Michelle Naar-Obed, a member of WNPJ and of the Christian Peacemakers Team (CPT) now in Iraqi Kurdistan, sent us this report on the US-supported Turkish attacks on Kurdish villages.
February 26, 2008
Dear friends,
CPT finds itself at the front lines of yet another battle against the people of Iraq. It is being described as the largest cross border attack since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Turkey has launched a massive ground attack inside Iraq’s borders in the northern Kurdish region.
In past reports, I’ve written about the tensions between Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the decades long fight they have been involved in. I have also invited readers to google PKK to learn more about their struggle and their reputation. I am not writing in support or in criticism of them. This report is about the effects that the Turkish/PKK fight has on the Kurdish people of Iraq.
In December, 2007, the Turkish military unleashed a wave of air strikes against the PKK inside Iraq. The US supplied military “intelligence”, opened up Iraq’s airspace to Turkey, and essentially gave the nod for Turkey to go ahead. The attacks resulted in civilian deaths, injury, massive property damage and displacement of thousands of villagers (Internally Diplaced Persons, or IDP's to use the UN's term.) CPT received a video of the bombing of the Asterokan village and is in the final stages of preparing the video for YouTube.
Conditions for the displaced villagers are quite difficult. Families have been uprooted. IDP children find it difficult to finish school. The psychological damage can be devastating. After the December attacks, some members of the villages returned home intermittently to repair their houses, or tend to their remaining livestock. Because there were continuous nightly flyovers by the Turkish military, the villagers slept in caves in the mountains where they felt just a little safer. The Kurds have an expression: "The mountains are the only friends that the Kurdish people have." With this being the coldest winter in 10 years, with frigid temperatures and lots of snow, nights in a cave could be pretty costly.
By January, 2008, villagers were encouraged to return home as it seemed there might be a de-escalation in the hostilities. By February, tensions rose and on February 20, the Turks launched a massive, full scale ground attack inside Iraqi Kurdistan. Once again, villagers were forced to flee their homes. Even though there have been no reports of civilian casualties, the attack has had tremendous consequences for the people of Kurdistan.
For the first time in over 80 years, and after numerous genocidal attacks, the Iraqi Kurds have begun to gain a foot hold in their quest for self determination. With the passage of the 2005 Iraq Constitution, they find themselves closer to autonomy than they have ever been since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Kurds believe that this is the reason for Turkey’s attacks. They argue that the attacks have little to do with the PKK.
The Iraqi Kurds also believed that they could count on the US to support and defend them. However, with US support going to Turkey, the Kurds feel a deep sense of betrayal. The Kurdish government has appealed to the US and European Union to demand Turkey’s immediate withdrawal from Iraq and they have asked the US to force Turkey to the diplomatic table to resolve this conflict peacefully. Their appeals seem to have fallen on deaf ears.
The Kurds are a strong, resilient, proud and accomplished people and they will not go down without a fight. The US could do much to stop the bloodshed. If this fight continues to escalate, the only relatively stable and peaceful region in Iraq will soon be lost and the US is quickly losing one of the few allies it has in this part of the world.
Now, on an entirely different note, the door for CPT to continue working in Iraqi Kurdistan has been opened just a crack more. We have been and will continue to be in intense negotiation with Kurdish and US officials. For now, it seems the team will be able to get monthly visa extensions and work somewhat conditionally. This current team will be ironing out the details over these next days and will then return home for a needed break. I, for one, am looking forward to it.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
NPR shows Iraqis how to practice "journalism"
The Feb. 23 edition of NPR's Morning Edition-Saturday featured a report, "Mukasey Meets the Press in Baghdad" in which reporter Ari Shapiro cites a "confusing" question asked by an Iraqi reporter about the inability of Iraqis to prosecute American soldiers who commit criminal acts. Shapiro mocks the questioner, acts as if he has no idea what the question is about, and then quotes Attorney General Michael Mukasey and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker, who also claimed to be confused by the question.
Yet even in the few seconds of the question Mr. Shapiro played on his report, the intent of the question was clear: the reporter was asking about the fact that American soldiers and contractors are, in fact, immune from prosecution by Iraqi courts. This has been true since the U.S. first became the occupying authority in Iraq, under an executive order by U.S. administrator Paul Bremer.
This immunity has always been a sore point with Iraqis, but it gained increased prominence -- and triggered increased outrage among the Iraqi populace -- when Blackwater mercenaries killed seventeen unarmed Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nissour Square. Since then, not a single one of these hired killers has been prosecuted by the U.S., and Iraqi courts and police are powerless to bring these men to justice.
If Attorney General Mukasey and ambassador Crocker are even minimally aware of the attitudes and opinions of Iraqis, they would understand very clearly what the questioner was asking. Isn't it possible that they did understand the question, but chose to feign confusion, to avoid addressing an obvious sore point in US-Iraqi relations?
