I agree more with Jennifer Rubin, David Frum, and Max Boot than I do with some people on the far left. I am shocked at the way that Donald Trump has brought people together." Just as Bolton has cozied up to the Trump crowd by disguising his brazen neoconservative globalism as libertarian-leaning nationalism, neocons like Frum, Boot and Kristol who helped decimate Iraq have been cozying up to mainstream Democrats by posing as woke progressives, and now they're in like Flynn. Dems had to stretch and compartmentalize their thinking to accommodate the other Bush-era neocons, and even Bush himself to a large extent, so why would a few experts saying "Uh seriously this Bolton guy is deeply terrifying" have any influence over them? They already had to gaslight themselves into believing the bloodshed caused by neoconservatism is fine. So the American mainstream has been successfully manipulated on both sides of the artificial political divide into supporting vestigial Bush neocons, with #TheResistance proudly retweeting depraved death cultists like Bill Kristol while a majority of the #MAGA crowd support Trump's elevation of Bolton, and now there's no one left but us homeless nonpartisans to point and scream about where this all seems to be headed. Partisan hack Trump supporters are worthless. Partisan hack Democrats are equally worthless. Only those who have awakened from the relentless barrage of mass media psy-ops and seen beyond the fake uni-party trap can see what's going on. It's up to us to awaken everyone else. Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium. Follow her work on Facebook, Twitter, or her website. She has a podcast and a new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. This article was re-published with permission. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1044 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Mar 26 12:26:03 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:26:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House In-Reply-To: <001b01d3c4f9$c089e640$419db2c0$@comcast.net> References: <001b01d3c4f9$c089e640$419db2c0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Yeah, we are up the Proverbial Creek without the Proverbial Paddle. Another Member of the Yale Law Mafia-like Killer Koh and his Poo John Yoo and the Killer Koh Law School here. Say, maybe they can invite Bolton out to give their endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Lawyers in Government Service like they did with Killer Koh? Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 6:58 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/24/dems-kept-cheerleading-bush-era-neocons-now-theres-one-in-the-white-house/ Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House March 24, 2018 Save Dems are criticizing Trump's National Security Advisor pick, not because he's a warmonger who was one of the original members of the Project for a New American Century, but because he's allegedly too soft on Russia, Caitlin Johnstone explains. By Caitlin Johnstone As so many of us have been dreading, PNAC's favorite bloodthirsty child killer John Bolton has been added to the Trump administration. And as many half-jokingly predicted, Democrats seized on this opportunity to accuse Bolton of being a Kremlin agent. [Image removed by sender.] Former UN ambassador and prominent neocon John Bolton That's right, John Bolton, the guy who has been trying to start a war with Russia since long before the name Vladimir Putin meant anything to the average Democrat, is being accused of colluding with Russia. Count on Democrats to oppose the most virulent neocon in Washington by accusing him of not being hawkish enough. "John Bolton once suggested Russian hack of DNC may have been a false flag operation by Obama Admin," fretted lead Democratic Russiagater Adam Schiff, mistaking brazen partisan hackery for actual skepticism about a likely intelligence community false flag. "Don't forget the reason for H.R. McMaster's departure: He criticized Russia," added Democratic Coalition co-founder Scott Dworkin. "McMaster said publicly that Russia needed to face serious consequences for what they've done in Syria & for the gas attack in the UK. John Bolton would never say anything like that." "Trump has outdone himself by selecting Bolton," Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch tweeted with a link to a story about Bolton having appeared in a 2013 video for a Russian gun rights group. "In one appointment, he simultaneously increased the influence of the NRA in his Admin. & found another way to tie himself to Russia. Does he still claim he hires the best people? #TrumpRussia." "Bolton is *pre-indictment* for many crimes against America," tweeted renowned professional intelligence LARPer Eric Garland. Was he referring to Bolton's unforgivable war crimes? Of course not. "He's owned by Russia," Garland explained. There are of course many, many, many extremely legitimate reasons to criticize John Bolton, and none of them involve being too soft on Russia. Not only is he a PNAC signatory who played a major role in manufacturing the lies that led to the Iraq invasion, but he still insists that that invasion was a great idea. He's advocated for escalations and acts of military violence against every single government that is in any way oppositional to U.S. hegemony including Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia and China, and account after account of his personal behavior toward people he's worked with indicate that he is in all likelihood an actual, literal psychopath. But Democratic opposition to Bolton, even when it doesn't get sucked up into idiotic Russia conspiracy theory, appears to be receiving a relatively lukewarm response from mainstream America. It certainly isn't attracting the urgent attention it should be, and certainly isn't eliciting the level of viral interest as a new "bombshell" Russiagate revelation. And why should it? Propagandists have been pacing rank-and-file Democrats into embracing Iraq-raping Bush-era neocons for more than a year now. In addition to Democrats being forced to spend 2016 gaslighting themselves into believing that a warmongering neocon who supported the Iraq war would make a great First Female President, they have also been manipulated by the cult of blind anti-Trumpism into accepting neoconservative death worshippers like Bill Kristol, David Frum and Max Boot into their #Resistance fold. "One of the most amazing outcomes of the Trump administration is the number of neo-conservatives that are now my friends and I am aligned with," MSNBC pundit Joy Reid openly admitted in an interview last year. "I found myself agreeing on a panel with Bill Kristol. I agree more with Jennifer Rubin, David Frum, and Max Boot than I do with some people on the far left. I am shocked at the way that Donald Trump has brought people together." Just as Bolton has cozied up to the Trump crowd by disguising his brazen neoconservative globalism as libertarian-leaning nationalism, neocons like Frum, Boot and Kristol who helped decimate Iraq have been cozying up to mainstream Democrats by posing as woke progressives, and now they're in like Flynn. Dems had to stretch and compartmentalize their thinking to accommodate the other Bush-era neocons, and even Bush himself to a large extent, so why would a few experts saying "Uh seriously this Bolton guy is deeply terrifying" have any influence over them? They already had to gaslight themselves into believing the bloodshed caused by neoconservatism is fine. So the American mainstream has been successfully manipulated on both sides of the artificial political divide into supporting vestigial Bush neocons, with #TheResistance proudly retweeting depraved death cultists like Bill Kristol while a majority of the #MAGA crowd support Trump's elevation of Bolton, and now there's no one left but us homeless nonpartisans to point and scream about where this all seems to be headed. Partisan hack Trump supporters are worthless. Partisan hack Democrats are equally worthless. Only those who have awakened from the relentless barrage of mass media psy-ops and seen beyond the fake uni-party trap can see what's going on. It's up to us to awaken everyone else. Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium. Follow her work on Facebook, Twitter, or her website. She has a podcast and a new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. This article was re-published with permission. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1044 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Mar 26 12:28:41 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:28:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House References: <001b01d3c4f9$c089e640$419db2c0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: 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 Up and down 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 just 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, 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 and pate turned beet red I stunned Gene 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, genocide Violations of the Constitution International law too 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 War Criminal Deans Hey! Hey! Yale Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! John Yoo too! Killer Koh's poo! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:26 AM To: 'David Johnson' Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House Yeah, we are up the Proverbial Creek without the Proverbial Paddle. Another Member of the Yale Law Mafia-like Killer Koh and his Poo John Yoo and the Killer Koh Law School here. Say, maybe they can invite Bolton out to give their endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Lawyers in Government Service like they did with Killer Koh? Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 6:58 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/24/dems-kept-cheerleading-bush-era-neocons-now-theres-one-in-the-white-house/ Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House March 24, 2018 Save Dems are criticizing Trump's National Security Advisor pick, not because he's a warmonger who was one of the original members of the Project for a New American Century, but because he's allegedly too soft on Russia, Caitlin Johnstone explains. By Caitlin Johnstone As so many of us have been dreading, PNAC's favorite bloodthirsty child killer John Bolton has been added to the Trump administration. And as many half-jokingly predicted, Democrats seized on this opportunity to accuse Bolton of being a Kremlin agent. [Image removed by sender.] Former UN ambassador and prominent neocon John Bolton That's right, John Bolton, the guy who has been trying to start a war with Russia since long before the name Vladimir Putin meant anything to the average Democrat, is being accused of colluding with Russia. Count on Democrats to oppose the most virulent neocon in Washington by accusing him of not being hawkish enough. "John Bolton once suggested Russian hack of DNC may have been a false flag operation by Obama Admin," fretted lead Democratic Russiagater Adam Schiff, mistaking brazen partisan hackery for actual skepticism about a likely intelligence community false flag. "Don't forget the reason for H.R. McMaster's departure: He criticized Russia," added Democratic Coalition co-founder Scott Dworkin. "McMaster said publicly that Russia needed to face serious consequences for what they've done in Syria & for the gas attack in the UK. John Bolton would never say anything like that." "Trump has outdone himself by selecting Bolton," Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch tweeted with a link to a story about Bolton having appeared in a 2013 video for a Russian gun rights group. "In one appointment, he simultaneously increased the influence of the NRA in his Admin. & found another way to tie himself to Russia. Does he still claim he hires the best people? #TrumpRussia." "Bolton is *pre-indictment* for many crimes against America," tweeted renowned professional intelligence LARPer Eric Garland. Was he referring to Bolton's unforgivable war crimes? Of course not. "He's owned by Russia," Garland explained. There are of course many, many, many extremely legitimate reasons to criticize John Bolton, and none of them involve being too soft on Russia. Not only is he a PNAC signatory who played a major role in manufacturing the lies that led to the Iraq invasion, but he still insists that that invasion was a great idea. He's advocated for escalations and acts of military violence against every single government that is in any way oppositional to U.S. hegemony including Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia and China, and account after account of his personal behavior toward people he's worked with indicate that he is in all likelihood an actual, literal psychopath. But Democratic opposition to Bolton, even when it doesn't get sucked up into idiotic Russia conspiracy theory, appears to be receiving a relatively lukewarm response from mainstream America. It certainly isn't attracting the urgent attention it should be, and certainly isn't eliciting the level of viral interest as a new "bombshell" Russiagate revelation. And why should it? Propagandists have been pacing rank-and-file Democrats into embracing Iraq-raping Bush-era neocons for more than a year now. In addition to Democrats being forced to spend 2016 gaslighting themselves into believing that a warmongering neocon who supported the Iraq war would make a great First Female President, they have also been manipulated by the cult of blind anti-Trumpism into accepting neoconservative death worshippers like Bill Kristol, David Frum and Max Boot into their #Resistance fold. "One of the most amazing outcomes of the Trump administration is the number of neo-conservatives that are now my friends and I am aligned with," MSNBC pundit Joy Reid openly admitted in an interview last year. "I found myself agreeing on a panel with Bill Kristol. I agree more with Jennifer Rubin, David Frum, and Max Boot than I do with some people on the far left. I am shocked at the way that Donald Trump has brought people together." Just as Bolton has cozied up to the Trump crowd by disguising his brazen neoconservative globalism as libertarian-leaning nationalism, neocons like Frum, Boot and Kristol who helped decimate Iraq have been cozying up to mainstream Democrats by posing as woke progressives, and now they're in like Flynn. Dems had to stretch and compartmentalize their thinking to accommodate the other Bush-era neocons, and even Bush himself to a large extent, so why would a few experts saying "Uh seriously this Bolton guy is deeply terrifying" have any influence over them? They already had to gaslight themselves into believing the bloodshed caused by neoconservatism is fine. So the American mainstream has been successfully manipulated on both sides of the artificial political divide into supporting vestigial Bush neocons, with #TheResistance proudly retweeting depraved death cultists like Bill Kristol while a majority of the #MAGA crowd support Trump's elevation of Bolton, and now there's no one left but us homeless nonpartisans to point and scream about where this all seems to be headed. Partisan hack Trump supporters are worthless. Partisan hack Democrats are equally worthless. Only those who have awakened from the relentless barrage of mass media psy-ops and seen beyond the fake uni-party trap can see what's going on. It's up to us to awaken everyone else. Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium. Follow her work on Facebook, Twitter, or her website. She has a podcast and a new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. This article was re-published with permission. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1044 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Mar 26 12:34:04 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:34:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House References: <001b01d3c4f9$c089e640$419db2c0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: This Trump/KillerKoh COL just had that one Yale Law Mafia Trump Henchman Stewart from the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice out here. Why not invite out a Second Yale Law Mafia Trump Henchman like Bolton from the Trump/Bolton National Insecurity Council? Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:26 AM To: 'David Johnson' Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House Yeah, we are up the Proverbial Creek without the Proverbial Paddle. Another Member of the Yale Law Mafia-like Killer Koh and his Poo John Yoo and the Killer Koh Law School here. Say, maybe they can invite Bolton out to give their endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Lawyers in Government Service like they did with Killer Koh? Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 6:58 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/24/dems-kept-cheerleading-bush-era-neocons-now-theres-one-in-the-white-house/ Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House March 24, 2018 Save Dems are criticizing Trump's National Security Advisor pick, not because he's a warmonger who was one of the original members of the Project for a New American Century, but because he's allegedly too soft on Russia, Caitlin Johnstone explains. By Caitlin Johnstone As so many of us have been dreading, PNAC's favorite bloodthirsty child killer John Bolton has been added to the Trump administration. And as many half-jokingly predicted, Democrats seized on this opportunity to accuse Bolton of being a Kremlin agent. [Image removed by sender.] Former UN ambassador and prominent neocon John Bolton That's right, John Bolton, the guy who has been trying to start a war with Russia since long before the name Vladimir Putin meant anything to the average Democrat, is being accused of colluding with Russia. Count on Democrats to oppose the most virulent neocon in Washington by accusing him of not being hawkish enough. "John Bolton once suggested Russian hack of DNC may have been a false flag operation by Obama Admin," fretted lead Democratic Russiagater Adam Schiff, mistaking brazen partisan hackery for actual skepticism about a likely intelligence community false flag. "Don't forget the reason for H.R. McMaster's departure: He criticized Russia," added Democratic Coalition co-founder Scott Dworkin. "McMaster said publicly that Russia needed to face serious consequences for what they've done in Syria & for the gas attack in the UK. John Bolton would never say anything like that." "Trump has outdone himself by selecting Bolton," Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch tweeted with a link to a story about Bolton having appeared in a 2013 video for a Russian gun rights group. "In one appointment, he simultaneously increased the influence of the NRA in his Admin. & found another way to tie himself to Russia. Does he still claim he hires the best people? #TrumpRussia." "Bolton is *pre-indictment* for many crimes against America," tweeted renowned professional intelligence LARPer Eric Garland. Was he referring to Bolton's unforgivable war crimes? Of course not. "He's owned by Russia," Garland explained. There are of course many, many, many extremely legitimate reasons to criticize John Bolton, and none of them involve being too soft on Russia. Not only is he a PNAC signatory who played a major role in manufacturing the lies that led to the Iraq invasion, but he still insists that that invasion was a great idea. He's advocated for escalations and acts of military violence against every single government that is in any way oppositional to U.S. hegemony including Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia and China, and account after account of his personal behavior toward people he's worked with indicate that he is in all likelihood an actual, literal psychopath. But Democratic opposition to Bolton, even when it doesn't get sucked up into idiotic Russia conspiracy theory, appears to be receiving a relatively lukewarm response from mainstream America. It certainly isn't attracting the urgent attention it should be, and certainly isn't eliciting the level of viral interest as a new "bombshell" Russiagate revelation. And why should it? Propagandists have been pacing rank-and-file Democrats into embracing Iraq-raping Bush-era neocons for more than a year now. In addition to Democrats being forced to spend 2016 gaslighting themselves into believing that a warmongering neocon who supported the Iraq war would make a great First Female President, they have also been manipulated by the cult of blind anti-Trumpism into accepting neoconservative death worshippers like Bill Kristol, David Frum and Max Boot into their #Resistance fold. "One of the most amazing outcomes of the Trump administration is the number of neo-conservatives that are now my friends and I am aligned with," MSNBC pundit Joy Reid openly admitted in an interview last year. "I found myself agreeing on a panel with Bill Kristol. I agree more with Jennifer Rubin, David Frum, and Max Boot than I do with some people on the far left. I am shocked at the way that Donald Trump has brought people together." Just as Bolton has cozied up to the Trump crowd by disguising his brazen neoconservative globalism as libertarian-leaning nationalism, neocons like Frum, Boot and Kristol who helped decimate Iraq have been cozying up to mainstream Democrats by posing as woke progressives, and now they're in like Flynn. Dems had to stretch and compartmentalize their thinking to accommodate the other Bush-era neocons, and even Bush himself to a large extent, so why would a few experts saying "Uh seriously this Bolton guy is deeply terrifying" have any influence over them? They already had to gaslight themselves into believing the bloodshed caused by neoconservatism is fine. So the American mainstream has been successfully manipulated on both sides of the artificial political divide into supporting vestigial Bush neocons, with #TheResistance proudly retweeting depraved death cultists like Bill Kristol while a majority of the #MAGA crowd support Trump's elevation of Bolton, and now there's no one left but us homeless nonpartisans to point and scream about where this all seems to be headed. Partisan hack Trump supporters are worthless. Partisan hack Democrats are equally worthless. Only those who have awakened from the relentless barrage of mass media psy-ops and seen beyond the fake uni-party trap can see what's going on. It's up to us to awaken everyone else. Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium. Follow her work on Facebook, Twitter, or her website. She has a podcast and a new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. This article was re-published with permission. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1044 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Mar 26 12:55:06 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:55:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House In-Reply-To: References: <001b01d3c4f9$c089e640$419db2c0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Bill and Killary are also members of the Yale Law Mafia. If you are asking why there are so many warmongers and war criminals coming out of Yale Law School it is because Unclean Gene Rostow was Dean there for many years and hired most of the Faculty-"Gene's Kids." So guess who runs your local law school Two Yale Law Mafia Deans in a Row? And before them we had Hurricane Heidi Hurd and her Consort CIA/Mossad Michael Moore stinking the place up with Torture from their very get-go. Fab Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:29 AM To: David Johnson Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House 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 Up and down 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 just 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, 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 and pate turned beet red I stunned Gene 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, genocide Violations of the Constitution International law too 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 War Criminal Deans Hey! Hey! Yale Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! John Yoo too! Killer Koh's poo! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:26 AM To: 'David Johnson' > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House Yeah, we are up the Proverbial Creek without the Proverbial Paddle. Another Member of the Yale Law Mafia-like Killer Koh and his Poo John Yoo and the Killer Koh Law School here. Say, maybe they can invite Bolton out to give their endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Lawyers in Government Service like they did with Killer Koh? Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 6:58 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/24/dems-kept-cheerleading-bush-era-neocons-now-theres-one-in-the-white-house/ Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House March 24, 2018 Save Dems are criticizing Trump's National Security Advisor pick, not because he's a warmonger who was one of the original members of the Project for a New American Century, but because he's allegedly too soft on Russia, Caitlin Johnstone explains. By Caitlin Johnstone As so many of us have been dreading, PNAC's favorite bloodthirsty child killer John Bolton has been added to the Trump administration. And as many half-jokingly predicted, Democrats seized on this opportunity to accuse Bolton of being a Kremlin agent. [Image removed by sender.] Former UN ambassador and prominent neocon John Bolton That's right, John Bolton, the guy who has been trying to start a war with Russia since long before the name Vladimir Putin meant anything to the average Democrat, is being accused of colluding with Russia. Count on Democrats to oppose the most virulent neocon in Washington by accusing him of not being hawkish enough. "John Bolton once suggested Russian hack of DNC may have been a false flag operation by Obama Admin," fretted lead Democratic Russiagater Adam Schiff, mistaking brazen partisan hackery for actual skepticism about a likely intelligence community false flag. "Don't forget the reason for H.R. McMaster's departure: He criticized Russia," added Democratic Coalition co-founder Scott Dworkin. "McMaster said publicly that Russia needed to face serious consequences for what they've done in Syria & for the gas attack in the UK. John Bolton would never say anything like that." "Trump has outdone himself by selecting Bolton," Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch tweeted with a link to a story about Bolton having appeared in a 2013 video for a Russian gun rights group. "In one appointment, he simultaneously increased the influence of the NRA in his Admin. & found another way to tie himself to Russia. Does he still claim he hires the best people? #TrumpRussia." "Bolton is *pre-indictment* for many crimes against America," tweeted renowned professional intelligence LARPer Eric Garland. Was he referring to Bolton's unforgivable war crimes? Of course not. "He's owned by Russia," Garland explained. There are of course many, many, many extremely legitimate reasons to criticize John Bolton, and none of them involve being too soft on Russia. Not only is he a PNAC signatory who played a major role in manufacturing the lies that led to the Iraq invasion, but he still insists that that invasion was a great idea. He's advocated for escalations and acts of military violence against every single government that is in any way oppositional to U.S. hegemony including Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia and China, and account after account of his personal behavior toward people he's worked with indicate that he is in all likelihood an actual, literal psychopath. But Democratic opposition to Bolton, even when it doesn't get sucked up into idiotic Russia conspiracy theory, appears to be receiving a relatively lukewarm response from mainstream America. It certainly isn't attracting the urgent attention it should be, and certainly isn't eliciting the level of viral interest as a new "bombshell" Russiagate revelation. And why should it? Propagandists have been pacing rank-and-file Democrats into embracing Iraq-raping Bush-era neocons for more than a year now. In addition to Democrats being forced to spend 2016 gaslighting themselves into believing that a warmongering neocon who supported the Iraq war would make a great First Female President, they have also been manipulated by the cult of blind anti-Trumpism into accepting neoconservative death worshippers like Bill Kristol, David Frum and Max Boot into their #Resistance fold. "One of the most amazing outcomes of the Trump administration is the number of neo-conservatives that are now my friends and I am aligned with," MSNBC pundit Joy Reid openly admitted in an interview last year. "I found myself agreeing on a panel with Bill Kristol. I agree more with Jennifer Rubin, David Frum, and Max Boot than I do with some people on the far left. I am shocked at the way that Donald Trump has brought people together." Just as Bolton has cozied up to the Trump crowd by disguising his brazen neoconservative globalism as libertarian-leaning nationalism, neocons like Frum, Boot and Kristol who helped decimate Iraq have been cozying up to mainstream Democrats by posing as woke progressives, and now they're in like Flynn. Dems had to stretch and compartmentalize their thinking to accommodate the other Bush-era neocons, and even Bush himself to a large extent, so why would a few experts saying "Uh seriously this Bolton guy is deeply terrifying" have any influence over them? They already had to gaslight themselves into believing the bloodshed caused by neoconservatism is fine. So the American mainstream has been successfully manipulated on both sides of the artificial political divide into supporting vestigial Bush neocons, with #TheResistance proudly retweeting depraved death cultists like Bill Kristol while a majority of the #MAGA crowd support Trump's elevation of Bolton, and now there's no one left but us homeless nonpartisans to point and scream about where this all seems to be headed. Partisan hack Trump supporters are worthless. Partisan hack Democrats are equally worthless. Only those who have awakened from the relentless barrage of mass media psy-ops and seen beyond the fake uni-party trap can see what's going on. It's up to us to awaken everyone else. Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium. Follow her work on Facebook, Twitter, or her website. She has a podcast and a new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. This article was re-published with permission. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1044 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 26 13:21:42 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:21:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House In-Reply-To: References: <001b01d3c4f9$c089e640$419db2c0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: I’m reading through the introduction to Alfred McCoy’s latest book, “In the Shadows of the American Century: where he covers the CIA attempts to prevent publication of his first book “The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia” published in the seventies, while he was a grad student at Yale. I knew the CIA attempted to prevent publication, given he connects them to the drug running, but when they lost their law suit, that was just the beginning. Their harassment of him then began as an act of revenge with intent to discredit. He makes it clear that at that time, as a result of Yale’s connections with the CIA, he was on the verge of being expelled. On Mar 26, 2018, at 05:55, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Bill and Killary are also members of the Yale Law Mafia. If you are asking why there are so many warmongers and war criminals coming out of Yale Law School it is because Unclean Gene Rostow was Dean there for many years and hired most of the Faculty—“Gene’s Kids.” So guess who runs your local law school Two Yale Law Mafia Deans in a Row? And before them we had Hurricane Heidi Hurd and her Consort CIA/Mossad Michael Moore stinking the place up with Torture from their very get-go. Fab Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:29 AM To: David Johnson > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House 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 Up and down 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 just 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, 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 and pate turned beet red I stunned Gene 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, genocide Violations of the Constitution International law too 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 War Criminal Deans Hey! Hey! Yale Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! John Yoo too! Killer Koh’s poo! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:26 AM To: 'David Johnson' > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House Yeah, we are up the Proverbial Creek without the Proverbial Paddle. Another Member of the Yale Law Mafia—like Killer Koh and his Poo John Yoo and the Killer Koh Law School here. Say, maybe they can invite Bolton out to give their endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Lawyers in Government Service like they did with Killer Koh? Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 6:58 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/24/dems-kept-cheerleading-bush-era-neocons-now-theres-one-in-the-white-house/ Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons – Now There’s One In The White House March 24, 2018 Save Dems are criticizing Trump’s National Security Advisor pick, not because he’s a warmonger who was one of the original members of the Project for a New American Century, but because he’s allegedly too soft on Russia, Caitlin Johnstone explains. By Caitlin Johnstone As so many of us have been dreading, PNAC’s favorite bloodthirsty child killer John Bolton has been added to the Trump administration. And as many half-jokingly predicted, Democrats seized on this opportunity to accuse Bolton of being a Kremlin agent. Former UN ambassador and prominent neocon John Bolton That’s right, John Bolton, the guy who has been trying to start a war with Russia since long before the name Vladimir Putin meant anything to the average Democrat, is being accused of colluding with Russia. Count on Democrats to oppose the most virulent neocon in Washington by accusing him of not being hawkish enough. “John Bolton once suggested Russian hack of DNC may have been a false flag operation by Obama Admin,” fretted lead Democratic Russiagater Adam Schiff, mistaking brazen partisan hackery for actual skepticism about a likely intelligence community false flag. “Don’t forget the reason for H.R. McMaster’s departure: He criticized Russia,” added Democratic Coalition co-founder Scott Dworkin. “McMaster said publicly that Russia needed to face serious consequences for what they’ve done in Syria & for the gas attack in the UK. John Bolton would never say anything like that.” “Trump has outdone himself by selecting Bolton,” Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch tweeted with a link to a story about Bolton having appeared in a 2013 video for a Russian gun rights group. “In one appointment, he simultaneously increased the influence of the NRA in his Admin. & found another way to tie himself to Russia. Does he still claim he hires the best people? #TrumpRussia.” “Bolton is *pre-indictment* for many crimes against America,” tweeted renowned professional intelligence LARPer Eric Garland. Was he referring to Bolton’s unforgivable war crimes? Of course not. “He’s owned by Russia,” Garland explained. There are of course many, many, many extremely legitimate reasons to criticize John Bolton, and none of them involve being too soft on Russia. Not only is he a PNAC signatory who played a major role in manufacturing the lies that led to the Iraq invasion, but he still insists that that invasion was a great idea. He’s advocated for escalations and acts of military violence against every single government that is in any way oppositional to U.S. hegemony including Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia and China, and account after account of his personal behavior toward people he’s worked with indicate that he is in all likelihood an actual, literal psychopath. But Democratic opposition to Bolton, even when it doesn’t get sucked up into idiotic Russia conspiracy theory, appears to be receiving a relatively lukewarm response from mainstream America. It certainly isn’t attracting the urgent attention it should be, and certainly isn’t eliciting the level of viral interest as a new “bombshell” Russiagate revelation. And why should it? Propagandists have been pacing rank-and-file Democrats into embracing Iraq-raping Bush-era neocons for more than a year now. In addition to Democrats being forced to spend 2016 gaslighting themselves into believing that a warmongering neocon who supported the Iraq war would make a great First Female President, they have also been manipulated by the cult of blind anti-Trumpism into accepting neoconservative death worshippers like Bill Kristol, David Frum and Max Boot into their #Resistance fold. “One of the most amazing outcomes of the Trump administration is the number of neo-conservatives that are now my friends and I am aligned with,” MSNBC pundit Joy Reid openly admitted in an interview last year. “I found myself agreeing on a panel with Bill Kristol. I agree more with Jennifer Rubin, David Frum, and Max Boot than I do with some people on the far left. I am shocked at the way that Donald Trump has brought people together.” Just as Bolton has cozied up to the Trump crowd by disguising his brazen neoconservative globalism as libertarian-leaning nationalism, neocons like Frum, Boot and Kristol who helped decimate Iraq have been cozying up to mainstream Democrats by posing as woke progressives, and now they’re in like Flynn. Dems had to stretch and compartmentalize their thinking to accommodate the other Bush-era neocons, and even Bush himself to a large extent, so why would a few experts saying “Uh seriously this Bolton guy is deeply terrifying” have any influence over them? They already had to gaslight themselves into believing the bloodshed caused by neoconservatism is fine. So the American mainstream has been successfully manipulated on both sides of the artificial political divide into supporting vestigial Bush neocons, with #TheResistance proudly retweeting depraved death cultists like Bill Kristol while a majority of the #MAGA crowd support Trump’s elevation of Bolton, and now there’s no one left but us homeless nonpartisans to point and scream about where this all seems to be headed. Partisan hack Trump supporters are worthless. Partisan hack Democrats are equally worthless. Only those who have awakened from the relentless barrage of mass media psy-ops and seen beyond the fake uni-party trap can see what’s going on. It’s up to us to awaken everyone else. Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium. Follow her work on Facebook, Twitter, or her website. She has a podcast and a new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. This article was re-published with permission. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Mar 26 14:13:33 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:13:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House In-Reply-To: References: <001b01d3c4f9$c089e640$419db2c0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Yeah, ditto for Harvard. During World War II their Faculties went to work for OSS against Japan and Germany. But when they came back, Harvard and Yale Faculties became primary recruiters for the CIA: “The Best and the Brightest.” Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 8:22 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Johnson ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House I’m reading through the introduction to Alfred McCoy’s latest book, “In the Shadows of the American Century: where he covers the CIA attempts to prevent publication of his first book “The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia” published in the seventies, while he was a grad student at Yale. I knew the CIA attempted to prevent publication, given he connects them to the drug running, but when they lost their law suit, that was just the beginning. Their harassment of him then began as an act of revenge with intent to discredit. He makes it clear that at that time, as a result of Yale’s connections with the CIA, he was on the verge of being expelled. On Mar 26, 2018, at 05:55, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Bill and Killary are also members of the Yale Law Mafia. If you are asking why there are so many warmongers and war criminals coming out of Yale Law School it is because Unclean Gene Rostow was Dean there for many years and hired most of the Faculty—“Gene’s Kids.” So guess who runs your local law school Two Yale Law Mafia Deans in a Row? And before them we had Hurricane Heidi Hurd and her Consort CIA/Mossad Michael Moore stinking the place up with Torture from their very get-go. Fab Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:29 AM To: David Johnson > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House 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 Up and down 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 just 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, 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 and pate turned beet red I stunned Gene 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, genocide Violations of the Constitution International law too 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 War Criminal Deans Hey! Hey! Yale Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! John Yoo too! Killer Koh’s poo! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:26 AM To: 'David Johnson' > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House Yeah, we are up the Proverbial Creek without the Proverbial Paddle. Another Member of the Yale Law Mafia—like Killer Koh and his Poo John Yoo and the Killer Koh Law School here. Say, maybe they can invite Bolton out to give their endowed lecture on being a Role Model for Lawyers in Government Service like they did with Killer Koh? Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Johnson via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 6:58 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/24/dems-kept-cheerleading-bush-era-neocons-now-theres-one-in-the-white-house/ Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons – Now There’s One In The White House March 24, 2018 Save Dems are criticizing Trump’s National Security Advisor pick, not because he’s a warmonger who was one of the original members of the Project for a New American Century, but because he’s allegedly too soft on Russia, Caitlin Johnstone explains. By Caitlin Johnstone As so many of us have been dreading, PNAC’s favorite bloodthirsty child killer John Bolton has been added to the Trump administration. And as many half-jokingly predicted, Democrats seized on this opportunity to accuse Bolton of being a Kremlin agent. Former UN ambassador and prominent neocon John Bolton That’s right, John Bolton, the guy who has been trying to start a war with Russia since long before the name Vladimir Putin meant anything to the average Democrat, is being accused of colluding with Russia. Count on Democrats to oppose the most virulent neocon in Washington by accusing him of not being hawkish enough. “John Bolton once suggested Russian hack of DNC may have been a false flag operation by Obama Admin,” fretted lead Democratic Russiagater Adam Schiff, mistaking brazen partisan hackery for actual skepticism about a likely intelligence community false flag. “Don’t forget the reason for H.R. McMaster’s departure: He criticized Russia,” added Democratic Coalition co-founder Scott Dworkin. “McMaster said publicly that Russia needed to face serious consequences for what they’ve done in Syria & for the gas attack in the UK. John Bolton would never say anything like that.” “Trump has outdone himself by selecting Bolton,” Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch tweeted with a link to a story about Bolton having appeared in a 2013 video for a Russian gun rights group. “In one appointment, he simultaneously increased the influence of the NRA in his Admin. & found another way to tie himself to Russia. Does he still claim he hires the best people? #TrumpRussia.” “Bolton is *pre-indictment* for many crimes against America,” tweeted renowned professional intelligence LARPer Eric Garland. Was he referring to Bolton’s unforgivable war crimes? Of course not. “He’s owned by Russia,” Garland explained. There are of course many, many, many extremely legitimate reasons to criticize John Bolton, and none of them involve being too soft on Russia. Not only is he a PNAC signatory who played a major role in manufacturing the lies that led to the Iraq invasion, but he still insists that that invasion was a great idea. He’s advocated for escalations and acts of military violence against every single government that is in any way oppositional to U.S. hegemony including Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia and China, and account after account of his personal behavior toward people he’s worked with indicate that he is in all likelihood an actual, literal psychopath. But Democratic opposition to Bolton, even when it doesn’t get sucked up into idiotic Russia conspiracy theory, appears to be receiving a relatively lukewarm response from mainstream America. It certainly isn’t attracting the urgent attention it should be, and certainly isn’t eliciting the level of viral interest as a new “bombshell” Russiagate revelation. And why should it? Propagandists have been pacing rank-and-file Democrats into embracing Iraq-raping Bush-era neocons for more than a year now. In addition to Democrats being forced to spend 2016 gaslighting themselves into believing that a warmongering neocon who supported the Iraq war would make a great First Female President, they have also been manipulated by the cult of blind anti-Trumpism into accepting neoconservative death worshippers like Bill Kristol, David Frum and Max Boot into their #Resistance fold. “One of the most amazing outcomes of the Trump administration is the number of neo-conservatives that are now my friends and I am aligned with,” MSNBC pundit Joy Reid openly admitted in an interview last year. “I found myself agreeing on a panel with Bill Kristol. I agree more with Jennifer Rubin, David Frum, and Max Boot than I do with some people on the far left. I am shocked at the way that Donald Trump has brought people together.” Just as Bolton has cozied up to the Trump crowd by disguising his brazen neoconservative globalism as libertarian-leaning nationalism, neocons like Frum, Boot and Kristol who helped decimate Iraq have been cozying up to mainstream Democrats by posing as woke progressives, and now they’re in like Flynn. Dems had to stretch and compartmentalize their thinking to accommodate the other Bush-era neocons, and even Bush himself to a large extent, so why would a few experts saying “Uh seriously this Bolton guy is deeply terrifying” have any influence over them? They already had to gaslight themselves into believing the bloodshed caused by neoconservatism is fine. So the American mainstream has been successfully manipulated on both sides of the artificial political divide into supporting vestigial Bush neocons, with #TheResistance proudly retweeting depraved death cultists like Bill Kristol while a majority of the #MAGA crowd support Trump’s elevation of Bolton, and now there’s no one left but us homeless nonpartisans to point and scream about where this all seems to be headed. Partisan hack Trump supporters are worthless. Partisan hack Democrats are equally worthless. Only those who have awakened from the relentless barrage of mass media psy-ops and seen beyond the fake uni-party trap can see what’s going on. It’s up to us to awaken everyone else. Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium. Follow her work on Facebook, Twitter, or her website. She has a podcast and a new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. This article was re-published with permission. _______________________________________________ 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 Mar 26 18:22:45 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:22:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House In-Reply-To: References: <001b01d3c4f9$c089e640$419db2c0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <56480857-B21D-47C1-9301-868C7604E007@illinois.edu> McCoy’s new book is problematic at best. I think people are judging it on his reputation, rather than the disturbing things he actually says. —CGE > On Mar 26, 2018, at 8:21 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I’m reading through the introduction to Alfred McCoy’s latest book, “In the Shadows of the American Century: where he covers the CIA attempts to prevent publication of his first book “The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia” published in the seventies, while he was a grad student at Yale. > > I knew the CIA attempted to prevent publication, given he connects them to the drug running, but when they lost their law suit, that was just the beginning. Their harassment of him then began as an act of revenge with intent to discredit. He makes it clear that at that time, as a result of Yale’s connections with the CIA, he was on the verge of being expelled. > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 18:27:23 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:27:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag.mpg" In-Reply-To: References: <94eb2c0b8ece164a400568471777@google.com> Message-ID: <7F77130A-C2C8-4B00-900C-C249D9CDE294@gmail.com> And the ones who were saying that then were the (Maoist) Progressive Labor Party. (But I always did like the Fish Cheer.) > On Mar 25, 2018, at 9:04 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Yep, Woodstock represents why there ain’t much left of the Left after 50 years. Too much sex, drugs and rock & roll. > > >> On Mar 25, 2018, at 18:59, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Aint much Left of the Left after 50 years. >> Fab >> Woodstock Generation >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] >> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 8:57 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag.mpg" >> >> Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube >> >> Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag.mpg >> >> by TheModernDayPirate >> Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag >> Help center • Report spam >> ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 26 18:53:43 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:53:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag.mpg" In-Reply-To: <7F77130A-C2C8-4B00-900C-C249D9CDE294@gmail.com> References: <94eb2c0b8ece164a400568471777@google.com> <7F77130A-C2C8-4B00-900C-C249D9CDE294@gmail.com> Message-ID: Where are they now, when we need them. the PLP? > On Mar 26, 2018, at 11:27, C G Estabrook wrote: > > And the ones who were saying that then were the (Maoist) Progressive Labor Party. > > (But I always did like the Fish Cheer.) > > >> On Mar 25, 2018, at 9:04 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Yep, Woodstock represents why there ain’t much left of the Left after 50 years. Too much sex, drugs and rock & roll. >> >> >>> On Mar 25, 2018, at 18:59, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Aint much Left of the Left after 50 years. >>> Fab >>> Woodstock Generation >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 8:57 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag.mpg" >>> >>> Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube >>> >>> Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag.mpg >>> >>> by TheModernDayPirate >>> Country Joe & The Fish Live @ Woodstock 1969 Fish Cheer_I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixing-To-Die-Rag >>> Help center • Report spam >>> ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA > From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 26 19:11:50 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 19:11:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House In-Reply-To: <56480857-B21D-47C1-9301-868C7604E007@illinois.edu> References: <001b01d3c4f9$c089e640$419db2c0$@comcast.net> <56480857-B21D-47C1-9301-868C7604E007@illinois.edu> Message-ID: What disturbing things, other than, according to the Rand Corp. we are looking at war with China in 2030. Or his Southeastern perspective of China being a threat, typical, but its based on the same prejudices that influenced Europeans to fear the Jews in Europe in the past, along with fear of communism. I see the fear of communist China, if not as a joke, then as a typical elite means of balancing two major powers against the other. > On Mar 26, 2018, at 11:22, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > McCoy’s new book is problematic at best. I think people are judging it on his reputation, rather than the disturbing things he actually says. > > —CGE > >> On Mar 26, 2018, at 8:21 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> I’m reading through the introduction to Alfred McCoy’s latest book, “In the Shadows of the American Century: where he covers the CIA attempts to prevent publication of his first book “The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia” published in the seventies, while he was a grad student at Yale. >> >> I knew the CIA attempted to prevent publication, given he connects them to the drug running, but when they lost their law suit, that was just the beginning. Their harassment of him then began as an act of revenge with intent to discredit. He makes it clear that at that time, as a result of Yale’s connections with the CIA, he was on the verge of being expelled. >> > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 19:29:53 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:29:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House In-Reply-To: References: <001b01d3c4f9$c089e640$419db2c0$@comcast.net> <56480857-B21D-47C1-9301-868C7604E007@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <89ABC0F5-175B-4C45-97C4-34FF5C85E7E9@gmail.com> His general approval of the Obama fp and his fear that Trump will abandon it. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 26, 2018, at 2:11 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > What disturbing things, other than, according to the Rand Corp. we are looking at war with China in 2030. Or his Southeastern perspective of China being a threat, typical, but its based on the same prejudices that influenced Europeans to fear the Jews in Europe in the past, along with fear of communism. I see the fear of communist China, if not as a joke, then as a typical elite means of balancing two major powers against the other. > > >> On Mar 26, 2018, at 11:22, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> McCoy’s new book is problematic at best. I think people are judging it on his reputation, rather than the disturbing things he actually says. >> >> —CGE >> >>> On Mar 26, 2018, at 8:21 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> I’m reading through the introduction to Alfred McCoy’s latest book, “In the Shadows of the American Century: where he covers the CIA attempts to prevent publication of his first book “The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia” published in the seventies, while he was a grad student at Yale. >>> >>> I knew the CIA attempted to prevent publication, given he connects them to the drug running, but when they lost their law suit, that was just the beginning. Their harassment of him then began as an act of revenge with intent to discredit. He makes it clear that at that time, as a result of Yale’s connections with the CIA, he was on the verge of being expelled. >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Mar 26 22:03:14 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 22:03:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dems Kept Cheerleading Bush-Era Neocons - Now There's One In The White House In-Reply-To: <89ABC0F5-175B-4C45-97C4-34FF5C85E7E9@gmail.com> References: <001b01d3c4f9$c089e640$419db2c0$@comcast.net> <56480857-B21D-47C1-9301-868C7604E007@illinois.edu> <89ABC0F5-175B-4C45-97C4-34FF5C85E7E9@gmail.com> Message-ID: His approval of Obama’s FP, is based upon the assumption that we need to “fear” Russia and China. Any suggestion that Obama’s policy’s are worth following other than that which was implemented in respect to Iran, is dangerous and stupid. > On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:29, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > His general approval of the Obama fp and his fear that Trump will abandon it. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 26, 2018, at 2:11 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> What disturbing things, other than, according to the Rand Corp. we are looking at war with China in 2030. Or his Southeastern perspective of China being a threat, typical, but its based on the same prejudices that influenced Europeans to fear the Jews in Europe in the past, along with fear of communism. I see the fear of communist China, if not as a joke, then as a typical elite means of balancing two major powers against the other. >> >> >>> On Mar 26, 2018, at 11:22, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> McCoy’s new book is problematic at best. I think people are judging it on his reputation, rather than the disturbing things he actually says. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>>> On Mar 26, 2018, at 8:21 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> I’m reading through the introduction to Alfred McCoy’s latest book, “In the Shadows of the American Century: where he covers the CIA attempts to prevent publication of his first book “The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia” published in the seventies, while he was a grad student at Yale. >>>> >>>> I knew the CIA attempted to prevent publication, given he connects them to the drug running, but when they lost their law suit, that was just the beginning. Their harassment of him then began as an act of revenge with intent to discredit. He makes it clear that at that time, as a result of Yale’s connections with the CIA, he was on the verge of being expelled. >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Mar 27 13:22:47 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:22:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Tar Heel - Movement Founder Elaborates on Goals for Divestment Message-ID: Movement Founder Elaborates on Goals By: Francis Boyle Guest Columnist Issue date: 10/14/02 Section: Viewpoints * Print * Email * Article Tools * Page 1 of 1 During the course of a public lecture I gave at Illinois State University in Bloomington-Normal on Nov. 30, 2000, I issued a call for the establishment of a nationwide campaign of divestment/disinvestment against Israel, which I later put on the Internet. In response thereto, the Students for Justice in Palestine of the University of California-Berkeley launched a divestment campaign against Israel there. Then the city of Ann Arbor, Mich., considered divesting from Israel. Next, the Palestinian Students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (whom I am privileged to advise) launched an Israeli divestment campaign here. As of last count, more than 50 campuses in the United States have organized divestment/disinvestment campaigns against Israel. This grassroots movement is taking off! Concerned citizens and governments all over the world must organize a comprehensive campaign of economic divestment and disinvestment from Israel along the same lines of what they did to the former criminal apartheid regime in South Africa. This original worldwide divestment/disinvestment campaign played a critical role in dismantling the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa. See my "Defending Civil Resistance under International Law 211-81" (Transnational Publishers: 1987). A worldwide divestment/disinvestment campaign against Israel will play a critical role in dismantling its criminal apartheid regime against the Palestinian people living in occupied Palestine as well as in Israel itself. For much the same reasons, a worldwide divestment/disinvestment campaign against Israel can produce an historic reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians -- just as it successfully did between whites and blacks in South Africa. This new divestment/disinvestment campaign should provide the Palestinians with enough economic and political leverage needed to negotiate a just and comprehensive peace settlement with the Israelis -- just as it did for the blacks in South Africa. Today the Republic of South Africa stands as a beacon of hope for peoples and states all over the world. The same could be true for Palestine and Israel. Francis Boyle, a University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign law professor, started the divestment movement. E-mail him at fboyle at law.uiuc.edu. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu [mailto:fboyle at law.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:54 PM To: Boyle, Francis Subject: Daily Tar Heel - Movement Founder Elaborates on Goals [Daily Tar Heel Email Edition] Thursday, May 8, 2008 Article Emailed from a friend [http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/y2m.mtvi/UniversityofNorthCarol_885/email/oneoff/atf_ad_email;sec0=UniversityofNorthCarol_885;sec1=email;sec2=oneoff;pos=atf;mtype=email;u=|sec0-UniversityofNorthCarol_885|sec1-email|sec2-oneoff|pos-atf|mtype-email|;tile=1;sz=300x250;ord=969965334625] advertisement Nakba - fab* Movement Founder Elaborates on Goals Read Full Article * The sender's identity has not been verified. [http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper885/htmlnews/D9557089.gif] View our Privacy Policy. Copyright 2008 Daily Tar Heel and College Publisher -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Mar 27 13:42:17 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:42:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle - De Paul & Dershowitz v. Finkelstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Letter from Francis Boyle: De Paul & Dershowitz v. Finkelstein To the Editor: I think I have read almost every book Professor Norman Finkelstein has written. He is on my "automatic buy" list along with Noam Chomsky and a handful of others. Professor Finkelstein is an outstanding scholar who has had and will continue to have a momentous impact on Middle East Studies. It is a disgrace that DePaul University – which purports to be Catholic – succumbed to political pressure and inflicted this grave injustice upon Professor Finkelstein at the behest of Alan Derhsowitz and his Neo-Conservative confederates. As for Dershowitz, he is a self-incriminated war criminal who publicly admitted that he serves on a Mossad Committee that authorizes the murder and assassination of Palestinians, which constitutes a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions and thus a serious war crime. Dershowitz is also infamous around the world for being this country's foremost advocate for torture. In my opinion it is Professor Finkelstein who far better represents the real values and ethos of the Jewish People. In any event, it is a shame that the University named after St. Vincent DePaul has allied itself with Dershowitz against the courageous Norman Finkelstein. Unlike Dershowitz, Professor Finkelstein has always spoken the Truth to those in Power. By comparison, Dershowitz is nothing more than an Errand Boy for those in Power. But as St. Vincent DePaul University should have understood: "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free!" Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law University of Illinois College 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) Feed: blekko | rss for "francis boyle /rss" Posted on: Monday, November 26, 2012 12:19 PM Author: blekko | rss for "francis boyle /rss" Subject: Francis Boyle - De Paul & Dershowitz v. Finkelstein Letter from Francis Boyle. To the Editor. I think I have read almost every book Professor Norman Finkelstein has written. He is on my "automatic buy" list along with Noam Chomsky and a handful of others. View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue Mar 27 13:53:30 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 08:53:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle - De Paul & Dershowitz v. Finkelstein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0F54C8A2-E31A-435C-957A-E6FCA6570AC1@illinois.edu> This is important. See Finkelstein and Chomsky’s recent books— "Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom" by Norman Finkelstein "Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power” by Noam Chomsky and Peter Hutchison > On Mar 27, 2018, at 8:42 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Letter from Francis Boyle: > De Paul & Dershowitz v. Finkelstein > To the Editor: > I think I have read almost every book Professor Norman Finkelstein has written. He is on my "automatic buy" list along with Noam Chomsky and a handful of others. Professor Finkelstein is an outstanding scholar who has had and will continue to have a momentous impact on Middle East Studies. > It is a disgrace that DePaul University – which purports to be Catholic – succumbed to political pressure and inflicted this grave injustice upon Professor Finkelstein at the behest of Alan Derhsowitz and his Neo-Conservative confederates. > As for Dershowitz, he is a self-incriminated war criminal who publicly admitted that he serves on a Mossad Committee that authorizes the murder and assassination of Palestinians, which constitutes a grave violation of the Geneva Conventions and thus a serious war crime. Dershowitz is also infamous around the world for being this country's foremost advocate for torture. > In my opinion it is Professor Finkelstein who far better represents the real values and ethos of the Jewish People. In any event, it is a shame that the University named after St. Vincent DePaul has allied itself with Dershowitz against the courageous Norman Finkelstein. Unlike Dershowitz, Professor Finkelstein has always spoken the Truth to those in Power. By comparison, Dershowitz is nothing more than an Errand Boy for those in Power. But as St. Vincent DePaul University should have understood: "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free!" > Francis A. Boyle > Professor of Law > University of Illinois College 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) > From galliher at illinois.edu Tue Mar 27 15:03:47 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:03:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Gene Sharp References: Message-ID: <5DB9EAA3-A3E7-42E9-9C0F-1A305CDC4939@illinois.edu> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Voices for Creative Nonviolence > Subject: Ann TIffany and Ed Kinane on Gene Sharp > Date: March 27, 2018 at 10:00:57 AM CDT > To: > Reply-To: Voices for Creative Nonviolence > > > We're pleased to offer this article from two of our friends and inspirations, Ann Tiffany and Ed Kinane. > > > > Gene Sharp Taught Us How and Why Nonviolence Works > - Ann Tiffany and Ed Kinane > Activist, author and scholar Gene Sharp died this past January 28. Inspired by Gandhi and deeply informed by history, Sharp (b.1928) founded the Albert Einstein Institution in Boston. Back in the 80s, Ed plowed through Sharp’s three-volume, 900-page, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (Porter Sargent, 1973). > > The tome pivots on Sharp’s “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action,” for toppling dictators and enlarging liberation. Widely reprinted, the systematic (though somewhat redundant) list examines methods that over the centuries had been successfully used at least one time or another across many cultures. > > These methods apply not only to regime change, but also to other causes. Grassroots groups we’ve been a part of have used dozens of them. Many would be familiar to Peace Newsletter readers. For all its breadth, that iconic list still remains, as if in amber, at 198 items. Activists in this age of social media could now cite additional tactics. > > Sharp wrote many books. His intellectually exciting Making Europe Unconquerable (Harper & Row, 1985) is highly practical. It draws on nonviolent tactics used by the Resistance during the Nazi invasions. At 93 pages Sharp’s more theoretical From Dictatorship to Democracy: a Conceptual Framework for Liberation (Bangkok, 1993) is Sharp’s most impactful work. It is downloadable for free and, according to the Albert Einstein Institution, has been translated into dozens of languages. Anti-tyranny activists circulated the handbook clandestinely during the East Europe color revolutions and during the Arab Spring. Some commentators claim that the handbook played a significant role in those mostly nonviolent upsurges of grassroots resistance. > > Our local Beyond War and Militarism committee’s working paper, “Getting Beyond War and Militarism: A To-Do list” (Jan/Feb 2019 PNL), complements Sharp’s “198 List.” Where “198” is rich in examples and documentation, our single-page, 22-item to-do list points out major goals and policy areas for activists to pursue. Shar provides tools for overthrowing state oppression, while ours seeks to counter the militarism infecting political parties and regimes, “democratic” or authoritarian. Unlike much mainstream media commentary, the to-do list can guide us in resisting US exceptionalism and imperialism. > > To resist Mr Trump, many US activists have recently taken their cues from “The Indivisible Guide,” also freely available online. Compiled by former Congressional staffers, the Guide has gone viral in the wake of Trump’s election. It promotes Tea Party –type electoral efforts. For a decidedly distinct approach we encourage activists to study Sharp – thereby getting beyond the Democrat/Republican duopoly with its bipartisan, heavily-lobbied, profit-hungry lust for war. > > The New Poor People’s Campaign > > The Gandhi-inspired PPC is one of any number of domestic US campaigns mobilizing to resist Trump. The new PPC, committed to nonviolence, channels Martin Luther King Jr’s 1980s Poor People’s Campaign. Today’s campaign is co-chaired by Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, longtime organizer among the poor, and by Rev. Dr. William Barber, the spark behind North Carolina’s Moral Mondays movement. Like MLK’s PPC, the new PPC calls out King’s three entwined evils: racism, poverty and militarism. Today’s PPC adds a fourth: global warming – an existential threat to many species. > > Today’s PPC is organizing in over 30 states and envisions 40 days of civil resistance from Mother’s Day, May 13, to the June 21 summer solstice. We intend those 40 days to be a fresh start on defanging the Trump regime. In New York State, the PPC is preparing for a large civil resistance action in Albany on Monday, May 14, the day after Mothers’ Day. Details forthcoming. Here in Syracuse, one or more May 14 affinity groups are forming. > > Why civil resistance? As Gandhi and Sharp and Poor People’s campaigners know, tyrannical regimes can only exist with the compliance of those they rule. We, the ruled, must forsake our fears, our distractions, our addictions, our co-optations and, to keep us free, resist the lure of consumer credit. If enough of us shed our aversion to risk, our habits of obedience and deference to power, and if we do what we can to thwart the complicity of institutions with the power structure, the pillars propping up the regime will give way. > > In closing, let us leave you with yet another key resource to read: Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan’s Why Civil Resistance Works: the Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (Columbia U. Press, 2011). These two heirs of Sharp don’t lean on either the idealistic or the spiritual. Like Sharp, they provide pragmatic and rigorous – yet accessible – analysis of why nonviolent tactics are usually more successful and always less destructive than militarism. > > Ed and Ann have long been anti-militarism activists. Since 2010 they have worked to expose Reaper drone war crime perpetrated by Hancock Air Base, home of the 174th NYS National Guard Attack Wing. Reach them at edkinane340 at gmail.com or anntiffany6236 at gmail.com . > > Share > Tweet > Forward to Friend > > > > > > > This email was sent to galliher at uiuc.edu > why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences > Voices for Creative Nonviolence · 1249 W Argyle St · Chicago, IL 60640 · USA > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 16:13:32 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:13:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Letter to editor re BDS Message-ID: > > This letter, published in today's N-G and also submitted to the Daily >> Illini, raises issues regarding BDS from a pro-Palestinian perspective; 250 >> words was not enough to elaborate a full critique, but I do support a >> focused BDS, or at least BD (because S has not really been relevant), given >> a context of activism and resistance to occupation that is worthy of the >> Palestinian cause; and that allows those Jews, "leftist" or otherwise, to >> productively express their dissatisfaction with Israel and with the Israel >> Lobby, especially in relation to elected officials and even university >> administrators, as craven as the latter tend to be. > > DG Israel’s half-century illegal occupation of Palestine—the West Bank and Gaza—continues apace, with the systematic brutalization of children among its daily crimes. Israel’s policies have largely lost the support of Jewish-American youth. Local Jewish institutions—Sinai Temple, Hillel, Jewish Federation, and UI Jewish Studies—make no effort to justify Israel’s chronically sadistic and bellicose behavior; mention of Israel has been nearly cleansed from their websites. It’s clear that Israel’s depredations can continue only with U.S. governmental support, and that non-violent resistance on the ground in Palestine is central to liberation. Nevertheless, the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement loses sight of these central realities, and expends enormous energy on symbolic and ultimately futile gestures. Moreover, by not clearly supporting a two-state solution—which has unanimous international support legally and politically—BDS advocates are exposed to valid if cynical accusations of anti-semitism. The recent generalized divestment referendum roundly rejected by UI students—which did not even mention Palestine—exemplifies this futility. In this context, ten hypocritical Jewish faculty members, led by the odious Cary Nelson—none of whom has ever uttered a public criticism of Israel’s relentlessly murderous behavior—oppose divestment in a March 8th letter to the *Daily Illini*. They claim to support “nuance and context, providing students the opportunity to learn in detail.” Coming from these individuals, this is intellectual debauchery. Nevertheless, I recommend the voluminous details contained in Norman Finkelstein’s *Gaza: An Inquest into its Martyrdom*, accurately described as “an act of resistance against the forgetfulness of history.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Mar 27 18:18:09 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:18:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Tar Heel - Movement Founder Elaborates on Goals for Divestment 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: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:23 AM To: David Green Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Daily Tar Heel - Movement Founder Elaborates on Goals for Divestment Movement Founder Elaborates on Goals By: Francis Boyle Guest Columnist Issue date: 10/14/02 Section: Viewpoints · Print · Email · Article Tools · Page 1 of 1 During the course of a public lecture I gave at Illinois State University in Bloomington-Normal on Nov. 30, 2000, I issued a call for the establishment of a nationwide campaign of divestment/disinvestment against Israel, which I later put on the Internet. In response thereto, the Students for Justice in Palestine of the University of California-Berkeley launched a divestment campaign against Israel there. Then the city of Ann Arbor, Mich., considered divesting from Israel. Next, the Palestinian Students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (whom I am privileged to advise) launched an Israeli divestment campaign here. As of last count, more than 50 campuses in the United States have organized divestment/disinvestment campaigns against Israel. This grassroots movement is taking off! Concerned citizens and governments all over the world must organize a comprehensive campaign of economic divestment and disinvestment from Israel along the same lines of what they did to the former criminal apartheid regime in South Africa. This original worldwide divestment/disinvestment campaign played a critical role in dismantling the criminal apartheid regime in South Africa. See my "Defending Civil Resistance under International Law 211-81" (Transnational Publishers: 1987). A worldwide divestment/disinvestment campaign against Israel will play a critical role in dismantling its criminal apartheid regime against the Palestinian people living in occupied Palestine as well as in Israel itself. For much the same reasons, a worldwide divestment/disinvestment campaign against Israel can produce an historic reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians -- just as it successfully did between whites and blacks in South Africa. This new divestment/disinvestment campaign should provide the Palestinians with enough economic and political leverage needed to negotiate a just and comprehensive peace settlement with the Israelis -- just as it did for the blacks in South Africa. Today the Republic of South Africa stands as a beacon of hope for peoples and states all over the world. The same could be true for Palestine and Israel. Francis Boyle, a University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign law professor, started the divestment movement. E-mail him at fboyle at law.uiuc.edu. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: fboyle at law.uiuc.edu [mailto:fboyle at law.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:54 PM To: Boyle, Francis > Subject: Daily Tar Heel - Movement Founder Elaborates on Goals [Daily Tar Heel Email Edition] Thursday, May 8, 2008 Article Emailed from a friend [http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/y2m.mtvi/UniversityofNorthCarol_885/email/oneoff/atf_ad_email;sec0=UniversityofNorthCarol_885;sec1=email;sec2=oneoff;pos=atf;mtype=email;u=|sec0-UniversityofNorthCarol_885|sec1-email|sec2-oneoff|pos-atf|mtype-email|;tile=1;sz=300x250;ord=969965334625] advertisement Nakba - fab* Movement Founder Elaborates on Goals Read Full Article * The sender's identity has not been verified. [http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper885/htmlnews/D9557089.gif] View our Privacy Policy. Copyright 2008 Daily Tar Heel and College Publisher -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Mar 27 18:33:08 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:33:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: North Korea news: Donald Trump may start WW3 with this Bolton advice | World | News | Express.co.uk 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: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 1:32 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: North Korea news: Donald Trump may start WW3 with this Bolton advice | World | News | Express.co.uk [https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/750x445/937730.jpg] SHOCK North Korea WARNING: This piece of advice could make Trump start World War 3 NORTH KOREA could be attacked by the USA if Donald Trump’s new national security adviser John Bolton tells the President to issue a ultimatum of war against the hermit nation, according to Professor Anthony Boyle. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/937730/North-Korea-news-World-War-3-Donald-Trump-John-Bolton-advice-Kim-Jong-un Sent from Mail for Windows 10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Mar 27 19:29:48 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:29:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] North Korea Warning Message-ID: SHOCK North Korea WARNING: This piece of advice could make Trump start World War 3 NORTH KOREA could be attacked by the USA if Donald Trump’s new national security adviser John Bolton tells the President to issue a ultimatum of war against the hermit nation, according to Professor Anthony Boyle. North Korea and Donald Trump have been at loggerheads since the US President took office in the White House. The rogue nation’s despot leader Kim Jong-un sparked World War 3 fears after launching several test ICBMs and threatening to target a US military base on the Pacific island of Guam. President Trump promised to retaliate with “fire and fury”, but the tough rhetoric softened when North Korea engaged in talks with neighbours South Korea. However, the conflict sparks have once again been reignited by Mr Bolton, who has recently taken over the role of Mr Trump’s national security adviser. “Either you agree to denuclearise now or we’re going to attack you.” Professor Boyle branded Mr Bolton “very dangerous” and believes the Trump adviser might have the sway to persuade the President to launch an attack. An American strike on North Korea could be made even more likely after it was suggested the rogue state’s leader Kim Jong-un was trying to win over Chinese support before his own meeting with President Trump, which could take place in May. Scott Uehlinger, a former CIA station chief said: “He has a state visit scheduled with the South Korean President in April and then we possibly have the talks with Trump coming up in May.The former UN ambassador gave his unwavering support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and even called on the US to bomb Iran before the country’s nuclear deal was in place. Professor Boyle believes Mr Bolton wants the US President to issue an ultimatum of war for North Korea if the country gives up its nuclear missile programme. Professor Boyle told Info Wars: “Let’s take North Korea, Bolton, just recently, had an article in the Wall Street Journal, saying a first strike is legitimate and we should do it. “As a matter of fact, he has also publicly stated President Trump should go to these negotiations and give Kim Jong-un an ultimatum. “Either you agree to denuclearise now or we’re going to attack you.” Professor Boyle branded Mr Bolton “very dangerous” and believes the Trump adviser might have the sway to persuade the President to launch an attack. An American strike on North Korea could be made even more likely after it was suggested the rogue state’s leader Kim Jong-un was trying to win over Chinese support before his own meeting with President Trump, which could take place in May. Scott Uehlinger, a former CIA station chief said: “He has a state visit scheduled with the South Korean President in April and then we possibly have the talks with Trump coming up in May. “Kim Jong-un is going to them China somewhat layout to them what his negotiating position is going to be with the United States and see if he can get the support of China.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 00:37:57 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:37:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: The News-Gazette: Letter to the Editor Submission References: <20180328003309.A56B126946@web-1.prod.news-gazette.com> Message-ID: > To deter the rush to war, President Trump should remove special counsel Robert Mueller, and end his partisan search for Russian ‘meddling’ in the 2016 election - and supposed links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. > > The investigation, and the hysterical charges of Trump’s being ‘Putin’s puppet,’ are an attempt by the Democrats and the rest of the ‘war party’ to reverse the outcome of the election - and ensure the continuance of the Obama administration’s wars and war provocations - from Ukraine to the South China Sea. > > Trump inherited eight wars from Obama - wars intended to ensure the maintenance of the economic hegemony of the US one-percent, in the energy-rich Mideast and across Eurasia. > > Trump - in spite of contradictory statements - criticized those wars and provocations during the campaign. The war party are desperately afraid he may act on those criticisms, especially when he proposes talks with the North Korean and Russian leaders. > > John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire...” > > Mueller is continuing the farce - and should cease. > > —C. G. Estabrook From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 01:11:20 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 20:11:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] Oligarch-Owned Media Outlets Really, REALLY Want You To Love George W Bush References: <139971992.4289.