Of course, this possibility never occurs to Mr. Shapiro, who also seems to be blissfully unaware of the Nissour Square massacre and the outrage many Iraqis feel at seeing the Nissour Square killers go free. Instead, he adopts a patronizing tone, explaining that Iraqi reporters have little experience with a free press, and so aren't as skilled at asking questions as American reporters.
To sum up: American mercenaries kill seventeen innocent Iraqis and get off without prosecution, and when an Iraqi reporter has the temerity to ask a visiting American official about this, NPR's Ari Shapiro steps in to turn the question into an occasion for mirth at the Iraqis' expense. If that's an example of the sort of "skilled" American reporting that is the product of our hundreds of years of experience with a "free press", then I can only hope aspiring Iraqi journalists look elsewhere for their example.
UPDATE: Over the past year, the issue of immunity for U.S. soldiers and contractors has been one of the most serious points of contention between the U.S. and Iraqi governments. Here are some key events:
June 2007: Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki Maliki announces an Iraqi investigation into the case of the rape and muder of a fourteen year old Iraq girl by American soldiers, saying "immunity from Iraqi prosecution granted to foreign troops encouraged them to commit crimes."
August 2007: The U.S. military opens its own grand-jury hearings into the rape and murder case, naming five soldiers alleged to have participated in the crime.
Sept. 2007: Security guards working for the U.S. military contractor Blackwater Security open fire on unarmed Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nissour Square, killing seventeen. The Iraqi government announces the beginning of a criminal investigation into the killings. The Iraqi State Security Minister, Shirwan al-Waili, says, “the murder of citizens in cold blood in al-Nissour area by the Blackwater is considered a terrorist action against the civilians just like any other terrorist operations.” Mr. Waili promises that “The criminals will be referred to the Iraqi court system."
October 2007: The Iraqi cabinet sends to parliament a draft law to subject American contractors to prosecution by Iraqi courts. The law repeals Order 17, a measure providing immunity from prosecution to American contractors, issued at the beginning of the U.S. occupation in 2003 by U.S. occupation administrator L. Paul Bremer.
January 2007: The Bush administration begins negotiations with the Iraq government for a long-term "Status of Forces Agreement". One of the principal demands of U.S. negotiators is immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts for U.S. soldiers and contractors.
February 2007: U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey visits Iraq, on what is described as a "rule of law" mission. While his government demands immunity from prosecution for all American military contractors, Mukasey says, "My assessment is that the Iraqis are firmly committed to the notion of the rule of law as distinct from the rule of might, and are committed to the independence of the judiciary." At a press conference in Baghdad, Mukasey and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker claim not to understand an Iraqi reporter's question about the immunity from prosecution enjoyed by U.S. soldiers and contractors.
Yet even in the few seconds of the question Mr. Shapiro played on his report, the intent of the question was clear: the reporter was asking about the fact that American soldiers and contractors are, in fact, immune from prosecution by Iraqi courts. This has been true since the U.S. first became the occupying authority in Iraq, under an executive order by U.S. administrator Paul Bremer.
This immunity has always been a sore point with Iraqis, but it gained increased prominence -- and triggered increased outrage among the Iraqi populace -- when Blackwater mercenaries killed seventeen unarmed Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nissour Square. Since then, not a single one of these hired killers has been prosecuted by the U.S., and Iraqi courts and police are powerless to bring these men to justice.
If Attorney General Mukasey and ambassador Crocker are even minimally aware of the attitudes and opinions of Iraqis, they would understand very clearly what the questioner was asking. Isn't it possible that they did understand the question, but chose to feign confusion, to avoid addressing an obvious sore point in US-Iraqi relations?
Of course, this possibility never occurs to Mr. Shapiro, who also seems to be blissfully unaware of the Nissour Square massacre and the outrage many Iraqis feel at seeing the Nissour Square killers go free. Instead, he adopts a patronizing tone, explaining that Iraqi reporters have little experience with a free press, and so aren't as skilled at asking questions as American reporters.
To sum up: American mercenaries kill seventeen innocent Iraqis and get off without prosecution, and when an Iraqi reporter has the temerity to ask a visiting American official about this, NPR's Ari Shapiro steps in to turn the question into an occasion for mirth at the Iraqis' expense. If that's an example of the sort of "skilled" American reporting that is the product of our hundreds of years of experience with a "free press", then I can only hope aspiring Iraqi journalists look elsewhere for their example.
UPDATE: Over the past year, the issue of immunity for U.S. soldiers and contractors has been one of the most serious points of contention between the U.S. and Iraqi governments. Here are some key events:
June 2007: Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki Maliki announces an Iraqi investigation into the case of the rape and muder of a fourteen year old Iraq girl by American soldiers, saying "immunity from Iraqi prosecution granted to foreign troops encouraged them to commit crimes."
August 2007: The U.S. military opens its own grand-jury hearings into the rape and murder case, naming five soldiers alleged to have participated in the crime.
Sept. 2007: Security guards working for the U.S. military contractor Blackwater Security open fire on unarmed Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nissour Square, killing seventeen. The Iraqi government announces the beginning of a criminal investigation into the killings. The Iraqi State Security Minister, Shirwan al-Waili, says, “the murder of citizens in cold blood in al-Nissour area by the Blackwater is considered a terrorist action against the civilians just like any other terrorist operations.” Mr. Waili promises that “The criminals will be referred to the Iraqi court system."
October 2007: The Iraqi cabinet sends to parliament a draft law to subject American contractors to prosecution by Iraqi courts. The law repeals Order 17, a measure providing immunity from prosecution to American contractors, issued at the beginning of the U.S. occupation in 2003 by U.S. occupation administrator L. Paul Bremer.
January 2007: The Bush administration begins negotiations with the Iraq government for a long-term "Status of Forces Agreement". One of the principal demands of U.S. negotiators is immunity from prosecution by Iraqi courts for U.S. soldiers and contractors.
February 2007: U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey visits Iraq, on what is described as a "rule of law" mission. While his government demands immunity from prosecution for all American military contractors, Mukasey says, "My assessment is that the Iraqis are firmly committed to the notion of the rule of law as distinct from the rule of might, and are committed to the independence of the judiciary." At a press conference in Baghdad, Mukasey and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker claim not to understand an Iraqi reporter's question about the immunity from prosecution enjoyed by U.S. soldiers and contractors.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Steve Burns: Here's how they do it in Pakistan
Today's New York Times includes a story, Musharraf’s Party Accepts Defeat reporting that the party of President Pervez Musharraf was defeated in Monday's parliamentary elections by Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party, and the Pakistan Muslim League-N, led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Musharraf had declared a state of emergency in November, claiming it was necessary to suspend many constitutional rights because of the threat to Pakistan's stability posed by extremists and terrorists.
The two opposition parties, which together control a majority of seats in Parliament, are now bargaining over the terms of a power-sharing agreement.
One item in the list of demands made by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif caught my eye:
Mr. Sharif has been reported to agree to the Peoples Party assuming the post of prime minister in exchange for three things: impeachment proceedings against Mr. Musharraf; the reinstatement of the dismissed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and other judges; and the appointment of a top lawyer, Aitzaz Ahsan, as prime minister.
So in Pakistan, when the President violates the constitution and his party then loses in elections, he faces impeachment proceedings. Meanwhile, here in the United States...
To add to the irony, the Times story above was preceded by only a few days with this one:
U.S. Struggles to Tutor Iraqis in Rule of Law
And this is where I drag out that old joke about "Those that can't, teach."
The two opposition parties, which together control a majority of seats in Parliament, are now bargaining over the terms of a power-sharing agreement.
One item in the list of demands made by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif caught my eye:
Mr. Sharif has been reported to agree to the Peoples Party assuming the post of prime minister in exchange for three things: impeachment proceedings against Mr. Musharraf; the reinstatement of the dismissed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and other judges; and the appointment of a top lawyer, Aitzaz Ahsan, as prime minister.
So in Pakistan, when the President violates the constitution and his party then loses in elections, he faces impeachment proceedings. Meanwhile, here in the United States...
To add to the irony, the Times story above was preceded by only a few days with this one:
U.S. Struggles to Tutor Iraqis in Rule of Law
And this is where I drag out that old joke about "Those that can't, teach."
Monday, February 18, 2008
Myron Talcott: Signs of Peace
Myron sends us his thoughts after participating in the February 15 Iraq Moratorium action at Madison's Hiildale Mall, which resulted in the arrest of three committed peace activists: Bonnie Block, Joy First, and Janet Parker:
As I approached our living room windows to open the blinds this morning, I noticed one of the buds on the peace lily was open to the sunshine, A good sign of peace! For months, only the leaves of this plant have been growing. Several weeks ago, two tightly-wrapped buds appeared on its slender stalks. The open blossom is a good sign of peace, especially for today.
Why “today?” My plans included a trip to the Hilldale Shopping Center. If you haven’t seen Hilldale in the past 9 months, it has been completely transformed as an urban center adding a second mall of stores, a row of condominiums facing Midvale Blvd., and a 4 story parking ramp between them and the stores. Construction begins this spring on a hotel adjacent to the Shopping Center and a building housing the Whole Foods grocery and condominiums. A second building for condominiums is being delayed until the market improves.
Next time you are in Madison we might share a meal in the fine restaurant of the Sundance Cinema at the South end of the Mall. We were walking toward one of the six theatres one evening and the founder/designer himself passed us in the hallway: Robert Redford. For MKT, it was “ROBERT REDFORD!”
I went to Hilldale to be with other persons in a monthly witness for peace. I had schedule conflicts with their earlier events on the sidewalk downtown in front of Senator Kohl’s Office and at both the East Towne and West Town Malls. The first person I met was Ron Frye, a good friend from Baraboo who now lives in Madison and teaches at MATC. He was one of many persons who use the mall for a walk with a family member or friend. We walked a full lap before locating the people I was joining.
I was the ninth person in a group that included Bonnie Block, current President of the United Nations Chapter, Fred Brancel, friend of our family since 1972, Mary Beth Schlagheck,a peace person at St. Paul’s Catholic Center on campus when I was at University Church, Joy First and Janet Parker, leading peace activists in Madison/Monona, Char Brandl, and Judy Miner and Steve Burns, Staff for the Wisconsin Peace and Justice Network of over 150 peace and social-justice groups in Wisconsin.
After introductions, I learned there were three roles for us when we took our place right across from the doorways into Macy’s: 1) handing a small leaflet to shoppers and walkers who went past us (some would accept them, others would not; 2) Two readers, one reading the names of Iraqi men, women, and children killed in the War and the other reading names of U S Military person killed in Iraq. I chose to be a reader and later a leaflet-passer.
The third role was chosen by 3 people, Janet, Bonnie and Joy. Each lay on the floor, covered by a white cloth with words painted in bright red, Stop the War. The tile floor must have felt hard for the hour they lay there without any cushion or pillow.
As soon as we arrived in this area, the Mall Security Officer came and informed us we were not allowed to have a protest in the Mall. “This is private property and if you do not leave, I will call the Madison Police.”
We knew Malls are private property even if their halls are the new “Main Street” of America. And we knew only the Police had the authority to inform us we had to leave or face being ticketed and arrest us if we did not leave. So I and the other Reader continued to read the names and the Security Officer continued to repeat his warning. Then he called the Mall Manager, the Mall Security Patrol, and a young man who was dressed very informally but was also a Security Officer.
All of them told us we were on private property and were not allowed to stay here. We kept on reading the names and passing out the leaflets. As I read the ages of the U S military persons killed in the war, I remembered Anne telling her 8th graders at Hoover in Waterloo, IA, who were “enthusiastic” about the war, “In five years this will be your war to fight.’ The war is soon to be five years old. I wonder what those young men and women are thinking today.
After a while, the police were called. But it was 40 minutes before two Madison police officers arrived.
I thought one Officer might stand up in front of us and, in a loud voice, tell us all to leave or face arrest. Instead, he walked up to each one of us and very quietly said that they received a complaint from the Mall and we were in violation of the City Ordinance against Trespassing. We should move back from where we were or receive a ticket. Then, if we refused to leave, we would be arrested and carried away.
Each of the three people on the tile floor responded to the Officer in a calm voice that they would accept a ticket and then leave. What does “free speech” cost? Tickets on City Property are $109. Tickets on private property are $424. However, the judge for the trial of for persons arrested at East Towne reduced the fine to $109 and sentenced the individuals to 10 hours of Community Service.
I had decided ahead of time I would “step back” if told to do so. I chose not to get a ticket or be arrested.
One reason was this afternoon and tomorrow I am a Docent at the Exhibit in the Capitol Rotunda of 24 Posters against Nuclear War being circulated across the nation by Steve Leeper, son of Midge Leeper Miller.
I stepped back and joined the other 5 people in singing “We Shall Overcome” with two verses I added,
“Peace will surely come – Someday!” and “We have found our voice – Today!”
Afterwards, we did not leave right away but stood talking to each other and the Officers until, after about 20 minutes, they said we all needed to leave. During that 20 minutes, I thanked the Police Officer for his quiet way of talking to us individually. I learned he is part of the West District Office which is within sight of our living room windows and very close friend of Officer Caleb who came to our building and spoke to our Board.
Earlier, l learned that the Security Patrol man in uniform had been in the Navy in Iraq in 2003. I said he was one of the lucky ones to come home safely and in one piece. He agreed. I then said “I know you didn’t make the policy that prevents our being here – though if we were selling Christmas cards or brats instead of opposing the War, we probably could be here. Then I asked him to tell someone in his family or a co-worker or a friend what he had seen here this morning.
Just before I left, I listened to a man say to me, “You are a traitor to your country. You are helping the Muslims win this war and when they do, they will cut off your head.” I asked him if those were his views or the views of people he knew. He said they were his views. I said, “Thank you for telling me what you think.” Though I know there are people “out there” who think as he thinks, I seldom hear anyone say that to me directly. I was glad to discover I didn’t try to defend myself and my rights as a citizen or argue with his views. Nor did I have any physical sensation of fear or anger.
I hope it is a sign I am on the way in myself to the peace I seek for the peoples and leaders of our nation and the world. One step toward fulfilling Gandhi’s counsel, “Be the change you want to see.”
As I approached our living room windows to open the blinds this morning, I noticed one of the buds on the peace lily was open to the sunshine, A good sign of peace! For months, only the leaves of this plant have been growing. Several weeks ago, two tightly-wrapped buds appeared on its slender stalks. The open blossom is a good sign of peace, especially for today.
Why “today?” My plans included a trip to the Hilldale Shopping Center. If you haven’t seen Hilldale in the past 9 months, it has been completely transformed as an urban center adding a second mall of stores, a row of condominiums facing Midvale Blvd., and a 4 story parking ramp between them and the stores. Construction begins this spring on a hotel adjacent to the Shopping Center and a building housing the Whole Foods grocery and condominiums. A second building for condominiums is being delayed until the market improves.
Next time you are in Madison we might share a meal in the fine restaurant of the Sundance Cinema at the South end of the Mall. We were walking toward one of the six theatres one evening and the founder/designer himself passed us in the hallway: Robert Redford. For MKT, it was “ROBERT REDFORD!”
I went to Hilldale to be with other persons in a monthly witness for peace. I had schedule conflicts with their earlier events on the sidewalk downtown in front of Senator Kohl’s Office and at both the East Towne and West Town Malls. The first person I met was Ron Frye, a good friend from Baraboo who now lives in Madison and teaches at MATC. He was one of many persons who use the mall for a walk with a family member or friend. We walked a full lap before locating the people I was joining.
I was the ninth person in a group that included Bonnie Block, current President of the United Nations Chapter, Fred Brancel, friend of our family since 1972, Mary Beth Schlagheck,a peace person at St. Paul’s Catholic Center on campus when I was at University Church, Joy First and Janet Parker, leading peace activists in Madison/Monona, Char Brandl, and Judy Miner and Steve Burns, Staff for the Wisconsin Peace and Justice Network of over 150 peace and social-justice groups in Wisconsin.
After introductions, I learned there were three roles for us when we took our place right across from the doorways into Macy’s: 1) handing a small leaflet to shoppers and walkers who went past us (some would accept them, others would not; 2) Two readers, one reading the names of Iraqi men, women, and children killed in the War and the other reading names of U S Military person killed in Iraq. I chose to be a reader and later a leaflet-passer.
The third role was chosen by 3 people, Janet, Bonnie and Joy. Each lay on the floor, covered by a white cloth with words painted in bright red, Stop the War. The tile floor must have felt hard for the hour they lay there without any cushion or pillow.
As soon as we arrived in this area, the Mall Security Officer came and informed us we were not allowed to have a protest in the Mall. “This is private property and if you do not leave, I will call the Madison Police.”
We knew Malls are private property even if their halls are the new “Main Street” of America. And we knew only the Police had the authority to inform us we had to leave or face being ticketed and arrest us if we did not leave. So I and the other Reader continued to read the names and the Security Officer continued to repeat his warning. Then he called the Mall Manager, the Mall Security Patrol, and a young man who was dressed very informally but was also a Security Officer.
All of them told us we were on private property and were not allowed to stay here. We kept on reading the names and passing out the leaflets. As I read the ages of the U S military persons killed in the war, I remembered Anne telling her 8th graders at Hoover in Waterloo, IA, who were “enthusiastic” about the war, “In five years this will be your war to fight.’ The war is soon to be five years old. I wonder what those young men and women are thinking today.
After a while, the police were called. But it was 40 minutes before two Madison police officers arrived.
I thought one Officer might stand up in front of us and, in a loud voice, tell us all to leave or face arrest. Instead, he walked up to each one of us and very quietly said that they received a complaint from the Mall and we were in violation of the City Ordinance against Trespassing. We should move back from where we were or receive a ticket. Then, if we refused to leave, we would be arrested and carried away.
Each of the three people on the tile floor responded to the Officer in a calm voice that they would accept a ticket and then leave. What does “free speech” cost? Tickets on City Property are $109. Tickets on private property are $424. However, the judge for the trial of for persons arrested at East Towne reduced the fine to $109 and sentenced the individuals to 10 hours of Community Service.
I had decided ahead of time I would “step back” if told to do so. I chose not to get a ticket or be arrested.
One reason was this afternoon and tomorrow I am a Docent at the Exhibit in the Capitol Rotunda of 24 Posters against Nuclear War being circulated across the nation by Steve Leeper, son of Midge Leeper Miller.
I stepped back and joined the other 5 people in singing “We Shall Overcome” with two verses I added,
“Peace will surely come – Someday!” and “We have found our voice – Today!”
Afterwards, we did not leave right away but stood talking to each other and the Officers until, after about 20 minutes, they said we all needed to leave. During that 20 minutes, I thanked the Police Officer for his quiet way of talking to us individually. I learned he is part of the West District Office which is within sight of our living room windows and very close friend of Officer Caleb who came to our building and spoke to our Board.
Earlier, l learned that the Security Patrol man in uniform had been in the Navy in Iraq in 2003. I said he was one of the lucky ones to come home safely and in one piece. He agreed. I then said “I know you didn’t make the policy that prevents our being here – though if we were selling Christmas cards or brats instead of opposing the War, we probably could be here. Then I asked him to tell someone in his family or a co-worker or a friend what he had seen here this morning.
Just before I left, I listened to a man say to me, “You are a traitor to your country. You are helping the Muslims win this war and when they do, they will cut off your head.” I asked him if those were his views or the views of people he knew. He said they were his views. I said, “Thank you for telling me what you think.” Though I know there are people “out there” who think as he thinks, I seldom hear anyone say that to me directly. I was glad to discover I didn’t try to defend myself and my rights as a citizen or argue with his views. Nor did I have any physical sensation of fear or anger.
I hope it is a sign I am on the way in myself to the peace I seek for the peoples and leaders of our nation and the world. One step toward fulfilling Gandhi’s counsel, “Be the change you want to see.”
Friday, February 15, 2008
Ya, youbetcha, end the war now! Steve Burns reports from Minneapolis
Joining together in this traditional
The conference on the University of Minnesota campus was endorsed by more than 50 peace and justice groups, from national organizations such as United for Peace and Justice, Code Pink, and War Resisters League, to regional and local groups like
Two local groups took a strong lead in organizing the conference: AFSCME local 3800 a militant union representing clerical employees at the
In previous counter-protests at the conventions of the two major parties, there has been some tension between those wanting to organize a large, legally-permitted march, and those wanting to engage in more disruptive actions of civil disobedience, such as attempting to block the buses of convention delegates to prevent them from reaching the convention hall. In
The conference endorsed a call for a large legally-permitted march on Labor Day, September 1 (more details here). The Welfare Rights Committee’s proposal to organize a poor people’s contingent in the march received strong support.
The RNC Welcoming Committee is planning other forms of protest on other days of the convention, including civil disobedience actions, and many were excited about the prospect of a concert on Friday, Sept. 5th, to celebrate the Republican’s withdrawal from the occupied city of
Events are also being organized to put forward a positive “people’s agenda” in stark contrast to the Republican agenda. The People’s Networking Convention will be meeting in Madison, August 15-17, to allow for “non-elections-based organizing and discussion”, followed by a group, PNC2RNC, which will be biking to the twin cities, arriving in time for the Republican convention.
What will
Monday, February 4, 2008
Steve Burns: Where do you get your inspiration?
A friend of mine sent me this Barack Obama video:
The lyrics to the video come from Obama's "Yes we can!" speech:
Read the comments posted at YouTube, and the word you'll see used most often is "inspiring." And that causes me to wonder about the men and women that Obama cites as his inspiration. What inspired them? Did they place their hopes in a candidate for President, or in their own work for justice? How much thought did the fugitive slaves and abolitionists running the underground railroad give to Presidential politics? Not much, I suspect. They knew that their liberation, if it was to come, must come by their own hands.
The abolition movement, the labor movement, women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, and the farmworkers that Obama has borrowed "Si, se peude!" from -- these folks weren't looking to a candidate to be their savior. For them, inspiration came from the people around them, the people who shared in their struggle.
Because I'm fortunate enough to work here at the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, I'm privileged to learn, every day, about all those amazing people who aren't waiting for an election to change things. Our corporate media usually doesn't take much notice of them. Perhaps, years from now, when they've changed this country for the better, their work may be recorded in the history books, and a candidate may point to their success as a source of inspiration.
But why wait? Why not choose to be inspired by them right now?
Here's one of them:
Emily Coon is a high school student who helped shut down three military recruitment offices in her home town in Vermont. And she's just one example of why I know that I don't need to rely on any candidate to bring me "change". I'll choose to put my hope in the social movements of today. You know, the ones that candidates will be making "inspiring" videos about in the 2048 presidential campaign.
The lyrics to the video come from Obama's "Yes we can!" speech:
It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation. Yes we can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom. Yes we can. It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness. Yes we can. It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballots; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land. Yes we can to justice and equality.
Read the comments posted at YouTube, and the word you'll see used most often is "inspiring." And that causes me to wonder about the men and women that Obama cites as his inspiration. What inspired them? Did they place their hopes in a candidate for President, or in their own work for justice? How much thought did the fugitive slaves and abolitionists running the underground railroad give to Presidential politics? Not much, I suspect. They knew that their liberation, if it was to come, must come by their own hands.
The abolition movement, the labor movement, women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, and the farmworkers that Obama has borrowed "Si, se peude!" from -- these folks weren't looking to a candidate to be their savior. For them, inspiration came from the people around them, the people who shared in their struggle.
Because I'm fortunate enough to work here at the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, I'm privileged to learn, every day, about all those amazing people who aren't waiting for an election to change things. Our corporate media usually doesn't take much notice of them. Perhaps, years from now, when they've changed this country for the better, their work may be recorded in the history books, and a candidate may point to their success as a source of inspiration.
But why wait? Why not choose to be inspired by them right now?
Here's one of them:
"Military recruiters have had unfettered access to our schools and our personal, private information for too long. We demand an immediate end to this war based on lies and deception, and that our schools shut their doors permanently to the military. We are done doing push-ups in the hallway for a free t-shirt today, and a flag sent home to our parents tomorrow," --- Emily Coon of the Mt. Mansfield Union High School Peace Club.
Emily Coon is a high school student who helped shut down three military recruitment offices in her home town in Vermont. And she's just one example of why I know that I don't need to rely on any candidate to bring me "change". I'll choose to put my hope in the social movements of today. You know, the ones that candidates will be making "inspiring" videos about in the 2048 presidential campaign.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Bonnie Block: We need to win back our free speech rights
WNPJ founding member Bonnie Block sends this statement, made to Judge Koval of the Madison Municipal court, at her trial for "unlawful trespassing" as a participant in a die-in at Madison's East Town Mall in November 2007. In it, she explores the legal issues involved when a group engages in free speech while on private property.
This is the fifth time I have come before you as a result of an act of nonviolent resistance to the war in Iraq. I consider it somewhat akin to an annual check-up to make sure that my rights and responsibilities as a citizen are still healthy.
The sad part is that each time I’ve been arrested for taking a strong public stance calling others to join me in opposition to this war and military occupation, the costs have gone even higher. Hundreds more U.S. troops have died, thousands more have been wounded, tens of thousands more Iraqis have become casualties and billions more dollars have been wasted in this illegal and immoral war.
The need, right, and duty to oppose this war is abundantly clear, so I won’t take up your time. (And attached to my statement is a copy of a letter published in The Capital Times on November 7, 2007 that does detail the reasons for our action.)
Rather I want to raise another issue. I believe that the unlawful trespass charge in the facts before you is an unconstitutional limitation of our rights to free speech. It is a sham to call a shopping mall “private property” Jacobs v. Major, 193 Wisc 2nd 492, 407 NW 2nd 832 (WI 1987) notwithstanding.* New Jersey, California and four states have ruled differently by finding that malls are the present day equivalent of the town square and a place that one can respectfully and nonviolently express one’s dissent.
I would agree that property rights need to be balanced with free speech rights but that doesn’t happen here in Wisconsin. Because of the unfortunate ruling in Jacobs v. Major, mall personnel are able to decide who gets to exercise free speech and who doesn’t. They spend a lot of money to advertise and attract the public to the mall, they allow certain groups in to sing, display, or demonstrate, but call the police because they disagree with anti-war protests. That shouldn’t happen in a democracy.
To top it off Madison’s unlawful trespass ordinance also multiplies the forfeiture for trespass by almost four times over an equivalent “trespass” on a public sidewalk or street. Our group which is part of the National Campaign of Nonviolent Resistance, has done a vigil, read names of the dead and done a “die-in” multiple times in front of Senator Kohl’s office on both the sidewalk and in the street. The forfeiture for such an action has been $109 or its equivalent in community service. The identical action in the food court of a mall results in a forfeiture of $424 as stated on the ticket we received on November 2, 2007. Why is that? Is public property worth only one quarter of the so-called “private property” of a mall?
In short, I ask that you dismiss this charge because it results in an unconstitutional limitation of a citizen’s right to free speech in a public place. Or else at a minimum, I ask that you not penalize us disproportionately by valuing mall property more highly than
public property. The forfeiture for identical acts should be the same whether the action in question took place on a public sidewalk or a public walkway inside a mall. And finally if you do nevertheless find us guilty and impose any forfeiture, I ask that it be paid with community service. Thank you.
*[NOTE Regarding the Major v. Jacobs case which Judge Koval referred to as the controlling law he was required to follow in cases like ours.
The facts in Major v Jacobs were that an anti-nuclear group staged a die-in at East Towne and leafletted at West Towne Mall in Madison to dramatize what would happen if nuclear weapons were used. The malls obtained an injunction forbidding the group from entering the mall. The group violated the injunction, was found guilty of trespass and the case was appealed.
At issue in the Wisconsin Supreme Court was “whether Article I, sec. 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution requires the owners of private property to permit non-consensual use of their facilities by others for freedom of speech purposes.” Article I, Section 3. says: Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.
The majority of the Supreme Court found that Section 3 did not protect the defendants' conduct on plaintiffs' property since state action was not involved and therefore there were no free speech rights on private property. As mentioned in my statement, NJ and CA and several other states have ruled differently in balancing free speech rights and private property rights.
There is very interesting language in the dissenting opinions in Jacobs v. Major. Justice Abrahamson wrote:
In the context of this case, the nongovernmental entities who own and operate regional shopping centers which are promoted as, and function as, community centers are providing "public forums" of a sort previously provided by the government. By restraining political speech in these new "public forums" and asserting a right to control and orchestrate speech in these new centers of community life, these nongovernmental entities present a threat analogous to the specific threat identified by the framers of the Wisconsin Constitution. To be true to the intent of the framers, this court should declare that the constitution protects the individual's right to political speech in "public forums" from interference by these nongovernmental entities.
And Justice Bablitz:
I write to emphasize that fifty years of experience taught a lesson that was not ignored by the framers of the Wisconsin Constitution: that government was not the only entity that can substantially infringe on individual liberties. Accumulations of economic power by nongovernmental entities can, by the use of that power, pose as great a threat to individual liberty as can government.
However, the only way to overturn the current law which holds malls to be private property where citizens have no rights of free speech, is to take a case back to the Supreme Court and convince the majority of the court to rule otherwise. The other alternative is to get the State Legislature (or City Council) to pass a law specifically allowing for free speech in malls.
Anybody up for such a legal challenge or legislative campaign? Contact me at bblock@charter.net
This is the fifth time I have come before you as a result of an act of nonviolent resistance to the war in Iraq. I consider it somewhat akin to an annual check-up to make sure that my rights and responsibilities as a citizen are still healthy.
The sad part is that each time I’ve been arrested for taking a strong public stance calling others to join me in opposition to this war and military occupation, the costs have gone even higher. Hundreds more U.S. troops have died, thousands more have been wounded, tens of thousands more Iraqis have become casualties and billions more dollars have been wasted in this illegal and immoral war.
The need, right, and duty to oppose this war is abundantly clear, so I won’t take up your time. (And attached to my statement is a copy of a letter published in The Capital Times on November 7, 2007 that does detail the reasons for our action.)
Rather I want to raise another issue. I believe that the unlawful trespass charge in the facts before you is an unconstitutional limitation of our rights to free speech. It is a sham to call a shopping mall “private property” Jacobs v. Major, 193 Wisc 2nd 492, 407 NW 2nd 832 (WI 1987) notwithstanding.* New Jersey, California and four states have ruled differently by finding that malls are the present day equivalent of the town square and a place that one can respectfully and nonviolently express one’s dissent.
I would agree that property rights need to be balanced with free speech rights but that doesn’t happen here in Wisconsin. Because of the unfortunate ruling in Jacobs v. Major, mall personnel are able to decide who gets to exercise free speech and who doesn’t. They spend a lot of money to advertise and attract the public to the mall, they allow certain groups in to sing, display, or demonstrate, but call the police because they disagree with anti-war protests. That shouldn’t happen in a democracy.
To top it off Madison’s unlawful trespass ordinance also multiplies the forfeiture for trespass by almost four times over an equivalent “trespass” on a public sidewalk or street. Our group which is part of the National Campaign of Nonviolent Resistance, has done a vigil, read names of the dead and done a “die-in” multiple times in front of Senator Kohl’s office on both the sidewalk and in the street. The forfeiture for such an action has been $109 or its equivalent in community service. The identical action in the food court of a mall results in a forfeiture of $424 as stated on the ticket we received on November 2, 2007. Why is that? Is public property worth only one quarter of the so-called “private property” of a mall?
In short, I ask that you dismiss this charge because it results in an unconstitutional limitation of a citizen’s right to free speech in a public place. Or else at a minimum, I ask that you not penalize us disproportionately by valuing mall property more highly than
public property. The forfeiture for identical acts should be the same whether the action in question took place on a public sidewalk or a public walkway inside a mall. And finally if you do nevertheless find us guilty and impose any forfeiture, I ask that it be paid with community service. Thank you.
*[NOTE Regarding the Major v. Jacobs case which Judge Koval referred to as the controlling law he was required to follow in cases like ours.
The facts in Major v Jacobs were that an anti-nuclear group staged a die-in at East Towne and leafletted at West Towne Mall in Madison to dramatize what would happen if nuclear weapons were used. The malls obtained an injunction forbidding the group from entering the mall. The group violated the injunction, was found guilty of trespass and the case was appealed.
At issue in the Wisconsin Supreme Court was “whether Article I, sec. 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution requires the owners of private property to permit non-consensual use of their facilities by others for freedom of speech purposes.” Article I, Section 3. says: Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.
The majority of the Supreme Court found that Section 3 did not protect the defendants' conduct on plaintiffs' property since state action was not involved and therefore there were no free speech rights on private property. As mentioned in my statement, NJ and CA and several other states have ruled differently in balancing free speech rights and private property rights.
There is very interesting language in the dissenting opinions in Jacobs v. Major. Justice Abrahamson wrote:
In the context of this case, the nongovernmental entities who own and operate regional shopping centers which are promoted as, and function as, community centers are providing "public forums" of a sort previously provided by the government. By restraining political speech in these new "public forums" and asserting a right to control and orchestrate speech in these new centers of community life, these nongovernmental entities present a threat analogous to the specific threat identified by the framers of the Wisconsin Constitution. To be true to the intent of the framers, this court should declare that the constitution protects the individual's right to political speech in "public forums" from interference by these nongovernmental entities.
And Justice Bablitz:
I write to emphasize that fifty years of experience taught a lesson that was not ignored by the framers of the Wisconsin Constitution: that government was not the only entity that can substantially infringe on individual liberties. Accumulations of economic power by nongovernmental entities can, by the use of that power, pose as great a threat to individual liberty as can government.
However, the only way to overturn the current law which holds malls to be private property where citizens have no rights of free speech, is to take a case back to the Supreme Court and convince the majority of the court to rule otherwise. The other alternative is to get the State Legislature (or City Council) to pass a law specifically allowing for free speech in malls.
Anybody up for such a legal challenge or legislative campaign? Contact me at bblock@charter.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