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: > > New post on Caitlin Johnstone > > > Oligarch-Owned Media Outlets Really, REALLY Want You To Love George W Bush by Caitlin Johnstone > There's a major breaking news story being reported on by both liberal and conservative mainstream media outlets across America, and it urgently needs your attention. > > The major news story can be summed up as follows: a former US president went to a wedding where there was dancing, and that former US president joined in the dancing. He bent his knees in time to the beat and moved his arms a bit. The song he was dancing to was Dead or Alive's mid-1980s hit "You Spin Me Round (Like a Record)". > > That's it. That's the whole entire news report. > > Watch former President George W. Bush bust a move on the dance floor https://t.co/QNH2dfEQOT pic.twitter.com/8JWDbQdLQi > — CNN (@CNN) March 27, 2018 > Bust a move! Former President George W. Bush tears up the dance floor at his nephew’s wedding pic.twitter.com/O8YnrrpYam > — FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) March 27, 2018 > George W. Bush tearing up the dance floor at this wedding is a true sight to behold https://t.co/IRKUjHMj9b > — TIME (@TIME) March 27, 2018 > Watch George W. Bush tear up the dance floor at nephew's wedding https://t.co/395YpaC2oa pic.twitter.com/RFU7xMr8pX > — TODAY (@TODAYshow) March 27, 2018 > WATCH: George W. Bush shows off his dance moves at nephew's wedding https://t.co/wllfx4KljM pic.twitter.com/jI1qdiHNzj > — Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) March 27, 2018 > That's right, all the plutocrat-controlled media, from the Murdoch-controlled Fox and Friends to the Brian L. Roberts-controlled Today Show to the Zucker and Bewkes-controlled CNN to the Phillip Anschutz-controlled Washington Examiner to the Koch-controlled Time Magazine urgently wants you to know that former US president George W Bush is capable of bobbing in time to music like a normal human being. It is very important to these oligarchic lackeys that you be made aware of a few seconds of video footage showing a war criminal dancing around being happy with no visible blood on his hands. > > This is just the latest episode in the mass media's endless campaign to endear a Hague fugitive to the unwashed masses. From his appearance dancing and frolicking with Ellen Degeneres last year to Bezos-controlled op-eds about how much everyone misses him, these oligarchic propaganda firms have been working tirelessly to ensure a rehabilitated image of the 43rd president. > > And it's been working. A CNN poll from earlier this year found that Bush's approval ratings have done a complete 180, and he is now on the receiving of warm, gooshy feelings from 61 percent of the US population. His approval among Democrats has shot up from a mere 11 percent in 2009 to 54 percent today, without his having done anything during that time period except paint pictures of his feet. > > Bush hasn't changed since 2009. He's still the guy who deceived the world into decimating Iraq and killing a million human beings, and no amount of rhythmic knee-bending is ever going to change that. The man hasn't changed, but the perception of him has. This is because public perception of the Bush administration is being very carefully managed and manipulated. And this is happening for a reason. > > The 1% owned mass media don't know how to "fix" our broken system because the fact that our sources of information are owned by billionaires IS the broken system. Stop expecting the problem to give you the solutions. > > — Redacted Tonight (@RedactedTonight) March 27, 2018 > These oligarch-owned media outlets are working to make the public support George W Bush for the same reason they did so after 9/11: because wars are planned, and the oligarchs stand to benefit from them. > > Iraq-raping neoconservatives have been increasingly elevated to positions of power in the current administration, and with Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and John Bolton as national security advisor this administration is now arguably packed with even more neocon bloodlust than the Bush administration was. There is in my opinion no reason for such insatiable vampires to be elevated to such positions unless wars are planned, but good luck trying to point to the Bush administration as a way of sounding the alarm to Trump's political opposition about that now. > > The US-centralized empire is built on and sustained by endless warfare. Without endless warfare, the foundation that the US oligarchy is built upon would vanish as America is forced to develop a real economy that isn't propped up with the barrel of a gun, and the oligarchic kingdoms would collapse. This is why nearly all US media is owned by billionaires and dominated by plutocrat-funded foreign policy think tanks . This is also why liberal and conservative mainstream media outlets always unite in approval when it is time for war. > > > Iraq was part of a preexisting plan, and so are many other Middle Eastern countries . The US-centralized and plutocrat-owned empire is according to its own data fast approaching post-primacy, and it needs to disrupt all potential rivals to its hegemony as quickly as possible to prevent that from happening. The Iran hawks that are filling this administration, the Russia hysteria, the Syria lies, the North Korea panic, all fit together in this same agenda. > > They are rehabilitating the image of the Bush administration because they want to have another one. > > I remember toward the end of Bush's first term people in conspiracy circles were saying there might never be another presidential election following reports that the administration had been looking for ways to postpone Election Day in the event of a new terrorist attack. It turns out that those conspiracy buffs were right all along: Bush never left office. He just changed skin color a couple of times. From pale to brown, from brown to orange. > > And now that everyone has forgotten the horrors of the Iraq invasion and a new generation of soldiers is coming of age, they are ready to start ramping up the action again. We are now being pummeled with relentless narratives about what Russia, Iran, North Korea and Syria are up to, all with basically as much evidence as we were given for Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, and all serving the agendas of the US-centralized empire to disrupt geopolitical rivals to avoid post-primacy and the rise of a multipolar world. > > George W Bush is evil. Everyone who facilitated his wars is evil. The decimation of Iraq was evil, and is unforgivable. The people who inflicted this evil upon our world are not the people who should be in the driver's seat. We need to take our world back from these monsters. > > _____________________ > > Thanks for reading, clear-eyed rebel. My daily articles are entirely reader-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking and getting on the mailing list for my website , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . > > > > Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2 > > Caitlin Johnstone | March 28, 2018 at 12:50 am | Tags: bush , george w bush , iraq , MSM , propaganda , war | Categories: Article , News | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-17b > Comment See all comments > > Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions . > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/03/28/oligarch-owned-media-outlets-really-really-want-you-to-love-george-w-bush/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 28 13:09:24 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:09:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Peace] thank Rep Vela for opposing the abominable border wall References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: From: Debra Schrishuhn via Peace > Subject: [Peace] thank Rep Vela for opposing the abominable border wall Date: March 28, 2018 at 03:48:43 PDT To: peace > Reply-To: Debra Schrishuhn > Please call Rep Filemon Vela (D, TX-34) (202) 225-9901 and thank him for opposing the Trumpian border wall and helping to spare the Santa Ana National Wildlife Preserve. This wall bridges numerous issues:immigration, increasing militarism, spreading racism, and environmental destruction. After successfully lobbying for protection of Santa Ana NWR in the recent budget bill, Rep Vela voted against the final bill because it provided funding for the wall elsewhere and offered no protections for DREAMers. Vela: Top Democrats’ Support for Trump’s Border Wall an Abomination It is becoming abundantly clear that Republican Leadership does not have—nor has ever had—any intention of allowing DREAMers a pathway to citizenship. Despite the fact that 196 Members of Congress, some of whom include Republicans, have signed a procedural petition to bring the DREAM Act to the House floor for a simple up or down vote, Speaker Ryan refuses to allow the House to vote on the DREAM Act. A simple vote is our only request. Without having taken a single step toward resolving the status of DREAMers, it is difficult to believe any Democrat would be willing to give President Trump a nickel to fund his “big beautiful wall.” Surprisingly, three of my colleagues in Congress chose to reward Trump’s intransigence and inaction—with respect to DREAMers—with support for the President’s proposed border wall. The border wall is a physical representation of the cultural and racial insults President Trump has spewed since his campaign announcement. A physical wall is also a wasteful expenditure of taxpayer dollars, endangers wildlife, stomps on property rights of private landowners, and isolates our partner, Mexico. Last week, Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin publicized an effort to provide a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers in exchange for a down payment of $1.6 billion for Trump’s border wall. The wall Mr. Durbin proposed would be constructed in South Texas—and most disturbingly—through the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge. On Friday, in a desperate move to avoid a government shutdown, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer visited the White House and “put the wall on the table in exchange for strong DACA protections…it was a generous offer.” And in a fit of emotion just hours after the midnight shutdown, Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) told reporters, “I’ll take a bucket, take bricks, and start building it [the wall] myself.” I am confounded by the negotiating tactics of my fellow Democrats. Beyond the stupidity of offering unmatched concessions and negotiating against themselves, my colleagues have begun to refer to the border wall in the same way Trump’s base speak about DREAMers and undocumented people. Their apparent acceptance of the border wall and disregard of the impact on border communities demonstrates a fundamental lack of thought, logic, and empathy. Mr. Trump’s border wall is not a cost-effective method of addressing the real issues agents face on the U.S.-Mexico border. Just two weeks ago the president of the National Treasury Employees Union, Mr. Anthony Reardon, testified that the greatest obstacle to our nation’s border security is the Department of Homeland Security’s inability to fill the thousands of border agent and officer vacancies, which were authorized by Congress. In addition to the vacancies, Mr. Reardon mentioned the shortage of canines used to detect threats to national security. Reports of an internal White House budget guidance document for Fiscal Year 2019 reveal that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) asked Department of Homeland Security officials to reduce or delay funding requests for technology and equipment meant to secure the border, including canine units and Coastal Interceptor boats used to apprehend drug smugglers. OMB’s request reveals that President Trump’s campaign promise that Mexico would pay for the wall is a lie. Rather than using taxpayer dollars on proven tools or in providing salary incentives to maintain the workforce that facilitates legitimate trade and travel, Mr. Trump is attempting to cut agents’ resources in order to pay for his wall. Government officers, canine units, and technology—not a border fence—are key to intercepting the flow of contraband into our country. Despite the impression given by supporters of a border wall, there is another massive obstacle to the barrier’s construction beyond the billions of dollars that the wall would cost to construct. Sixty-six percent of the land along our southern border is privately owned. A wall would greatly impose on the property rights of these American citizens. Those who have been able to remain living south of the wall will be stuck in limbo between the Rio Grande River and the border wall. Wall construction would require the federal government to claim eminent domain and seize the property of other private landowners. Families along the border would be uprooted from their homes, forcing them into long, arduous legal battles to defend their land. I am committed to protect DREAMers, but we can do that without sacrificing border communities and safety to satisfy an irrational demand for the construction of a border wall. I am disappointed that some members of my own party think so little of border residents that they have now offered up a physical border wall—helping President Trump fulfill one of his most repugnant campaign promises, without securing a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients. Thanks, Deb _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Mar 28 14:20:58 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:20:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Buried in the second half of this vdo, is an interview with Alfred McCoy. Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/422533-norway-gender-inequality-issue/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 14:23:16 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:23:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Buried in the second half of this vdo, is an interview with Alfred McCoy. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What does he say? > On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/422533-norway-gender-inequality-issue/ _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Mar 28 14:25:21 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:25:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Buried in the second half of this vdo, is an interview with Alfred McCoy. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I’m not Alfred McCoy, you expect me to summarize what he has to say? Do you want me to summarize what Chomsky has to say? You have to listen to it yourself. On Mar 28, 2018, at 07:23, C G Estabrook > wrote: What does he say? On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/422533-norway-gender-inequality-issue/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 14:36:30 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:36:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air - Episode #447 Message-ID: <2D4C4B1E-D04F-43B6-8281-6F465DC0FBEE@gmail.com> Recorded at noon on Tuesday 27 March 2018 > ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 14:48:03 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:48:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Buried in the second half of this vdo, is an interview with Alfred McCoy. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1B12C3D9-56B5-4C3A-BE9F-2F5613376811@gmail.com> I’m happy to summarize what Chomsky has to say. I frequently do. > On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I’m not Alfred McCoy, you expect me to summarize what he has to say? Do you want me to summarize what Chomsky has to say? > > You have to listen to it yourself. > >> On Mar 28, 2018, at 07:23, C G Estabrook > wrote: >> >> What does he say? >> >>> On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/422533-norway-gender-inequality-issue/ _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Wed Mar 28 14:53:11 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:53:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Buried in the second half of this vdo, is an interview with Alfred McCoy. In-Reply-To: <1B12C3D9-56B5-4C3A-BE9F-2F5613376811@gmail.com> References: <1B12C3D9-56B5-4C3A-BE9F-2F5613376811@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, I know. Summarizing and editing what someone says, is fine. However, it can be deceptive because its based upon the summarizers interpretation. This is why I recommend people do their own interpretations, by reading the original. On Mar 28, 2018, at 07:48, C G Estabrook > wrote: I’m happy to summarize what Chomsky has to say. I frequently do. On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: I’m not Alfred McCoy, you expect me to summarize what he has to say? Do you want me to summarize what Chomsky has to say? You have to listen to it yourself. On Mar 28, 2018, at 07:23, C G Estabrook > wrote: What does he say? On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/422533-norway-gender-inequality-issue/ _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Mar 28 14:54:43 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:54:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Crosstalk on RT.com discussion/debate worth a listen Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/422535-trump-iran-war-cabinet/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 14:57:35 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:57:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Buried in the second half of this vdo, is an interview with Alfred McCoy. In-Reply-To: References: <1B12C3D9-56B5-4C3A-BE9F-2F5613376811@gmail.com> Message-ID: But as Mhairi Black might say, ‘You talk shite, Al!’ > On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Yes, I know. Summarizing and editing what someone says, is fine. However, it can be deceptive because its based upon the summarizers interpretation. > This is why I recommend people do their own interpretations, by reading the original. > >> On Mar 28, 2018, at 07:48, C G Estabrook > wrote: >> >> I’m happy to summarize what Chomsky has to say. I frequently do. >> >> >>> On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> I’m not Alfred McCoy, you expect me to summarize what he has to say? Do you want me to summarize what Chomsky has to say? >>> >>> You have to listen to it yourself. >>> >>>> On Mar 28, 2018, at 07:23, C G Estabrook > wrote: >>>> >>>> What does he say? >>>> >>>>> On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/422533-norway-gender-inequality-issue/ _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 Wed Mar 28 15:00:03 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:00:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Buried in the second half of this vdo, is an interview with Alfred McCoy. In-Reply-To: References: <1B12C3D9-56B5-4C3A-BE9F-2F5613376811@gmail.com> Message-ID: Exactly I put these interviews, articles out there for people to read, hear and draw their own conclusions. On Mar 28, 2018, at 07:57, C G Estabrook > wrote: But as Mhairi Black might say, ‘You talk shite, Al!’ On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: Yes, I know. Summarizing and editing what someone says, is fine. However, it can be deceptive because its based upon the summarizers interpretation. This is why I recommend people do their own interpretations, by reading the original. On Mar 28, 2018, at 07:48, C G Estabrook > wrote: I’m happy to summarize what Chomsky has to say. I frequently do. On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: I’m not Alfred McCoy, you expect me to summarize what he has to say? Do you want me to summarize what Chomsky has to say? You have to listen to it yourself. On Mar 28, 2018, at 07:23, C G Estabrook > wrote: What does he say? On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/422533-norway-gender-inequality-issue/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 20:57:51 2018 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 20:57:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel References: <937997398.4414861.1521838671277.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <937997398.4414861.1521838671277@mail.yahoo.com> As mentioned on today's News from Neptune: DI blurb on referendum: The only referendum that failed 3,133 to 1,700 readsas follows: Shall the University divest, or withdraw investments, fromspecified companies in the University’s BlackRock portfolio that activelynormalize, engage in, or fund human rights violations as defined by the UnitedNation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights?   DI Letter from Cary Nelson et al.: Last month student senators listened attentively to two hours ofpublic comment from UIUC students and faculty. The topic: should there be yetanother referendum on this spring’s ballot about whether the university shoulddivest from companies doing business in Israel? That issue was widely debatedon campus last year, and the referendum was soundly defeated. Although people spoke on both sides of the issue, on one pointspeakers from both sides agreed. Jewish and Palestinian students aliketestified that they felt harassed and threatened by the hate speech the campusdebate generated. Campus discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict canbe civil, but contests to win a forthcoming vote often are not. Competitionaimed at obtaining a victory involves passions of a different character. At the student government meeting, referendum advocates made theirstrategy clear: they were going to reintroduce the referendum year after year.A clear expression of student opinion opposing it in a democratic vote didn’tmatter. They were not giving up. That strategy has already been followed on other campuses,sometimes with annual votes taking place for a decade. Arguing over adivestment resolution as a result crowds out every other topic — from tuitionlevels, to class size, to loan programs — that students care about and wheretheir advocacy can make a difference. On divestment, a campus vote amounts to empty symbolism. No Boardof Trustees is going to let students, faculty, or staff decide investmentpolicy. Investment policy is a Board fiduciary responsibility. A broad brushcondemnation of a series of companies, moreover, simply invites Boarddismissal. Divestment is actually a complex subject that gets confused andfalsified by the resulting tweets and posters and slogans. Some companies thatdo business on the West Bank actually make Palestinians’ lives easier, but theyare nonetheless targeted for protests. A number of companies do not sell directlyto Israel. They sell to the US Defense Department, where Israel makes approvedpurchases, drawing on funds appropriated by the US Congress. What would happento a US company that told the Pentagon it would have to approve the DefenseDepartment’s customer list? Many targeted US corporations have offices andheadquarters in Illinois. They offer internships to UI students. They hirestudents’ parents and relatives. Such companies have reason to expect fair andspecific engagement from UI groups, not uniformed condemnation. Yet at the campus student government debate last month, companiesin all these categories were basically accused of war crimes. That is not acarefully reasoned position. National BDS web sites target any company, amongothers, that sells to the Israeli army, including companies that sell shoes andbinoculars, even when the same models are marketed to civilian consumers hereand abroad. The University has important research collaborations with Israelifaculty members and their institutions. It has study abroad programs forstudents. Academic freedom provides that students and faculty have the right topursue those options. The same Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)movement that promotes divestment urges universities to eliminate all thoserelationships. It even says faculty members should refuse to write letters ofrecommendation for students wanting to study in Israel. The local and nationalgroups that endorse divestment endorse those demands as well. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is among the important topicsthat should be studied and discussed on campus. But a divestment debate is nota good way to do so. There are courses offered in our institution thatencourage a critical approach to studying Israel and Palestine. These engage innuance and context, providing students the opportunity to learn in detail. Bycontrast the rhetoric surrounding the divestment debate can be shallow,informed by simplistic slogans. We do not need another acrimonious divestment debate at UIUC. Faculty Signatories: Brian F. Allan, Entomology Ilana Redstone Akresh, Sociology Richard S. Akresh, Economics May Berenbaum, Entomology Jeffrey R. Brown, Dean, College of Business Nigel D. Goldenfeld, Physics Diane Gottheil, Medicine Rachel S. Harris, Comparative Literature Richard Herman, Chancellor emeritus Richard L. Kaplan, Law Deborah Katz-Downie, Plant Biology Michael H. Leroy, Labor & Industrial Relations Cary Nelson, English Gene E. Robinson, Entomology Jacqueline Ross, Law Richard J. Ross, Law Paula A. Treichler, Media & Cinema Paul M. Weichsel, Mathematics Reprinted from The Daily Illini, with additional names added.   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From germainelight53 at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 16:32:27 2018 From: germainelight53 at gmail.com (Germaine Light) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:32:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] interesting historical fact about the 13th district In-Reply-To: <007d01d3c11d$d08e37b0$71aaa710$@comcast.net> References: <007d01d3c11d$d08e37b0$71aaa710$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Interesting! Germaine On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:06 AM David Johnson wrote: > interesting historical fact about the 13th district > > > > In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections the district supported Bush > over Gore and then Kerry by a 55% to 45 % margin both times. > > > > In 2008, the year of the highest historical turnout for the district, > Obama beat McCain by 54% to 46 %. > > In 2012 , a year of a much lower voter turnout than 2008, Romney barely > beat Obama by less than 1 % of the vote > > In 2016 , Trump beat Clinton by 6 % of the vote. > > > > In 2012 Davis beat Gill by less than 1 % of the vote in a three way race > with a so called “ progressive independent “ who came out of know where to > run and agreed with every single position Gill supported and ended up with > 7 % of the vote. > > The DNC/DCCC gave Gill no get out the vote money or staff because Gill > refused to back away from his opposition to NAFTA and support for single > payer. Also Gill beat Durbin’s boy in the Dem primary. > > > > I still wonder who “persuaded “ ( bribed ) the “ progressive independent “ > to run. He has since disappeared from all political activity. > > My speculation is that it was either the Koch brothers who threw a ton of > money that year behind Davis or it was the DNC. > > I am inclined to think it was the Koch brothers but it could have very > well been the DNC based on their historic pattern of throwing considerable > time and resources against anti-corporate candidates in the Dem primaries, > even when the anti-corporate Dem primary candidate had a better chance of > winning against the republican in the general election. In essence the DNC > would rather lose to a republican then have an anti-corporate Dem candidate > get elected. Because for them ( DNC ) the maintaining and expansion of > corporate neo-liberalism and their cash flow from corporate donors is the > prime objective. > > > > David J. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Mar 28 21:07:15 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 21:07:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel In-Reply-To: <937997398.4414861.1521838671277@mail.yahoo.com> References: <937997398.4414861.1521838671277.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <937997398.4414861.1521838671277@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Yeah, as I said before: Campus Zionists are a Gang of Moral Lepers! They maliciously procured the illegal firing of Steven Salaita;they threw him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support; they destroyed his entire academic career; and they eviscerated our Native American Studies Program that was intended to constitute Partial Reparation for Chief Illiniwak. FAB. D in BDS. Francis 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-discuss On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 3:58 PM To: Peace-discuss List Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel As mentioned on today's News from Neptune: DI blurb on referendum: The only referendum that failed 3,133 to 1,700 reads as follows: Shall the University divest, or withdraw investments, from specified companies in the University’s BlackRock portfolio that actively normalize, engage in, or fund human rights violations as defined by the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? DI Letter from Cary Nelson et al.: Last month student senators listened attentively to two hours of public comment from UIUC students and faculty. The topic: should there be yet another referendum on this spring’s ballot about whether the university should divest from companies doing business in Israel? That issue was widely debated on campus last year, and the referendum was soundly defeated. Although people spoke on both sides of the issue, on one point speakers from both sides agreed. Jewish and Palestinian students alike testified that they felt harassed and threatened by the hate speech the campus debate generated. Campus discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be civil, but contests to win a forthcoming vote often are not. Competition aimed at obtaining a victory involves passions of a different character. At the student government meeting, referendum advocates made their strategy clear: they were going to reintroduce the referendum year after year. A clear expression of student opinion opposing it in a democratic vote didn’t matter. They were not giving up. That strategy has already been followed on other campuses, sometimes with annual votes taking place for a decade. Arguing over a divestment resolution as a result crowds out every other topic — from tuition levels, to class size, to loan programs — that students care about and where their advocacy can make a difference. On divestment, a campus vote amounts to empty symbolism. No Board of Trustees is going to let students, faculty, or staff decide investment policy. Investment policy is a Board fiduciary responsibility. A broad brush condemnation of a series of companies, moreover, simply invites Board dismissal. Divestment is actually a complex subject that gets confused and falsified by the resulting tweets and posters and slogans. Some companies that do business on the West Bank actually make Palestinians’ lives easier, but they are nonetheless targeted for protests. A number of companies do not sell directly to Israel. They sell to the US Defense Department, where Israel makes approved purchases, drawing on funds appropriated by the US Congress. What would happen to a US company that told the Pentagon it would have to approve the Defense Department’s customer list? Many targeted US corporations have offices and headquarters in Illinois. They offer internships to UI students. They hire students’ parents and relatives. Such companies have reason to expect fair and specific engagement from UI groups, not uniformed condemnation. Yet at the campus student government debate last month, companies in all these categories were basically accused of war crimes. That is not a carefully reasoned position. National BDS web sites target any company, among others, that sells to the Israeli army, including companies that sell shoes and binoculars, even when the same models are marketed to civilian consumers here and abroad. The University has important research collaborations with Israeli faculty members and their institutions. It has study abroad programs for students. Academic freedom provides that students and faculty have the right to pursue those options. The same Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement that promotes divestment urges universities to eliminate all those relationships. It even says faculty members should refuse to write letters of recommendation for students wanting to study in Israel. The local and national groups that endorse divestment endorse those demands as well. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is among the important topics that should be studied and discussed on campus. But a divestment debate is not a good way to do so. There are courses offered in our institution that encourage a critical approach to studying Israel and Palestine. These engage in nuance and context, providing students the opportunity to learn in detail. By contrast the rhetoric surrounding the divestment debate can be shallow, informed by simplistic slogans. We do not need another acrimonious divestment debate at UIUC. Faculty Signatories: Brian F. Allan, Entomology Ilana Redstone Akresh, Sociology Richard S. Akresh, Economics May Berenbaum, Entomology Jeffrey R. Brown, Dean, College of Business Nigel D. Goldenfeld, Physics Diane Gottheil, Medicine Rachel S. Harris, Comparative Literature Richard Herman, Chancellor emeritus Richard L. Kaplan, Law Deborah Katz-Downie, Plant Biology Michael H. Leroy, Labor & Industrial Relations Cary Nelson, English Gene E. Robinson, Entomology Jacqueline Ross, Law Richard J. Ross, Law Paula A. Treichler, Media & Cinema Paul M. Weichsel, Mathematics Reprinted from The Daily Illini, with additional names added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 00:39:56 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:39:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] interesting historical fact about the 13th district In-Reply-To: References: <007d01d3c11d$d08e37b0$71aaa710$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <47780E3A-4707-4482-B55F-E9FEFFC79E66@gmail.com> David is clearly right, but remember that Illinois was redistricted after the 2010 census. Before that C-U was in the 15th Congressional District; since then, it’s in the 13th. After running for Congress long ago (2002), I concluded that Congressional representatives should be elected not by district, but at large, by party list. Thus, if the Democrats get 40% of the vote, they get 40% of the Congressional delegation (probably seven representatives, in Illinois); if the Greens and Libertarians each get 5% of the vote, they each get one. Otherwise, gerrymandering is unavoidable, as the Supreme Court is revealing today: >. —CGE > On Mar 28, 2018, at 11:32 AM, Germaine Light via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Interesting! > Germaine > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:06 AM David Johnson > wrote: > interesting historical fact about the 13th district > > > > In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections the district supported Bush over Gore and then Kerry by a 55% to 45 % margin both times. > > > > In 2008, the year of the highest historical turnout for the district, Obama beat McCain by 54% to 46 %. > > In 2012 , a year of a much lower voter turnout than 2008, Romney barely beat Obama by less than 1 % of the vote > > In 2016 , Trump beat Clinton by 6 % of the vote. > > > > In 2012 Davis beat Gill by less than 1 % of the vote in a three way race with a so called “ progressive independent “ who came out of know where to run and agreed with every single position Gill supported and ended up with 7 % of the vote. > > The DNC/DCCC gave Gill no get out the vote money or staff because Gill refused to back away from his opposition to NAFTA and support for single payer. Also Gill beat Durbin’s boy in the Dem primary. > > > > I still wonder who “persuaded “ ( bribed ) the “ progressive independent “ to run. He has since disappeared from all political activity. > > My speculation is that it was either the Koch brothers who threw a ton of money that year behind Davis or it was the DNC. > > I am inclined to think it was the Koch brothers but it could have very well been the DNC based on their historic pattern of throwing considerable time and resources against anti-corporate candidates in the Dem primaries, even when the anti-corporate Dem primary candidate had a better chance of winning against the republican in the general election. In essence the DNC would rather lose to a republican then have an anti-corporate Dem candidate get elected. Because for them ( DNC ) the maintaining and expansion of corporate neo-liberalism and their cash flow from corporate donors is the prime objective. > > > > David J. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 29 02:17:28 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 02:17:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: AWARE Demo. a couple years ago. References: Message-ID: I just found the below photo, on my cell. Doug Clough with the peace flag, never misses a demo. The two young women, were walking by and very supportive, so we took a photo with our signs. Sent from my mobile. _____________________________________________________________ [cid:20161203_1437041.jpg] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20161203_1437041.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 968042 bytes Desc: 20161203_1437041.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Mar 29 02:32:04 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 02:32:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel In-Reply-To: References: <937997398.4414861.1521838671277.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <937997398.4414861.1521838671277@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The entire Salaita/Iliniwak Fiasco just proves how mean, nasty, vicious, ruthless, cruel and unprincipled the Campus Zionists have always been since I started teaching here on August 21, 1978. They will stop at nothing to get their perverse way. The Campus Zionists are just a Gang of Academic Thugs and Moral Reprobates. Fab. D in BDS. Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 4:07 PM To: David Green Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel Yeah, as I said before: Campus Zionists are a Gang of Moral Lepers! They maliciously procured the illegal firing of Steven Salaita;they threw him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support; they destroyed his entire academic career; and they eviscerated our Native American Studies Program that was intended to constitute Partial Reparation for Chief Illiniwak. FAB. D in BDS. Francis 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-discuss > On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 3:58 PM To: Peace-discuss List > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel As mentioned on today's News from Neptune: DI blurb on referendum: The only referendum that failed 3,133 to 1,700 reads as follows: Shall the University divest, or withdraw investments, from specified companies in the University’s BlackRock portfolio that actively normalize, engage in, or fund human rights violations as defined by the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? DI Letter from Cary Nelson et al.: Last month student senators listened attentively to two hours of public comment from UIUC students and faculty. The topic: should there be yet another referendum on this spring’s ballot about whether the university should divest from companies doing business in Israel? That issue was widely debated on campus last year, and the referendum was soundly defeated. Although people spoke on both sides of the issue, on one point speakers from both sides agreed. Jewish and Palestinian students alike testified that they felt harassed and threatened by the hate speech the campus debate generated. Campus discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be civil, but contests to win a forthcoming vote often are not. Competition aimed at obtaining a victory involves passions of a different character. At the student government meeting, referendum advocates made their strategy clear: they were going to reintroduce the referendum year after year. A clear expression of student opinion opposing it in a democratic vote didn’t matter. They were not giving up. That strategy has already been followed on other campuses, sometimes with annual votes taking place for a decade. Arguing over a divestment resolution as a result crowds out every other topic — from tuition levels, to class size, to loan programs — that students care about and where their advocacy can make a difference. On divestment, a campus vote amounts to empty symbolism. No Board of Trustees is going to let students, faculty, or staff decide investment policy. Investment policy is a Board fiduciary responsibility. A broad brush condemnation of a series of companies, moreover, simply invites Board dismissal. Divestment is actually a complex subject that gets confused and falsified by the resulting tweets and posters and slogans. Some companies that do business on the West Bank actually make Palestinians’ lives easier, but they are nonetheless targeted for protests. A number of companies do not sell directly to Israel. They sell to the US Defense Department, where Israel makes approved purchases, drawing on funds appropriated by the US Congress. What would happen to a US company that told the Pentagon it would have to approve the Defense Department’s customer list? Many targeted US corporations have offices and headquarters in Illinois. They offer internships to UI students. They hire students’ parents and relatives. Such companies have reason to expect fair and specific engagement from UI groups, not uniformed condemnation. Yet at the campus student government debate last month, companies in all these categories were basically accused of war crimes. That is not a carefully reasoned position. National BDS web sites target any company, among others, that sells to the Israeli army, including companies that sell shoes and binoculars, even when the same models are marketed to civilian consumers here and abroad. The University has important research collaborations with Israeli faculty members and their institutions. It has study abroad programs for students. Academic freedom provides that students and faculty have the right to pursue those options. The same Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement that promotes divestment urges universities to eliminate all those relationships. It even says faculty members should refuse to write letters of recommendation for students wanting to study in Israel. The local and national groups that endorse divestment endorse those demands as well. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is among the important topics that should be studied and discussed on campus. But a divestment debate is not a good way to do so. There are courses offered in our institution that encourage a critical approach to studying Israel and Palestine. These engage in nuance and context, providing students the opportunity to learn in detail. By contrast the rhetoric surrounding the divestment debate can be shallow, informed by simplistic slogans. We do not need another acrimonious divestment debate at UIUC. Faculty Signatories: Brian F. Allan, Entomology Ilana Redstone Akresh, Sociology Richard S. Akresh, Economics May Berenbaum, Entomology Jeffrey R. Brown, Dean, College of Business Nigel D. Goldenfeld, Physics Diane Gottheil, Medicine Rachel S. Harris, Comparative Literature Richard Herman, Chancellor emeritus Richard L. Kaplan, Law Deborah Katz-Downie, Plant Biology Michael H. Leroy, Labor & Industrial Relations Cary Nelson, English Gene E. Robinson, Entomology Jacqueline Ross, Law Richard J. Ross, Law Paula A. Treichler, Media & Cinema Paul M. Weichsel, Mathematics Reprinted from The Daily Illini, with additional names added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 03:44:04 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 22:44:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: AWARE Demo. a couple years ago. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5abc6109.1c69fb81.a801.2e5b@mx.google.com> Thanks for being there, for being approachable, for taking the photo, and for sharing! ✌🕊 Pace e bene,Karen Medina -------- Original message --------From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Date: 3/28/18 21:17 (GMT-06:00) To: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" Cc: Doug Clough Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: AWARE Demo. a couple years ago. I just found the below photo, on my cell. Doug Clough with the peace flag, never misses a demo. The two young women, were walking by and very supportive, so we took a photo with our signs. Sent from my mobile. _____________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 04:10:51 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 23:10:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Richard Sakwa Message-ID: *Richard Sakwa* is Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent and an Associate Fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House. He has published widely on Soviet, Russian and post-communist affairs. Recent books include *The Crisis of Russian Democracy: The Dual State, Factionalism, and the Medvedev Succession*; *Putin and the Oligarch: The Khodorkovsky - Yukos Affair*; *Putin Redux: Power and Contradiction in Contemporary Russia* and *Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands*. He is currently working on his latest book called Russia against the Rest: Pluralism and the Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order. "I know that London and Washington have forgotten this word. But I think diplomacy is when you have differences with a protagonist, but you talk. And I will say, we now look back to the years of Nixon, I know not exactly the most popular U.S. president, even Reagan, who understood the importance of engagement. Unfortunately, the only one who understands that today in Washington, it seems the only only one, is Donald Trump himself. And of course we know the vast powers arrayed against him to block any dialogue, or any basically egging him on to even crazier activities, when I think sensible policies will say to talk, just to talk to Moscow, does not mean collusion, doesn't mean that Putin has some strange magical hold over Trump. In fact, looking at all of this collusion talk over from the United Kingdom, it's certainly, one has to say, what collective madness has seized so much of the U.S. establishment." http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21456:US-and-Russia%3A-New-Age-of-Nuclear-Instability-%28Part-22%29 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 04:40:12 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 23:40:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Wolfgang Streeck response re globalization, anti-Semitism, etc. Message-ID: In a letter responding to a critical review: " So much for the politics. On political economy, ‘Europe’ – that’s to say, the European Union and, in particular, its monetary union – has become a formidable neoliberal rationalisation machine. I saw this coming, and said so, beginning in the 1990s with the turn of the second Delors Commission to a supply-side economic policy. Forgotten was the ‘social dimension’, not least because of British influence – and I don’t remember today’s Remainers having had a word with their governments, Conservative or New Labour, on the need to build into a ‘united Europe’ effective capabilities to defend the European welfare state, at national or supranational level. That train has long left the station. One might think historians like Tooze should have a sense of what social scientists call ‘path dependency’. Democracy, defined as the institutionalised possibility of the unwashed reminding the washed of their existence, is to some residual extent still present at national level – see the Brexit vote – with no prospect of expansion to the elevated circles of the Junckers and Draghis, for institutional, organisational, linguistic or whatever reasons. I argue that democracy is more important than globalisation, and since global democracy is no more than a pipe dream, a little less globalisation is quite all right if it gets us a little more democracy. But perhaps that battle has already been lost. Liberals like Mario Monti, a seasoned functionary of both haute finance and haute Europe, who promised the cosmopolitans of Europe he would turn Italians into Germans (in a newspaper interview shortly before an election that sealed his political fate), may see this differently, and Tooze is of course free to do so as well. Where it gets really dirty, however, is where he blows up my innocent analytical distinction between ‘the people of the state’ and ‘the people of the market’ into an essentialist, racist, implicitly anti-Semitic conceptualisation of politics and political economy. The relevant passages in my book are devoted to explicating two competing pressures on democratic politics in an age of high debt: pressures from the owners of passports commanding a right to vote (Staatsvolk), and from the owners of bonds and movable capital commanding a right to sell (Marktvolk). I say nothing about how the two are constituted, except to mention that voting rights are national and selling rights international (which is so). Nothing in particular on ethnicity, nowhere. Are there personal overlaps between the two ‘peoples’? Sure, and I explicitly mention them, among the rich (who are, however, today more internationally mobile than ever before in the modern era) and the less rich (those who have money in private pension funds). Tooze implies, let’s be clear about this, that my Staatsvolk is a Volksgemeinschaft and my Marktvolk is an international, probably Jewish conspiracy; this is beyond the pale, and leaves me speechless." https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n01/adam-tooze/a-general-logic-of-crisis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 29 13:52:22 2018 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 13:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 170, Issue 225 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <867452056.810060.1522331542598@mail.yahoo.com> That accusation about local Zionists, as true as it is, will bring a deafening silence to this discussion. ...As they say... nothing here to see ... move on... On Wednesday, March 28, 2018, 9:32:29 PM CDT, peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net wrote: Send Peace-discuss mailing list submissions to     peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit     https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to     peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net You can reach the person managing the list at     peace-discuss-owner at lists.chambana.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Peace-discuss digest..." Today's Topics:   1. Re: Daily Illini items re Israel (Boyle, Francis A) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 02:32:04 +0000 From: "Boyle, Francis A" To: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)"     Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel Message-ID:     Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" The entire Salaita/Iliniwak Fiasco just proves how mean, nasty, vicious, ruthless, cruel and unprincipled the Campus Zionists have always  been since I started teaching here on August 21, 1978. They will stop at nothing to get their perverse way. The Campus Zionists are just a Gang of Academic Thugs and Moral Reprobates. Fab. D in BDS. Francis 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-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 4:07 PM To: David Green Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel Yeah, as I said before: Campus Zionists are a Gang of Moral Lepers! They maliciously procured the illegal firing of Steven Salaita;they threw him, his wife and their  baby out into the street with no visible means of support; they destroyed his entire academic career; and they eviscerated our Native American Studies Program that was intended to constitute Partial Reparation for Chief Illiniwak. FAB. D in BDS. Francis 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-discuss > On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 3:58 PM To: Peace-discuss List > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Daily Illini items re Israel As mentioned on today's News from Neptune: DI blurb on referendum: The only referendum that failed 3,133 to 1,700 reads as follows: Shall the University divest, or withdraw investments, from specified companies in the University’s BlackRock portfolio that actively normalize, engage in, or fund human rights violations as defined by the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? DI Letter from Cary Nelson et al.: Last month student senators listened attentively to two hours of public comment from UIUC students and faculty. The topic: should there be yet another referendum on this spring’s ballot about whether the university should divest from companies doing business in Israel? That issue was widely debated on campus last year, and the referendum was soundly defeated. Although people spoke on both sides of the issue, on one point speakers from both sides agreed. Jewish and Palestinian students alike testified that they felt harassed and threatened by the hate speech the campus debate generated. Campus discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be civil, but contests to win a forthcoming vote often are not. Competition aimed at obtaining a victory involves passions of a different character. At the student government meeting, referendum advocates made their strategy clear: they were going to reintroduce the referendum year after year. A clear expression of student opinion opposing it in a democratic vote didn’t matter. They were not giving up. That strategy has already been followed on other campuses, sometimes with annual votes taking place for a decade. Arguing over a divestment resolution as a result crowds out every other topic — from tuition levels, to class size, to loan programs — that students care about and where their advocacy can make a difference. On divestment, a campus vote amounts to empty symbolism. No Board of Trustees is going to let students, faculty, or staff decide investment policy. Investment policy is a Board fiduciary responsibility. A broad brush condemnation of a series of companies, moreover, simply invites Board dismissal. Divestment is actually a complex subject that gets confused and falsified by the resulting tweets and posters and slogans. Some companies that do business on the West Bank actually make Palestinians’ lives easier, but they are nonetheless targeted for protests. A number of companies do not sell directly to Israel. They sell to the US Defense Department, where Israel makes approved purchases, drawing on funds appropriated by the US Congress. What would happen to a US company that told the Pentagon it would have to approve the Defense Department’s customer list? Many targeted US corporations have offices and headquarters in Illinois. They offer internships to UI students. They hire students’ parents and relatives. Such companies have reason to expect fair and specific engagement from UI groups, not uniformed condemnation. Yet at the campus student government debate last month, companies in all these categories were basically accused of war crimes. That is not a carefully reasoned position. National BDS web sites target any company, among others, that sells to the Israeli army, including companies that sell shoes and binoculars, even when the same models are marketed to civilian consumers here and abroad. The University has important research collaborations with Israeli faculty members and their institutions. It has study abroad programs for students. Academic freedom provides that students and faculty have the right to pursue those options. The same Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement that promotes divestment urges universities to eliminate all those relationships. It even says faculty members should refuse to write letters of recommendation for students wanting to study in Israel. The local and national groups that endorse divestment endorse those demands as well. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is among the important topics that should be studied and discussed on campus. But a divestment debate is not a good way to do so. There are courses offered in our institution that encourage a critical approach to studying Israel and Palestine. These engage in nuance and context, providing students the opportunity to learn in detail. By contrast the rhetoric surrounding the divestment debate can be shallow, informed by simplistic slogans. We do not need another acrimonious divestment debate at UIUC. Faculty Signatories: Brian F. Allan, Entomology Ilana Redstone Akresh, Sociology Richard S. Akresh, Economics May Berenbaum, Entomology Jeffrey R. Brown, Dean, College of Business Nigel D. Goldenfeld, Physics Diane Gottheil, Medicine Rachel S. Harris, Comparative Literature Richard Herman, Chancellor emeritus Richard L. Kaplan, Law Deborah Katz-Downie, Plant Biology Michael H. Leroy, Labor & Industrial Relations Cary Nelson, English Gene E. Robinson, Entomology Jacqueline Ross, Law Richard J. Ross, Law Paula A. Treichler, Media & Cinema Paul M. Weichsel, Mathematics Reprinted from The Daily Illini, with additional names added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss ------------------------------ End of Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 170, Issue 225 *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Mar 29 17:00:55 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:00:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Boycott and cancel Netflix over her role in Benghazi Message-ID: People boycotting Netflix for Susan Rice’s appointment to their BOD, due to her role in the attack on Benghazi, and other Obama Administration wars and destruction, are being labeled “conservatives.” I’m no conservative, I’m a socialist and proud of it, and I am canceling my Netflix subscription, as “boycott” is one the powers we the people have to make our voices heard, and Benghazi and the destruction of Libya, was a humanitarian outrage perpetrated by the USG. I urge others to do the same. People are threatening to cancel their Netflix subscriptions after former UN Ambassador Susan Rice was named to its board [http://static.businessinsider.com/image/54f5da0f69beddc865d23757-750.jpg] Jason Guerrasio 23h 18,283 FACEBOOKLINKEDINTWITTEREMAILCOPY LINK [Susan Rice Obama]Susan Rice.REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst NFLX Netflix 285.31 -0.58 (-0.20 %) [http://static-finanzen.businessinsider.com/cst/businessinsider/chart.aspx?instruments=1,1413346,899,333&style=mini_red&period=OneYear&width=224&height=50] DisclaimerGet real-time NFLX charts here » * Former UN Ambassador Susan Rice was named to the Netflix board of directors on Wednesday. * This led to outrage on social media, with some threatening to cancel their Netflix subscriptions. * The anger primarily stemmed from previous (incorrect) comments Rice made about the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya. ________________________________ On Wednesday, former UN Ambassador Susan Rice was named to the Netflix board of directors, leaving some customers outraged by the choice and threatening to cancel their Netflix memberships. "We are delighted to welcome Ambassador Rice to the Netflix board," Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said in a statement on Wednesday. "For decades, she has tackled difficult, complex global issues with intelligence, integrity and insight and we look forward to benefiting from her experience and wisdom." But critics of Rice disagreed with Hastings' characterization, and they voiced their displeasure on social media platforms like Twitter, where Rice was called a "liar" and a "criminal" by various users. Why did the appointment of Rice lead to such anger? Days after the September 11, 2012, attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, then-UN Ambassador Rice went on the Sunday news shows and said the attack was due to protests over a US-made YouTube video. GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona suggested Rice was part of a political cover-up heading into the November presidential elections. The Obama administration later said the attack was a pre-planned terrorist act and not a protest that turned violent. The attack led to four Americans being killed, including US Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens. Since then, Rice's name has provoked the instant rage of many, especially US conservatives. Here are a few examples of people who have spoken out on Twitter against the appointment, some of whom threatened to cancel the streaming service or have used the hashtag #BoycottNetflix: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 01:45:01 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 20:45:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight Message-ID: <41BAA8C6-BAB7-4AF4-9631-70D947EBD3ED@gmail.com> I would love to have an account, however brief, of Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight. Thanks to any member/friend of AWARE who’d be willing to do this. I was unable to attend. —CGE From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 02:48:59 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 21:48:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight In-Reply-To: <41BAA8C6-BAB7-4AF4-9631-70D947EBD3ED@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5abda59e.86a96b0a.f774d.7848@mx.google.com>  I am very glad I attended.  For those of you who attended, who was quoted to have said something like: "Beware the ( activist/ revolutionary) who is saying the same things in his 80s as he said in his 20s." This was quoted by the man who was introducingTariq Ali. * There were 80 chairs and i counted at least 130 people attending. * The microphone was turned on but the speakers were off for the entire talk. I am still glad I was there.  -Karen Medina -------- Original message --------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: 3/29/18 20:45 (GMT-06:00) To: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" Cc: Peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight I would love to have an account, however brief, of Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight. Thanks to any member/friend of AWARE who’d be willing to do this. I was unable to attend.  —CGE _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Mar 30 03:12:54 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 22:12:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight In-Reply-To: <5abda59e.86a96b0a.f774d.7848@mx.google.com> References: <5abda59e.86a96b0a.f774d.7848@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Thank you. Ali isn’t 80 (b. 1943), but he is saying the same things he was (famous for) saying in his 20s. See his website: >. (Russian meddling with speakers?) What did he encourage people to do? Thanks again. —CGE > On Mar 29, 2018, at 9:48 PM, kmedina67 via Peace wrote: > > I am very glad I attended. > > For those of you who attended, who was quoted to have said something like: "Beware the ( activist/ revolutionary) who is saying the same things in his 80s as he said in his 20s." This was quoted by the man who was introducingTariq Ali. > > * There were 80 chairs and i counted at least 130 people attending. > * The microphone was turned on but the speakers were off for the entire talk. > I am still glad I was there. > > -Karen Medina > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Date: 3/29/18 20:45 (GMT-06:00) > To: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" > Cc: Peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight > > I would love to have an account, however brief, of Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight. > > Thanks to any member/friend of AWARE who’d be willing to do this. I was unable to attend. > > —CGE > _______________________________________________ > 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 kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:05:04 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 23:05:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: <8BF7EA43-8FD2-49F3-83E4-4E707138A599@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5abdb775.1c69fb81.60cd.b904@mx.google.com> Some points made by Tariq Ali, as I remember them -Karen Medina:* 1968, end of the old style of revolutions. * two great wins:1) Vietnamese people won against US.2) anti- war movement wins. A win that keeps the US from openly committing war until the 1990s. Anti-war Veterans, demonstrated at the Pentagon, dating that Vietnam would win and the US veterans were supporting the Vietnamese win. --Portugal as the single best experiment in socialism, and this is because of a refusal to accept dictatorship. All other attempts accepted dictatorship, a proletariat dictatorship is a dictatorship. -- Side note: Iraq, was the arab country with the most women educated. Iran was second. Syria too, women educated. --Imperialism. The United states needs to change. The west coast was the tech revolution. Still leader. But imperialism and forcing others to go along with the US is not going to last.--England, Had an open invitation for people to join the right wing party, got a leftist and had to give him air time. [There was a lot more, but i was not taking notes. Only what I can remember after the talk].-----In response to Ken Salo's question:Ali totally dismissed Marx as laying out a clear alternative to capitalism. Marx is great at pointing out flaws of capitalism. Marx is great at political analysis. But not a prediction of the future, and nor explicating the solution. / The revolution in Russia was a revolution against the " communist manifesto". -------- Original message --------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: 3/25/18 20:28 (GMT-06:00) To: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" Cc: Peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday THIS THURSDAY - NOT TO BE MISSED ============================= Tariq Ali - "The Broken Ladder: The Global Left Fifty Years After 1968" March 29, 7:30pm 210 Levis Faculty Center At the end of the Cold War, the notion of revolution seemed to have been placed among the relics of history. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” and Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” emerged as bold, alternative frameworks to imagine the course of history after the age of political revolutions had come to an end. Then, the so called Arab Springs and the re-emergence of radical narratives of transformation, from Ukraine to Venezuela, have forced intellectuals and politicians to reconsider the actuality and the meaning of revolutions in the age of globalization. Also,======================== Joint Area Centers Symposium (JACS) "Revolutions: Past and Futures of Radical Transformations" March 30, 9:30am-6:30pm Levis Faculty Center, Music Room The symposium will be articulated around 4 themes: 1) religion and revolution, 2) anti-colonialism, 3) violence and transformation, and 4) gender, race, minorities and revolution. The goal of the symposium is to bring experts from different disciplines and different geographical areas to articulate the productiveness or the anachronism of the concept of revolution in multiple cultural contexts. Scholars from and experts on China, India, Latin America, Europe and Africa will provide a truly transnational perspective to the symposium. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:05:04 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 23:05:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: <8BF7EA43-8FD2-49F3-83E4-4E707138A599@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5abdb77c.1c69fb81.b1657.c1aa@mx.google.com> Some points made by Tariq Ali, as I remember them -Karen Medina:* 1968, end of the old style of revolutions. * two great wins:1) Vietnamese people won against US.2) anti- war movement wins. A win that keeps the US from openly committing war until the 1990s. Anti-war Veterans, demonstrated at the Pentagon, dating that Vietnam would win and the US veterans were supporting the Vietnamese win. --Portugal as the single best experiment in socialism, and this is because of a refusal to accept dictatorship. All other attempts accepted dictatorship, a proletariat dictatorship is a dictatorship. -- Side note: Iraq, was the arab country with the most women educated. Iran was second. Syria too, women educated. --Imperialism. The United states needs to change. The west coast was the tech revolution. Still leader. But imperialism and forcing others to go along with the US is not going to last.--England, Had an open invitation for people to join the right wing party, got a leftist and had to give him air time. [There was a lot more, but i was not taking notes. Only what I can remember after the talk].-----In response to Ken Salo's question:Ali totally dismissed Marx as laying out a clear alternative to capitalism. Marx is great at pointing out flaws of capitalism. Marx is great at political analysis. But not a prediction of the future, and nor explicating the solution. / The revolution in Russia was a revolution against the " communist manifesto". -------- Original message --------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: 3/25/18 20:28 (GMT-06:00) To: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" Cc: Peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday THIS THURSDAY - NOT TO BE MISSED ============================= Tariq Ali - "The Broken Ladder: The Global Left Fifty Years After 1968" March 29, 7:30pm 210 Levis Faculty Center At the end of the Cold War, the notion of revolution seemed to have been placed among the relics of history. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” and Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” emerged as bold, alternative frameworks to imagine the course of history after the age of political revolutions had come to an end. Then, the so called Arab Springs and the re-emergence of radical narratives of transformation, from Ukraine to Venezuela, have forced intellectuals and politicians to reconsider the actuality and the meaning of revolutions in the age of globalization. Also,======================== Joint Area Centers Symposium (JACS) "Revolutions: Past and Futures of Radical Transformations" March 30, 9:30am-6:30pm Levis Faculty Center, Music Room The symposium will be articulated around 4 themes: 1) religion and revolution, 2) anti-colonialism, 3) violence and transformation, and 4) gender, race, minorities and revolution. The goal of the symposium is to bring experts from different disciplines and different geographical areas to articulate the productiveness or the anachronism of the concept of revolution in multiple cultural contexts. Scholars from and experts on China, India, Latin America, Europe and Africa will provide a truly transnational perspective to the symposium. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:14:31 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 23:14:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday Message-ID: <5abdb9a9.1c69fb81.b1657.c23b@mx.google.com>  My apologies. I was writing from my cell phone; I did not notice that the email was cc'd to peace. Drat. I really tried NOT to send it to peace.  Also apologies for the mis-spellings. Auto- correct is sneaky at changing my words. - Karen Medina null -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:25:06 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 23:25:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5abdbc26.89a86b0a.117f3.ca6f@mx.google.com> I believe Tariq Ali's message has evolved. They are NOT the same words he said 10, 20, or 30 years ago  - Karen Medina -------- Original message --------From: "Carl G. Estabrook" Date: 3/29/18 22:12 (GMT-06:00) To: kmedina67 Cc: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" , Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight Thank you.  Ali isn’t 80 (b. 1943), but he is saying the same things he was (famous for) saying in his 20s. See his website: . (Russian meddling with speakers?) What did he encourage people to do? Thanks again.  —CGE On Mar 29, 2018, at 9:48 PM, kmedina67 via Peace wrote:  I am very glad I attended.  For those of you who attended, who was quoted to have said something like: "Beware the ( activist/ revolutionary) who is saying the same things in his 80s as he said in his 20s." This was quoted by the man who was introducingTariq Ali. * There were 80 chairs and i counted at least 130 people attending. * The microphone was turned on but the speakers were off for the entire talk. I am still glad I was there.  -Karen Medina -------- Original message --------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: 3/29/18 20:45 (GMT-06:00) To: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" Cc: Peace Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight I would love to have an account, however brief, of Tariq Ali's lecture on campus tonight. Thanks to any member/friend of AWARE who’d be willing to do this. I was unable to attend.  —CGE _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 04:34:33 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 23:34:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: <5abdb77c.1c69fb81.b1657.c1aa@mx.google.com> References: <5abdb77c.1c69fb81.b1657.c1aa@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4B54E60B-4E95-49D6-89C4-10AF70D0A5A4@gmail.com> Thank you. What then is to be done? "The revolution in Russia was a revolution against the 'communist manifesto’” is true (and pure Chomsky). Ali has recently published the following: "The Dilemmas of Lenin: Terrorism, War, Empire, Love, Revolution” (2017); and "The Communist Manifesto / The April Theses” by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (2016) But I would argue [1] the US won in Vietnam - not that it achieved its maximum war aims, but it prevented “the threat of a good example” - independent economic development in Asia - which is what the war was about; and [2] 'The Sixties’ and the 'crisis of democracy’ (viz.: there was too much democracy coming by 1970) produced the conscious, calculated counter-attack by US business: neoliberalism. The result has been 40 years of increased and accelerating inequality (whicih incidentally gave us Trump) - and the rise (not of 'the Right’) of populism (Sanders, Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, M5S, et al.). —CGE > On Mar 29, 2018, at 11:05 PM, kmedina67 via Peace wrote: > > Some points made by Tariq Ali, as I remember them -Karen Medina: > * 1968, end of the old style of revolutions. > * two great wins: > 1) Vietnamese people won against US. > 2) anti- war movement wins. A win that keeps the US from openly committing war until the 1990s. Anti-war Veterans, demonstrated at the Pentagon, dating that Vietnam would win and the US veterans were supporting the Vietnamese win. > -- > Portugal as the single best experiment in socialism, and this is because of a refusal to accept dictatorship. All other attempts accepted dictatorship, a proletariat dictatorship is a dictatorship. > -- > Side note: Iraq, was the arab country with the most women educated. > Iran was second. Syria too, women educated. > -- > Imperialism. > The United states needs to change. The west coast was the tech revolution. Still leader. But imperialism and forcing others to go along with the US is not going to last. > -- > England, > Had an open invitation for people to join the right wing party, got a leftist and had to give him air time. > > [There was a lot more, but i was not taking notes. Only what I can remember after the talk]. > ----- > In response to Ken Salo's question: > Ali totally dismissed Marx as laying out a clear alternative to capitalism. Marx is great at pointing out flaws of capitalism. Marx is great at political analysis. But not a prediction of the future, and nor explicating the solution. / The revolution in Russia was a revolution against the " communist manifesto". > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Date: 3/25/18 20:28 (GMT-06:00) > To: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" > Cc: Peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday > > THIS THURSDAY - NOT TO BE MISSED > ============================= > Tariq Ali - "The Broken Ladder: > The Global Left Fifty Years After 1968" > > March 29, 7:30pm > 210 Levis Faculty Center > > At the end of the Cold War, the notion of revolution seemed to have been placed among the relics of history. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” and Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” emerged as bold, alternative frameworks to imagine the course of history after the age of political revolutions had come to an end. Then, the so called Arab Springs and the re-emergence of radical narratives of transformation, from Ukraine to Venezuela, have forced intellectuals and politicians to reconsider the actuality and the meaning of revolutions in the age of globalization. > > Also,======================== > Joint Area Centers Symposium (JACS) > "Revolutions: Past and Futures of Radical Transformations" > > March 30, 9:30am-6:30pm > Levis Faculty Center, Music Room > > The symposium will be articulated around 4 themes: 1) religion and revolution, 2) anti-colonialism, 3) violence and transformation, and 4) gender, race, minorities and revolution. The goal of the symposium is to bring experts from different disciplines and different geographical areas to articulate the productiveness or the anachronism of the concept of revolution in multiple cultural contexts. Scholars from and experts on China, India, Latin America, Europe and Africa will provide a truly transnational perspective to the symposium. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Mar 30 04:37:41 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 23:37:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: <5abdb9a9.1c69fb81.b1657.c23b@mx.google.com> References: <5abdb9a9.1c69fb81.b1657.c23b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: We certainly don’t want subscribers to an AWARE mail list to know what you think. > On Mar 29, 2018, at 11:14 PM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: > > My apologies. > I was writing from my cell phone; I did not notice that the email was cc'd to peace. Drat. I really tried NOT to send it to peace. > > Also apologies for the mis-spellings. Auto- correct is sneaky at changing my words. > - Karen Medina > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 05:25:08 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 00:25:08 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: References: <5abdb9a9.1c69fb81.b1657.c23b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Ali's analysis of the Russian Revolution diverges from Chomsky in that Chomsky argues that the April Theses were public relations, was as Ali sees them in a more authentic light. Ali called Trump a "shithole" for what it's worth (although mainly for laughs), cutting him no slack as Caitlin Johnstone is inclined to do. That is, no analysis of populism/nationalism in any positive sense from Ali. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:37 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > We certainly don’t want subscribers to an AWARE mail list to know what you > think. > > On Mar 29, 2018, at 11:14 PM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > My apologies. > I was writing from my cell phone; I did not notice that the email was cc'd > to peace. Drat. I really tried NOT to send it to peace. > > Also apologies for the mis-spellings. Auto- correct is sneaky at changing > my words. > - Karen Medina > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 10:07:43 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:07:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5abe0c73.1c69fb81.8c2fc.d685@mx.google.com> Hmm , I would not go so far as to say there was no analysis of how we got Trump, because...1)  there was the mention of Hillary Clinton and her comment "We came, we saw, he died." Plus2) Ali's description of Nixon was pretty good. Plus3) Ali's answer to Jesse Philipe's comments. Equals: basically the current system produces at best temporary reprieve from the same options. Including that even the gains start listening to the lobbies like NRA and APAC.  Yes, individual seats are also temporary gains for democratic socialism. But overall, our choices aren't changing much. I am not sure he should analyze the US more than that.  As it was, he wasn't able to talk about all the continents in one hour.  -Karen Medina -------- Original message --------From: David Green Date: 3/30/18 00:25 (GMT-06:00) To: "Carl G. Estabrook" Cc: kmedina67 , Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday Ali's analysis of the Russian Revolution diverges from Chomsky in that Chomsky argues that the April Theses were public relations, was as Ali sees them in a more authentic light. Ali called Trump a "shithole" for what it's worth (although mainly for laughs), cutting him no slack as Caitlin Johnstone is inclined to do. That is, no analysis of populism/nationalism in any positive sense from Ali. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 10:14:58 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:14:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5abe0e24.1c69fb81.9608f.523e@mx.google.com> Actually, Carl, I don't want the same people to get my post twice. Then half of my posts are repeating myself and are junk mail. - Karen Medina -------- Original message --------From: "Carl G. Estabrook" Date: 3/29/18 23:37 (GMT-06:00) To: kmedina67 Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday We certainly don’t want subscribers to an AWARE mail list to know what you think. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 11:53:38 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 06:53:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: <5abe0e24.1c69fb81.9608f.523e@mx.google.com> References: <5abe0e24.1c69fb81.9608f.523e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <7CDDFDEC-DAED-4C73-A9CA-EDC2CC4A69BB@gmail.com> That wouldn't be so bad. And we shouldn’t restrict discussion of anti-war activity - like Ali’s talk - to corporate media. It’s not mentioned in this morning’s newspaper. > On Mar 30, 2018, at 5:14 AM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Actually, Carl, I don't want the same people to get my post twice. Then half of my posts are repeating myself and are junk mail. > - Karen Medina > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: "Carl G. Estabrook" > Date: 3/29/18 23:37 (GMT-06:00) > To: kmedina67 > Cc: Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday > > We certainly don’t want subscribers to an AWARE mail list to know what you think. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 30 16:31:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 16:31:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My perspective on Tariq Ali's "talk" at the Levi Center last evening. Message-ID: My reaction or critique, not a summary of Tariq Ali’s talk last evening, welcoming comments for discussion: Though I wrote this immediately for Carl and David Green, last evening based upon memory, as I did not take notes, I have decided now to post it on the Peace Discuss List for others to comment on. I don’t like being negative of a man I have great respect for, when he has no opportunity to respond and defend. I do respect Tariq Ali. He covered the history of USG imperialism, well. However there was little focus on “where do we go from here.” Perhaps my expectations were too high, leading to my disappointment. He does see the US in decline due to our imperialism, and sees us as in the last stages of our imperialism. He refers to China’s success as a capitalist nation, and the new century as the century of China, and Asia. I was disappointed when he adamantly stated that the US decline is “ not irreversible," somehow assuming the technology creation on the west coast is a hopeful sign. I don’t see how that is supposed to help the working class across the nation, especially in the rust belt. Nor do I see what is taking place in Silicon Valley, as having anything to do with curbing US wars of imperialism. In fact, I believe it may support it, by working closely with the USG. Tariq dismissed fear of nuclear war, as “ no one being that insane.” He made no reference to USG foreign policy for perpetual non nuclear war either. No reference was made to US provocations of China with our battle ships in the South China Sea, recent tariffs, or Nato on the borders of China. Tariq, though critical of both the Democrat and Republican Party’s, referring to Hilary with her statement “we came, we saw, he died.” as a moral “new low” and the reason people stayed home, and gave us Trump, pointing up the fact, that in spite of her behavior, she was still the candidate chosen by the Democrat Party. His reference to Trump as a “shit hole," makes his point there. He laughed at russiagate. Nonetheless he appears to be too confident, that electoral politics are important, saying “its what we have.” Perhaps because he saw the rise of Corbyn in England, which is very positive. However, any suggestion of that happening in the US is questionable. He never mentioned the problems we face with mainstream propaganda, corporate ownership of the US government, and the control by our corporations. He does refer to local elections being important and “having a few socialists in Congress talking with others would be progress, unless they get bought off by AIPAC,” his final statement, which brought quite an applause. He said, when revolutions occur, people have to be prepared to die, I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, especially with our militarized police. He made the point that due to China’s success in business due to capitalism, this is the century of China. I hear from too many on the “Left” this statement made, with a sense of dread. I think too many are concerned that based upon China’s “capitalism” they too will become imperialistic once they reach that stage which many think is near. While this maybe true, it should not be the concern of the American people. The same people that seem unconcerned about our own imperialist wars against others. While the inequality in China is great, nonetheless the “working class” or middle class is still doing well, that doesn’t negate the poverty and treatment of the poor or the “migrant workers” there. However, if one compares it to the US in the sixties, one can see that the working class at that time here, was not yet prepared for loss of jobs, and impoverishment that came about. So I don’t think China is anywhere close to where the US is today in relation to poverty and austerity, I think they are in the same stage as the US was in the fifty’s and sixty’s. I could be wrong, but the assumption that China will become imperialist just like the US maybe correct based upon Marxian analysis, but that negates the culture and history of China, which is no where near that of the US. We began as a nation, by committing genocide against the original inhabitants to occupy this land. We used slavery to develop, and have continued unabated to destroy nations and people. This cannot be said about China, in spite of whatever flaws they may possess. Referring to China negatively implying imperialism on their part, in this context contributes to the fear and alienation, that supports the USG Oligarchs in their pursuit of control of China, further propagandizing our need for “defense” against others. The same goals for which we now have russiagate. Tariq supports children taking to the streets to “fight the NRA” but doesn’t see the point in mass movements of people taking to the streets to confront the USG. He sees the students as being a link in a chain of progress, just as the original feminists contribute to the feminists of today, ensuring that not all is forgotten. He says, the US soldiers of Vietnam, in 72, had a real impact on the antiwar movement, as well as the anti-war protestors in the streets, making reference to the Vietnamese now having a museum to US war protestors in Vietnam, it was announced about two weeks ago. His reference to the US losing the war, being quite a blow to the US imperialists, which is reference to our military loss. This is why the Reagan Administration began their interventions in South America covertly. He briefly covers some of this. He makes a good point in respect to Portugal, the revolution in “74” the revolt of the soldiers against their government going to fight in foreign nations, and the fact that the revolution brought together the various socialist organizations to “ talk." This was a phenomenal accomplishment, my words not his. However, they listened to rhetoric in relation to no privatization, dictatorship, desires for democracy, with all agreeing and embracing the narrative. However, because they failed to organize from the ground up, soviets or councils of the people, they ended up with a dictatorship of the proletariat. A lesson to be learned. The warning on this topic is for those who think once you have a revolution, a successful one, even if a bloodless one, if you haven’t organized with a plan and preparation in advance, as to how to prevent a dictatorship, organizing from the bottom up, it will be a lost cause. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 16:48:53 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 11:48:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My perspective on Tariq Ali's "talk" at the Levi Center last evening. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am still confused as to why anyone expected the talk to be more U.S. centered than it was. -karen medina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Mar 30 17:03:16 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:03:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My perspective on Tariq Ali's "talk" at the Levi Center last evening. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Your previous statement that it was a lot of territory to cover in such a short amount of time, is a point well taken. That being said, the lack of general interest in that which is taking place elsewhere in the world in respect to politics, and war, I think its quite reasonable for most people to assume the focus would be on the USG. On Mar 30, 2018, at 09:48, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss > wrote: I am still confused as to why anyone expected the talk to be more U.S. centered than it was. -karen medina On Mar 30, 2018, at 09:31, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: My reaction or critique, not a summary of Tariq Ali’s talk last evening, welcoming comments for discussion: Though I wrote this immediately for Carl and David Green, last evening based upon memory, as I did not take notes, I have decided now to post it on the Peace Discuss List for others to comment on. I don’t like being negative of a man I have great respect for, when he has no opportunity to respond and defend. I do respect Tariq Ali. He covered the history of USG imperialism, well. However there was little focus on “where do we go from here.” Perhaps my expectations were too high, leading to my disappointment. He does see the US in decline due to our imperialism, and sees us as in the last stages of our imperialism. He refers to China’s success as a capitalist nation, and the new century as the century of China, and Asia. I was disappointed when he adamantly stated that the US decline is “ not irreversible," somehow assuming the technology creation on the west coast is a hopeful sign. I don’t see how that is supposed to help the working class across the nation, especially in the rust belt. Nor do I see what is taking place in Silicon Valley, as having anything to do with curbing US wars of imperialism. In fact, I believe it may support it, by working closely with the USG. Tariq dismissed fear of nuclear war, as “ no one being that insane.” He made no reference to USG foreign policy for perpetual non nuclear war either. No reference was made to US provocations of China with our battle ships in the South China Sea, recent tariffs, or Nato on the borders of China. Tariq, though critical of both the Democrat and Republican Party’s, referring to Hilary with her statement “we came, we saw, he died.” as a moral “new low” and the reason people stayed home, and gave us Trump, pointing up the fact, that in spite of her behavior, she was still the candidate chosen by the Democrat Party. His reference to Trump as a “shit hole," makes his point there. He laughed at russiagate. Nonetheless he appears to be too confident, that electoral politics are important, saying “its what we have.” Perhaps because he saw the rise of Corbyn in England, which is very positive. However, any suggestion of that happening in the US is questionable. He never mentioned the problems we face with mainstream propaganda, corporate ownership of the US government, and the control by our corporations. He does refer to local elections being important and “having a few socialists in Congress talking with others would be progress, unless they get bought off by AIPAC,” his final statement, which brought quite an applause. He said, when revolutions occur, people have to be prepared to die, I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, especially with our militarized police. He made the point that due to China’s success in business due to capitalism, this is the century of China. I hear from too many on the “Left” this statement made, with a sense of dread. I think too many are concerned that based upon China’s “capitalism” they too will become imperialistic once they reach that stage which many think is near. While this maybe true, it should not be the concern of the American people. The same people that seem unconcerned about our own imperialist wars against others. While the inequality in China is great, nonetheless the “working class” or middle class is still doing well, that doesn’t negate the poverty and treatment of the poor or the “migrant workers” there. However, if one compares it to the US in the sixties, one can see that the working class at that time here, was not yet prepared for loss of jobs, and impoverishment that came about. So I don’t think China is anywhere close to where the US is today in relation to poverty and austerity, I think they are in the same stage as the US was in the fifty’s and sixty’s. I could be wrong, but the assumption that China will become imperialist just like the US maybe correct based upon Marxian analysis, but that negates the culture and history of China, which is no where near that of the US. We began as a nation, by committing genocide against the original inhabitants to occupy this land. We used slavery to develop, and have continued unabated to destroy nations and people. This cannot be said about China, in spite of whatever flaws they may possess. Referring to China negatively implying imperialism on their part, in this context contributes to the fear and alienation, that supports the USG Oligarchs in their pursuit of control of China, further propagandizing our need for “defense” against others. The same goals for which we now have russiagate. Tariq supports children taking to the streets to “fight the NRA” but doesn’t see the point in mass movements of people taking to the streets to confront the USG. He sees the students as being a link in a chain of progress, just as the original feminists contribute to the feminists of today, ensuring that not all is forgotten. He says, the US soldiers of Vietnam, in 72, had a real impact on the antiwar movement, as well as the anti-war protestors in the streets, making reference to the Vietnamese now having a museum to US war protestors in Vietnam, it was announced about two weeks ago. His reference to the US losing the war, being quite a blow to the US imperialists, which is reference to our military loss. This is why the Reagan Administration began their interventions in South America covertly. He briefly covers some of this. He makes a good point in respect to Portugal, the revolution in “74” the revolt of the soldiers against their government going to fight in foreign nations, and the fact that the revolution brought together the various socialist organizations to “ talk." This was a phenomenal accomplishment, my words not his. However, they listened to rhetoric in relation to no privatization, dictatorship, desires for democracy, with all agreeing and embracing the narrative. However, because they failed to organize from the ground up, soviets or councils of the people, they ended up with a dictatorship of the proletariat. A lesson to be learned. The warning on this topic is for those who think once you have a revolution, a successful one, even if a bloodless one, if you haven’t organized with a plan and preparation in advance, as to how to prevent a dictatorship, organizing from the bottom up, it will be a lost cause. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Fri Mar 30 17:15:28 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 17:15:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: References: <5abdb9a9.1c69fb81.b1657.c23b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <17E2A435-30A8-4962-827D-3F29B2AF4121@illinois.edu> Just to note that Tariq Ali was rather cavalier, disappointing, with respect to the dangers of a nuclear confrontation/war, and sanguine (bad word) with respect to war in general. He made just a mention about Korea, nothing that I can recall regarding Syria/Palestine-Israel or Iran. The words war/militarism were downplayed or not mentioned in his presentation. He knocked Putin, but allowed his adroitness in foreign policy, was pessimistic about South America, compared Norway’s use of oil wealth to Venezuala’s (albeit the situations between the two are/were radically different). Perhaps there wasn't enough time to go into all of that. He was mostly interested in the nature of revolutions, past and present. It was an impressive presentation, nonetheless. I couldn’t hear well much of what he said… —mkb On Mar 30, 2018, at 12:25 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: Ali's analysis of the Russian Revolution diverges from Chomsky in that Chomsky argues that the April Theses were public relations, was as Ali sees them in a more authentic light. Ali called Trump a "shithole" for what it's worth (although mainly for laughs), cutting him no slack as Caitlin Johnstone is inclined to do. That is, no analysis of populism/nationalism in any positive sense from Ali. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:37 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: We certainly don’t want subscribers to an AWARE mail list to know what you think. On Mar 29, 2018, at 11:14 PM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss > wrote: My apologies. I was writing from my cell phone; I did not notice that the email was cc'd to peace. Drat. I really tried NOT to send it to peace. Also apologies for the mis-spellings. Auto- correct is sneaky at changing my words. - Karen Medina _______________________________________________ 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 kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 18:01:41 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:01:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday In-Reply-To: <17E2A435-30A8-4962-827D-3F29B2AF4121@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <5abe7b9d.1c69fb81.1fabd.f0fc@mx.google.com> That the sound speakers were not even turned on, and the person who controlled then wad sitting in the front row, is shameful. And the size of the room was far too small. Karen Medina -------- Original message --------From: "Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss" Date: 3/30/18 12:15 (GMT-06:00) To: David Green Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday Just to note that Tariq Ali was rather cavalier, disappointing, with respect to the dangers of a nuclear confrontation/war, and sanguine (bad word) with respect to war in general. He made just a mention about Korea, nothing that I can recall regarding Syria/Palestine-Israel or Iran.  The words war/militarism were downplayed or not mentioned in his presentation.  He knocked Putin, but allowed his adroitness in foreign policy, was pessimistic about South America, compared Norway’s use of oil wealth to Venezuala’s (albeit the situations between the two are/were radically different).  Perhaps there wasn't enough time to go into all of that. He was mostly interested in the nature of revolutions, past and present.  It was an impressive presentation, nonetheless.  I couldn’t hear well much of what he said… —mkb On Mar 30, 2018, at 12:25 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: Ali's analysis of the Russian Revolution diverges from Chomsky in that Chomsky argues that the April Theses were public relations, was as Ali sees them in a more authentic light. Ali called Trump a "shithole" for what it's worth (although mainly for laughs), cutting him no slack as Caitlin Johnstone is inclined to do. That is, no analysis of populism/nationalism in any positive sense from Ali. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:37 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: We certainly don’t want subscribers to an AWARE mail list to know what you think. On Mar 29, 2018, at 11:14 PM, kmedina67 via Peace-discuss wrote:  My apologies.  I was writing from my cell phone; I did not notice that the email was cc'd to peace. Drat. I really tried NOT to send it to peace.  Also apologies for the mis-spellings. Auto- correct is sneaky at changing my words.  - Karen Medina _______________________________________________ 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 kmedina67 at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 21:27:36 2018 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (kmedina67) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 16:27:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tariq Ali speaks at UIUC this Thursday Message-ID: <5abeabca.1c69fb81.ca60c.0600@mx.google.com> Re: Russia and the 29 countries' expulsion of diplomats  I was relieved to hear Ali say "there is no proof that Russia did the poisoning and it looks like the USA and the UK strong- armed the other countries to join. " - paraphrased.  Personally, additionally, I would question what the expulsion of diplomats is intended to do? But my question is not even a legit question, because what proof is there of who did what? Why are the American people so willing to accept a lack of evidence? -Karen Medina null -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Mar 30 22:44:19 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 22:44:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Preauthorized to open fire References: <5abe906bebbf9_4e03a9397c9165d@worker.ami.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: From: CODEPINK > Subject: Preauthorized to open fire Date: March 30, 2018 at 12:30:52 PDT To: Karen Aram > [CODEPINK.ORG] Dear Karen, Right now Israeli tanks and snipers are firing at unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza. Fifteen have been killed already, and over 350 injured by live fire, rubber-coated steel pellets or tear gas. Organized by civil society and committed to nonviolence, Palestinians began gathering this morning for 45 days of peaceful protest. Right away, the Israeli military opened fire. Eleven Democratic members of Congress just returned from a trip to Israel this week. Led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and including progressives Jan Schakowsky and Jamie Raskin, the Congressional delegation smiled for a photo shoot with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu while the state’s army was preparing its plan to attack the protesters. Tell these members of Congress they now have an obligation to speak out against Israel’s deadly attack on peaceful protesters in Gaza. [Democrats meet with Netanyahu] The Israeli army planned in advance to attack the protesters. It even gave preauthorization for soldiers to open fire, even though the protesters disseminated the plan for their nonviolent protest in advance: Peacefully, without any weapons, they would gather alongside the border fence that imprisons them. For six weeks they would erect tents, hold cultural events, and march for an end to the siege and the right to return to their homes and lands inside Israel in accordance with UN resolution 194. Tell the eleven members of Congress they must immediately speak out: Condemn the attacks and demand that Israel stop shooting peaceful protesters! The people of Gaza are living under unimaginable conditions. They have little to no water, only 2 hours of electricity a day, 80% of the population relies on food assistance. For organizing a peaceful protest, they should be commended, not murdered. In support of justice for the Palestinian people, Ann, Ariel, Brienne, Jodie, Kelly, Kirsten, Mark, Medea, Nancy, Paki, Rita, Sarah, Sophia and Tighe [Donate Now!] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/57bdd4fd79bffa57d0000008/attachments/original/1511733600/Twitter.png?1511733600] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/57bdd4fd79bffa57d0000008/attachments/original/1511733600/Facebook.png?1511733600] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/57bdd4fd79bffa57d0000008/attachments/original/1511733600/Instagram.png?1511733600] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/57bdd4fd79bffa57d0000008/attachments/original/1511733718/YouTube.png?1511733718] [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/57bdd4fd79bffa57d0000008/attachments/original/1511733600/Flickr.png?1511733600] This email was sent to karenaram at hotmail.com. To stop receiving emails, click here. To update your email subscription, contact info at codepink.org. © Copyright 2018 | www.codepink.org Created with NationBuilder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 31 00:17:45 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:17:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] BDS NOW! "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" 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: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 6:16 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" [https://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4G6uo7hLAq4/mqdefault.jpg] Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians by UPTV6 University of Illinois College of Law professor Francis Boyle speaks to the grave injustice that is the treatment of the Palestinian people both within the West Bank and Gaza, as well as within Israel proper. His areas of expertise include Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Jurisprudence, and ... Help center • Report spam ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 31 14:28:41 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 14:28:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: My perspective on Tariq Ali's "talk" at the Levi Center last evening. References: Message-ID: In addition to my comments below: I would like to touch on “India.” Tariq Ali referred to President Modi’s statement in reference to their religion being 2,000 years old, and if I heard correctly, referred to the Indian/Hindu religion as being “primitive.” I would have preferred to hear him reference President Modi not just supporting but encouraging violence against Muslims, as well as anyone who doesn’t conform, including artists, journalists, writers, etc. This former British colony has left a legacy of good schools, English language, a parliamentary democracy based upon British law, providing the west with many highly skilled people. For many years I engaged in comparisons of India to China, by those in the private sector, given those nations were still in the process of development. Both have large populations, land mass and are nuclear powers. Having lived in China, with their major cities as developed as any western city in Europe or the US, and a transportation system far above that of any in the West. I found Mumbai, formerly Bombay, the business center of India, to be as undeveloped as any poor underdeveloped nation anywhere in Asia, with its poor infrastructure, treatment of employees, women and the poor, being worse than any I’ve seen anywhere in the developing world. The growing inequality of both China and India, is continuing at a rapid rate, however India’s inequality has been much more rapid than that of China. India has many languages and religions, preventing unification. Most of all, they have a caste system preventing any upward mobility of the poor, this misuse of human resources alone prevents the nation from joining the developed world. Yet we hear very little, of fear related to the Indian dictatorship, as we do in respect to China, in spite of the most dangerous situation on the border of Kashmir with Pakistan, both nuclear armed nations. I suspect there is little concern that India will ever be competition for the US, and as our proxy in Asia, we are pleased to continue to support such a dictatorship as it is, with their "so called democracy.” From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Subject: [Peace-discuss] My perspective on Tariq Ali's "talk" at the Levi Center last evening. My reaction or critique, not a summary of Tariq Ali’s talk last evening, welcoming comments for discussion: Though I wrote this immediately for Carl and David Green, last evening based upon memory, as I did not take notes, I have decided now to post it on the Peace Discuss List for others to comment on. I don’t like being negative of a man I have great respect for, when he has no opportunity to respond and defend. I do respect Tariq Ali. He covered the history of USG imperialism, well. However there was little focus on “where do we go from here.” Perhaps my expectations were too high, leading to my disappointment. He does see the US in decline due to our imperialism, and sees us as in the last stages of our imperialism. He refers to China’s success as a capitalist nation, and the new century as the century of China, and Asia. I was disappointed when he adamantly stated that the US decline is “ not irreversible," somehow assuming the technology creation on the west coast is a hopeful sign. I don’t see how that is supposed to help the working class across the nation, especially in the rust belt. Nor do I see what is taking place in Silicon Valley, as having anything to do with curbing US wars of imperialism. In fact, I believe it may support it, by working closely with the USG. Tariq dismissed fear of nuclear war, as “ no one being that insane.” He made no reference to USG foreign policy for perpetual non nuclear war either. No reference was made to US provocations of China with our battle ships in the South China Sea, recent tariffs, or Nato on the borders of China. Tariq, though critical of both the Democrat and Republican Party’s, referring to Hilary with her statement “we came, we saw, he died.” as a moral “new low” and the reason people stayed home, and gave us Trump, pointing up the fact, that in spite of her behavior, she was still the candidate chosen by the Democrat Party. His reference to Trump as a “shit hole," makes his point there. He laughed at russiagate. Nonetheless he appears to be too confident, that electoral politics are important, saying “its what we have.” Perhaps because he saw the rise of Corbyn in England, which is very positive. However, any suggestion of that happening in the US is questionable. He never mentioned the problems we face with mainstream propaganda, corporate ownership of the US government, and the control by our corporations. He does refer to local elections being important and “having a few socialists in Congress talking with others would be progress, unless they get bought off by AIPAC,” his final statement, which brought quite an applause. He said, when revolutions occur, people have to be prepared to die, I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, especially with our militarized police. He made the point that due to China’s success in business due to capitalism, this is the century of China. I hear from too many on the “Left” this statement made, with a sense of dread. I think too many are concerned that based upon China’s “capitalism” they too will become imperialistic once they reach that stage which many think is near. While this maybe true, it should not be the concern of the American people. The same people that seem unconcerned about our own imperialist wars against others. While the inequality in China is great, nonetheless the “working class” or middle class is still doing well, that doesn’t negate the poverty and treatment of the poor or the “migrant workers” there. However, if one compares it to the US in the sixties, one can see that the working class at that time here, was not yet prepared for loss of jobs, and impoverishment that came about. So I don’t think China is anywhere close to where the US is today in relation to poverty and austerity, I think they are in the same stage as the US was in the fifty’s and sixty’s. I could be wrong, but the assumption that China will become imperialist just like the US maybe correct based upon Marxian analysis, but that negates the culture and history of China, which is no where near that of the US. We began as a nation, by committing genocide against the original inhabitants to occupy this land. We used slavery to develop, and have continued unabated to destroy nations and people. This cannot be said about China, in spite of whatever flaws they may possess. Referring to China negatively implying imperialism on their part, in this context contributes to the fear and alienation, that supports the USG Oligarchs in their pursuit of control of China, further propagandizing our need for “defense” against others. The same goals for which we now have russiagate. Tariq supports children taking to the streets to “fight the NRA” but doesn’t see the point in mass movements of people taking to the streets to confront the USG. He sees the students as being a link in a chain of progress, just as the original feminists contribute to the feminists of today, ensuring that not all is forgotten. He says, the US soldiers of Vietnam, in 72, had a real impact on the antiwar movement, as well as the anti-war protestors in the streets, making reference to the Vietnamese now having a museum to US war protestors in Vietnam, it was announced about two weeks ago. His reference to the US losing the war, being quite a blow to the US imperialists, which is reference to our military loss. This is why the Reagan Administration began their interventions in South America covertly. He briefly covers some of this. He makes a good point in respect to Portugal, the revolution in “74” the revolt of the soldiers against their government going to fight in foreign nations, and the fact that the revolution brought together the various socialist organizations to “ talk." This was a phenomenal accomplishment, my words not his. However, they listened to rhetoric in relation to no privatization, dictatorship, desires for democracy, with all agreeing and embracing the narrative. However, because they failed to organize from the ground up, soviets or councils of the people, they ended up with a dictatorship of the proletariat. A lesson to be learned. The warning on this topic is for those who think once you have a revolution, a successful one, even if a bloodless one, if you haven’t organized with a plan and preparation in advance, as to how to prevent a dictatorship, organizing from the bottom up, it will be a lost cause. _______________________________________________ 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sat Mar 31 15:01:58 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 10:01:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: My perspective on Tariq Ali's "talk" at the Levi Center last evening. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And just as Carl pointed out on the program yesterday, regarding the "fascist" tendencies of Hungary and Poland, which support the U.S. and NATO, one can also look to two other countries with "fascist" tendencies, India and Israel, who have become BFFs in the context of their willingness to promote the USFP agenda and accompanying quid pro quos re Palestine, Kashmir, etc. DG On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > In addition to my comments below: I would like to touch on “India.” Tariq > Ali referred to President Modi’s statement in reference to their religion > being 2,000 years old, and if I heard correctly, referred to the > Indian/Hindu religion as being “primitive.” > > I would have preferred to hear him reference President Modi not just > supporting but encouraging violence against Muslims, as well as anyone who > doesn’t conform, including artists, journalists, writers, etc. > > This former British colony has left a legacy of good schools, English > language, a parliamentary democracy based upon British law, providing the > west with many highly skilled people. > > For many years I engaged in comparisons of India to China, by those in the > private sector, given those nations were still in the process of > development. Both have large populations, land mass and are nuclear powers. > Having lived in China, with their major cities as developed as any western > city in Europe or the US, and a transportation system far above that of any > in the West. I found Mumbai, formerly Bombay, the business center of India, > to be as undeveloped as any poor underdeveloped nation anywhere in Asia, > with its poor infrastructure, treatment of employees, women and the poor, > being worse than any I’ve seen anywhere in the developing world. > > The growing inequality of both China and India, is continuing at a rapid > rate, however India’s inequality has been much more rapid than that of > China. > > India has many languages and religions, preventing unification. Most of > all, they have a caste system preventing any upward mobility of the poor, > this misuse of human resources alone prevents the nation from joining the > developed world. > > Yet we hear very little, of fear related to the Indian dictatorship, as we > do in respect to China, in spite of the most dangerous situation on the > border of Kashmir with Pakistan, both nuclear armed nations. > > I suspect there is little concern that India will ever be competition for > the US, and as our proxy in Asia, we are pleased to continue to support > such a dictatorship as it is, with their "so called democracy.” > > > *From: *Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > *Subject: **[Peace-discuss] My perspective on Tariq Ali's "talk" at the > Levi Center last evening.* > > > > My reaction or critique, not a summary of Tariq Ali’s talk last evening, > welcoming comments for discussion: > > Though I wrote this immediately for Carl and David Green, last evening > based upon memory, as I did not take notes, I have decided now to post it > on the Peace Discuss List for others to comment on. I don’t like being > negative of a man I have great respect for, when he has no opportunity to > respond and defend. I do respect Tariq Ali. > > > He covered the history of USG imperialism, well. However there was little > focus on “where do we go from here.” Perhaps my expectations were too high, > leading to my disappointment. > > > He does see the US in decline due to our imperialism, and sees us as in > the last stages of our imperialism. He refers to China’s success as a > capitalist nation, and the new century as the century of China, and Asia. > > I was disappointed when he adamantly stated that the US decline is “ not > irreversible," somehow assuming the technology creation on the west coast > is a hopeful sign. I don’t see how that is supposed to help the working > class across the nation, especially in the rust belt. Nor do I see what is > taking place in Silicon Valley, as having anything to do with curbing US > wars of imperialism. In fact, I believe it may support it, by working > closely with the USG. > > > Tariq dismissed fear of nuclear war, as “ no one being that insane.” He > made no reference to USG foreign policy for perpetual non nuclear war > either. No reference was made to US provocations of China with our battle > ships in the South China Sea, recent tariffs, or Nato on the borders of > China. > > > > Tariq, though critical of both the Democrat and Republican Party’s, > referring to Hilary with her statement “we came, we saw, he died.” as a > moral “new low” and the reason people stayed home, and gave us Trump, > pointing up the fact, that in spite of her behavior, she was still the > candidate chosen by the Democrat Party. His reference to Trump as a “shit > hole," makes his point there. He laughed at russiagate. > > Nonetheless he appears to be too confident, that electoral politics are > important, saying “its what we have.” > Perhaps because he saw the rise of Corbyn in England, which is very > positive. However, any suggestion of that happening in the US is > questionable. He never mentioned the problems we face with mainstream > propaganda, corporate ownership of the US government, and the control by > our corporations. > > He does refer to local elections being important and “having a few > socialists in Congress talking with others would be progress, unless they > get bought off by AIPAC,” his final statement, which brought quite an > applause. > > He said, when revolutions occur, people have to be prepared to die, I > agree wholeheartedly with that statement, especially with our militarized > police. > > He made the point that due to China’s success in business due to > capitalism, this is the century of China. I hear from too many on the > “Left” this statement made, with a sense of dread. I think too many are > concerned that based upon China’s “capitalism” they too will become > imperialistic once they reach that stage which many think is near. While > this maybe true, it should not be the concern of the American people. The > same people that seem unconcerned about our own imperialist wars against > others. > > > > While the inequality in China is great, nonetheless the “working class” or > middle class is still doing well, that doesn’t negate the poverty and > treatment of the poor or the “migrant workers” there. However, if one > compares it to the US in the sixties, one can see that the working class at > that time here, was not yet prepared for loss of jobs, and impoverishment > that came about. So I don’t think China is anywhere close to where the US > is today in relation to poverty and austerity, I think they are in the same > stage as the US was in the fifty’s and sixty’s. > > I could be wrong, but the assumption that China will become imperialist > just like the US maybe correct based upon Marxian analysis, but that > negates the culture and history of China, which is no where near that of > the US. > We began as a nation, by committing genocide against the original > inhabitants to occupy this land. We used slavery to develop, and have > continued unabated to destroy nations and people. This cannot be said about > China, in spite of whatever flaws they may possess. > > Referring to China negatively implying imperialism on their part, in this > context contributes to the fear and alienation, that supports the USG > Oligarchs in their pursuit of control of China, further propagandizing our > need for “defense” against others. The same goals for which we now have > russiagate. > > Tariq supports children taking to the streets to “fight the NRA” but > doesn’t see the point in mass movements of people taking to the streets to > confront the USG. He sees the students as being a link in a chain of > progress, just as the original feminists contribute to the feminists of > today, ensuring that not all is forgotten. > > > He says, the US soldiers of Vietnam, in 72, had a real impact on the > antiwar movement, as well as the anti-war protestors in the streets, making > reference to the Vietnamese now having a museum to US war protestors in > Vietnam, it was announced about two weeks ago. > > > His reference to the US losing the war, being quite a blow to the US > imperialists, which is reference to our military loss. This is why the > Reagan Administration began their interventions in South America covertly. > He briefly covers some of this. > > He makes a good point in respect to Portugal, the revolution in “74” the > revolt of the soldiers against their government going to fight in foreign > nations, and the fact that the revolution brought together the various > socialist organizations to “ talk." This was a phenomenal accomplishment, > my words not his. However, they listened to rhetoric in relation to no > privatization, dictatorship, desires for democracy, with all agreeing and > embracing the narrative. However, because they failed to organize from the > ground up, soviets or councils of the people, they ended up with a > dictatorship of the proletariat. A lesson to be learned. > > > The warning on this topic is for those who think once you have a > revolution, a successful one, even if a bloodless one, if you haven’t > organized with a plan and preparation in advance, as to how to prevent a > dictatorship, organizing from the bottom up, it will be a lost cause. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Mar 31 18:42:13 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 18:42:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WSJ:Harvard Harvey Mansfield on "Manliness"--Joke and a Fraud! 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, March 31, 2018 1:42 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: WSJ:Harvard Harvey Mansfield on "Manliness"--Joke and a Fraud! "...His first marriage ended in divorce..." LOL! It was well known in the Gov Department where Harv taught and I was getting my PHD in Polisci that Harv dumped his wife and his children, shacked up with one of his graduate students, and left his abandoned wife to raise their children. That's "manliness" according to Harvard Harvey. Certainly not in my book having spent the last 31 years of my life raising three sons to Manhood along with my Wife. In any event, Harvey has been the Guru of all the Straussian NeoCons at Harvard for the past generation. Harv is a self-professed convert to Leo Strauss. Leo Strauss's teacher, mentor and sponsor in Germany before he came to UChicago's Polisci Department where I got my AB was Carl Schmitt. Schmitt was the most notorious Nazi Law Professor of that benighted era, who justified every hideous atrocity Hitler and the Nazis inflicted on everyone, including the Jews. That should tell you everything you need to know about Harvard Harvey, Harv's Harvard NeoCons and the UChicago NeoCons. Fab Professor of Law AB,UChicago, Polisci PHD, Harvard, PoliSci 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 Sat Mar 31 19:10:10 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:10:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WSJ:Harvard Harvey Mansfield on "Manliness"--Joke and a Fraud! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: When I first went to Thailand, in the late seventy’s, I thought it cruel that men often, if they could afford to do so, took additional wives. It had been outlawed, but was still practiced, if the man could afford it. It was explained to me that Asians, thought the practice in the west of abandoning the first wife for a new and younger one, was far more cruel, and they couldn’t understand how society allowed such a practice. By the mid ninety’s, young women had jobs, and were financially able to afford their own homes, no longer having to live with in-laws and were very clear, they wouldn’t tolerate, a mistress or second wife, thus divorce became more the norm, and often the choice of women. Generally speaking in most cultures, women bare the burden of raising the children when men are irresponsible and leave. In most cultures, not all, it’s not considered “manliness,” it’s a “weakness,” if nothing else. On Mar 31, 2018, at 11:42, 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) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 1:42 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: WSJ:Harvard Harvey Mansfield on "Manliness"--Joke and a Fraud! “…His first marriage ended in divorce…” LOL! It was well known in the Gov Department where Harv taught and I was getting my PHD in Polisci that Harv dumped his wife and his children, shacked up with one of his graduate students, and left his abandoned wife to raise their children. That’s “manliness” according to Harvard Harvey. Certainly not in my book having spent the last 31 years of my life raising three sons to Manhood along with my Wife. In any event, Harvey has been the Guru of all the Straussian NeoCons at Harvard for the past generation. Harv is a self-professed convert to Leo Strauss. Leo Strauss’s teacher, mentor and sponsor in Germany before he came to UChicago’s Polisci Department where I got my AB was Carl Schmitt. Schmitt was the most notorious Nazi Law Professor of that benighted era, who justified every hideous atrocity Hitler and the Nazis inflicted on everyone, including the Jews. That should tell you everything you need to know about Harvard Harvey, Harv’s Harvard NeoCons and the UChicago NeoCons. Fab Professor of Law AB,UChicago, Polisci PHD, Harvard, PoliSci Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Mar 31 19:17:47 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:17:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] COUNTERPUNCH: Getting Ready for Nuclear War Message-ID: * HOME * ARTICLES * MAGAZINE * SUBSCRIBE * DONATE * ARCHIVES * ABOUT * BOOKS * PODCASTS * FAQS [Facebook][Twitter][Google+][Reddit][Email] Some say “don’t worry, be Happy. It will never happen, no one is that insane.” Really? MARCH 30, 2018 Getting Ready for Nuclear War by BRIAN CLOUGHLEY FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail[https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2017/09/atoa-print-icon.png] [https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2018/03/Screen-Shot-2018-03-29-at-6.29.04-PM.png] Photo by Steve Snodgrass | CC BY 2.0 John Bolton is to assume the appointment as President Trump’s National Security Adviser on April 9. On February 28 he wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “it is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current ‘necessity’ posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons by striking first,” which would undoubtedly lead to explosion of at least one nuclear device by whoever might remain alive in the Pyongyang regime after the US attack. In a macabre echo of the alleged link between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the US invasion, Bolton said on March 23 that “Little is known, at least publicly, about longstanding Iranian-North Korean cooperation on nuclear and ballistic-missile technology. It is foolish to play down Tehran’s threat because of Pyongyang’s provocations.” Link and bomb, and get ready for yet more war. On August 9, 2017 President Trump tweeted “My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before.” This declaration of US achievement and nuclear policy was apparently intended to intimidate the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, who tested a nuclear-capable ballistic missile three months later, following which the US president issued an insulting tweet that referred to him as “Little Rocket Man.” The level of international dialogue and diplomacy sank to yet a new low which was enthusiastically reciprocated by Kim, but Trump gave a rare exhibition of common sense on November 11, 2017 by asking “When will all the haters and fools out there realize that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. There [meaning they’re] always playing politics — bad for our country . . .” How very true, and how much better for the world had such a positive attitude been allowed to flourish along with dialogue. But then everything went screaming downhill. Along came Washington’s aggressive Nuclear Posture Review which emphasized enlargement of nuclear weapons’ capabilities and followed from the US National Defence Strategy which strongly advocates massive military expansion, naming Russia specifically no less than 127 times, compared with 62 references to North Korea, 47 to China and 39 to Iran. The bulging muscles of the US military-industrial complex have been nourished by the circus of the “Russiagate” investigations in Washington which attempted to prove that Moscow had organized the 2016 election results by persuading countless millions of people on social media sites that red was blue and Democratic donkeys were really Republican elephants. Or the other way round. It was all rubbish, but the US-European anti-Russia campaign was then given enormous impetus by the collapse in England from apparent poisoning of a retired, BMW-driving British spy, a former Russian citizen. The poisoning was effected by a chemical agent, and blame for the event was immediately laid at Russia’s door. The British foreign minister Boris Johnson is a sad joke, but he’s politically powerful and a threat to the prime minister, Theresa May, so he continues in his post and makes statements such as “Russia is the only country known to have developed this type of agent. I’m afraid the evidence is overwhelming that it is Russia.” The fact that there is no evidence whatever that Russia was involved is ignored, because the western world has been convinced that Russia is guilty of this poisoning — and of countless other things. The heightened anti-Russia feeling is most welcome to the US-NATO military alliance, which has been energetic in developing its ‘Enhanced Forward Presence’ along Russia’s borders. Its belligerent posture has been hardening since NATO began to expand in 1997, which was entirely contrary to what had been agreed seven years previously. As recorded by the Los Angeles Times, “In early February 1990, US leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on February 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, the US could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the US would limit NATO’s expansion. Nevertheless, great powers rarely tie their own hands. In internal memorandums and notes, US policymakers soon realized that ruling out NATO’s expansion might not be in the best interests of the United States. By late February, Bush and his advisers had decided to leave the door open.” The door towards Russia’s borders opened on to a welcoming galaxy of nations anxious to enjoy all the financial benefits that would descend upon them from the deep and generous pockets of the Washington-Brussels military machine. The US and other NATO members rolled forward with missile-armed ships in the Baltic and the Black Sea, with electronic surveillance and command aircraft flying as close as they could to Russian airspace, along with deployment of nuclear-capable combat aircraft and more ground troops in expansion of the Enhanced Forward Presence. The recent surge in anti-Russia news and comment in almost all US and UK media is a boon and a blessing for the rickety and incompetent NATO alliance, but in responsible circles there is concern about its nuclear posture — and especially that of the United States. On February 19 Bolton wrote that “Putin’s global aspirations are not friendly to America, and the sooner he knows we know it, the better. It is not enough, however, to file criminal charges against Russian citizens, nor are economic sanctions anywhere near sufficient to prove our displeasure. We need to create structures of deterrence in cyberspace, as we did with nuclear weapons, to prevent future Russian attacks or attacks by others who threaten our interests.” One of the most disturbing developments is the attitude to the Nuclear Posture Review of many nuclear experts in the West. As reported by Defence News, “Rebeccah Heinrichs, a nuclear analyst with the Hudson Institute, thinks the Pentagon is on the right path, noting that “if the Russians have a weapon delivery option, they’re putting a nuke on it” at the moment. “Clearly the Russians believe that they could possibly pop off a low yield nuke and we would not have an appropriate response, and our only option would essentially be to end the war rather than go all-in with strategic nuclear weapons. . . “ It may be because I have had some association with nuclear delivery systems and their hideous effects that I take offence at clever little analysts referring to dispatch and detonation of nuclear weapons as “popping off.” The weapon that would be “popped off” — whatever it might be — would kill hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, and would contaminate vast areas of land. A “low yield nuke” as it is so lightly dismissed, is not an inconsequential weapon. A long time ago in Germany I commanded a troop of rocket launchers that were tasked to fire “low yield” Honest John missiles in the event of war in Europe. We knew these things would cause immense damage because the W7 warhead had a yield of up to 20 kilotonnes — just about that of the Nagasaki bomb that killed about 75,000 human beings. Sure, our warheads might only have been a fraction of that (we’ll never know), but even then I object to intellectuals saying they might have been “popped off” like modern-day “low-yield nukes,” because we would have died within a few minutes of firing these things, not long after we had killed our thousands of victims, most likely from retaliation but also because the maximum range of our rockets was about 25 kilometers and the fall-out effects would have been pretty swift. Then you read the pronouncements of such important people as Air Force General John Hyten, the senior US nuclear deliveryman, commanding US Strategic Command, who said on February 28 that “Russia is the most significant threat just because they pose the only existential threat to the country right now. So we have to look at that from that perspective.” Further, ““By the way, our submarines, they do not know where they are, and they have the ability to decimate their country . . .” Fleshing out that part of the Nuclear Triad came Rear Admiral John Tammen, Director, Undersea Warfare Division, who told Congress on March 26 that his conventional submarines were henceforth going to be carrying nuclear weapons. Fox News reported Admiral Tammen as stating that “The Virginia [Class] submarines can currently fire Tomahawk missiles and torpedoes but by adding nuclear weapons, it would give combatant commanders new options and expand its mission.” He should get together with Rebeccah Heinrichs, General Hyten and John Bolton. They could discuss where and how to pop off a weapon that would lead to world destruction. They are all getting ready for nuclear war, and the threat to the world looms large. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Mar 31 19:36:08 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:36:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WSJ:Harvard Harvey Mansfield on "Manliness"--Joke and a Fraud! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: “when men are irresponsible and leave”:Straussian NeoCon Harvard Harvey Mansfield. In any event, the Mainstream Print Media including the Fall Street Journal and the Newspeak Times do all they can to idolize this CAD for obvious reasons. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 2:10 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: WSJ:Harvard Harvey Mansfield on "Manliness"--Joke and a Fraud! When I first went to Thailand, in the late seventy’s, I thought it cruel that men often, if they could afford to do so, took additional wives. It had been outlawed, but was still practiced, if the man could afford it. It was explained to me that Asians, thought the practice in the west of abandoning the first wife for a new and younger one, was far more cruel, and they couldn’t understand how society allowed such a practice. By the mid ninety’s, young women had jobs, and were financially able to afford their own homes, no longer having to live with in-laws and were very clear, they wouldn’t tolerate, a mistress or second wife, thus divorce became more the norm, and often the choice of women. Generally speaking in most cultures, women bare the burden of raising the children when men are irresponsible and leave. In most cultures, not all, it’s not considered “manliness,” it’s a “weakness,” if nothing else. On Mar 31, 2018, at 11:42, 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) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 1:42 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: WSJ:Harvard Harvey Mansfield on "Manliness"--Joke and a Fraud! “…His first marriage ended in divorce…” LOL! It was well known in the Gov Department where Harv taught and I was getting my PHD in Polisci that Harv dumped his wife and his children, shacked up with one of his graduate students, and left his abandoned wife to raise their children. That’s “manliness” according to Harvard Harvey. Certainly not in my book having spent the last 31 years of my life raising three sons to Manhood along with my Wife. In any event, Harvey has been the Guru of all the Straussian NeoCons at Harvard for the past generation. Harv is a self-professed convert to Leo Strauss. Leo Strauss’s teacher, mentor and sponsor in Germany before he came to UChicago’s Polisci Department where I got my AB was Carl Schmitt. Schmitt was the most notorious Nazi Law Professor of that benighted era, who justified every hideous atrocity Hitler and the Nazis inflicted on everyone, including the Jews. That should tell you everything you need to know about Harvard Harvey, Harv’s Harvard NeoCons and the UChicago NeoCons. Fab Professor of Law AB,UChicago, Polisci PHD, Harvard, PoliSci Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: