Protest Trial Update

Wednesday 1 June 2011
Information about trespassing trial, pleaded guilty today. News here: olyblog.net/protest-trial-tomorrow

[The following are thoughts I had the day after:

It's Thursday morning. I woke up with the feeling that I had been railroaded by the prosecution into a guilty plea. I was led to believe that I wouldn't be afforded a public defender because the prosecution was not seeking jail time. However, the judge made it apparent that if we were to pursue a plea of not guilty then, based on financial need, a public defense might be possible.

Now it seems that I have a federal criminal record...but I think most people will understand that my actions were based in altruism, and my actions and those of my co-defendants were also very respectful of humanity and all life on this planet.

Thursday afternoon: The actions of my government leave me feeling depressed. I know this is a simplified way of looking at the situation, because the problem is much deeper and bigger than "the government." The problem is actually socio-cultural. And it is about the political-economic that is built on that socio-cultural phenomenon.

I have thought (many times, and for many years previous to now) of suing the government for inflicting emotional and psychological harm.

As someone who cares about humanity and all life on the planet, the actions and policies of my government leave me feeling depressed.]

Truth and Justice

When the government cannot tell the truth, how can it serve justice?


www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/guantanamo-files-detainees-lawyers-restricted-leaked-documents.html

Government (sort of) pretends that classified files have not been released by Wikileaks: according to one expert, the situation "looks ridiculous."

original size: farm6.static.flickr.com/5306/5662611301_4e65faa672_o.jpg

[a couple more recent NYT articles about this: http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/nine-years-779-people-guantanamo-bay-and-the-implications-of-the-files/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/28gitmo.html]

Washington State Budget Protest Update!

More updates on my flickr site, http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwhitlock/ and OlyBlog, http://olyblog.net/blog/berd.

The following is from a couple emails I sent, one to the Fair Budget Coalition and Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace listserves, and another to my Washington State legislators:

Hey everyone, congratulations on the week so far. Tuesday was awesome, and then Wednesday was even more awesome!

The Backbone Campaign [http://backbonecampaign.org] is encouraging people to contact their legislators. I think it makes sense to communicate with them about the reasons we are demonstrating too. more information at http://backbonecampaign.org

Here's a note I sent to Gov. Gregoire:

Dear Governor Gregoire, I support the people who are occupying the Capitol Building, and I want to join in saying, "no excuses." There is no excuse for anti-social budget cuts at a time when there has never been more wealth in society. Wealth must be taxed. Wealth must give back to society from which it was garnered!

No Excuses!: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwhitlock/5596842492/

I also posted photos from Wednesday here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwhitlock/sets/72157626445019320/

and a hastily edited video (which might disappear if I re-do it) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZnX66zEV20

berd

Dear Senator Fraser and Representatives Hunt and Reykdal,

I am writing to express my support for protests against the budget this week. I am sure that
you're all similarly inclined toward more progressive taxation. So the purpose of my letter may
be less to persuade, than to make sure you know that there are many people amongst your
constituency whom are interested in basic changes to the state revenue system. I have heard of
polls that indicate nearly 70% support taxing wealth in order to fund social services.

The demonstrations this week illustrate the urgency of this problem. For example, people are
losing their homes at a time when the economic elite control a massive proportion of society's
wealth, and at a time when there are not enough jobs, much less dignified jobs with living
wages.

You have my support in vigorous and assertive approach to this problem. Wealth that is
garnered from society, must be taxed and returned to society, in order to maintain the
commonwealth. People need fairness and equity.

There is class warfare, and I want government to protect the poor against avarice and predation
in the marketplace.

Thank you!

Berd Whitlock
[address
Olympia, WA]

Poverty is not caused by personal defect, it is not an individual problem. Poverty is a social problem.

Do Ecosystems Have Rights?

Why do corporations have rights when living ecosystems do not?

Please watch this very important, interesting, and powerful speech by Mari Margil.

Mari Margil speaks to the 2009 Bioneers conference in the spirit of The Lorax:
Protecting Against Environmental Degradation by Recognizing the Rights of Nature

I am also reminded about another set of important videos that have powerful ideas to share.

The Story of Stuff. And also The Story of Cap and Trade.

There are also a couple other videos in the production queue.

This is really really awesome work by Annie Leonard. Please also take time to see these important videos. http://www.storyofstuff.com/

It's all good food for thought.

Who Would Jesus Bomb

Who would Jesus bomb?

Christmas Day, 2009

Olympia Fellowship of Reconciliation Peace Vigil

Percival Landing, Olympia, Washington

War is immoral. All war begins with aggression. Aggression is immoral. Military aggression is widely considered immoral, and there are numerous international legally binding treaties established against war of aggression. It is probably unanimous amongst international political bodies that aggression is immoral and illegal. How could it not be? If stealing is illegal, if rape is illegal, if murder is illegal - then how could the most horrendous violence possible - the violence of a war of aggression - ever be considered legal.

Self-defense is one thing. A reasonable and proportional self-defense against immediate attack. But the wars of the United States of America are a different beast. The wars of the USA are not truly self-defense - nor a legitimate protection of "national interest." What the wars of the USA defend is the selfishness and the greed of the USA. The wars are an effort to further international policies of and practices of oppression and exploitation, under which the USA operates. The wars of the USA do not truly defend the national interest. The wars and international policies of the USA defend the corporate interest - the interest of the most influential and powerful (typically multi-national) giant corporations.

War is immoral. For good reason. War is the worst violence known to humanity. War is waste. It is oblivion. War is destruction defined.

People and nations have a right to defend themselves. But people and nations do not have a right - and in fact they betray the rights of all people - when they commit the crime of a war of aggression.

The wars of the USA are aggressive wars - imperialistic wars - wars designed to further the establishment of dominance - of global hegemony.

I believe that the imperialism of the USA, and the giant corporations that are its keepers, is the worst violence known to modern humanity.

But this perspective - these truths - are very effectively kept away from the American people by a revolving door between cultural affectation, and a media structure that feed off of, and create, each other.

There is a horrible myth in today's America, and to a lesser extent in today's world. It is the myth that America is the greatest nation on Earth - when in reality, the very opposite may be true. It may be more true that America is the worst nation on Earth - that America is the world's greatest perpetrator of violence and oppression - even to the point of wars of aggression, conquest and imperialism.

In America, terrible violence is part of mainstream culture. In America, there is a disparity in wealth between rich and poor that is maintained through systematic oppression.

In America, some people make profit when bombs are dropped. People profit when wars are waged. People profit from all sorts of harmful, destructive and violent economic (and anti-economic) activities!

So, really, I ask you to please answer this question: who would Jesus bomb?

Hold the Torturers Accountable

Hold the Torturers Accountable

Video in which Cheney admits to criminal activity:


Here's another version of the video, direct from FNS:

Laura Nader | When the Rule of Law is Illegal

Precautionary Principle

According to Wikipedia, there are already some jurisdictions in Europe use the precautionary principle as a matter of policy. It would be great to get the precautionary principle into the legal structure here in the USA. I was alerted to this concept most recently by reading this article, First, Do No Harm, in the January/February 2006 issue of World Watch Magazine.



I found this copy of the magazine at the Free Store, which has all sorts of stuff that people drop off and leave for others to pick up for free.

Here's the Wikipedia precautionary principle article introduction:

The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.[1] The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation. In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
date accessed: July 23, 2009

Letter to President George W. Bush

I have been thinking about writing a letter to George W. Bush. I got the idea yesterday while meditating and sign-holding at a weekly peace vigil. I am furious with President Bush for driving the USA into an unnecessary war, costing trillions of dollars, the lives of so many people, and causing immense environmental and social degradation.

So I want to write him and tell him how I feel, and some of my observations about his behavior.

I want to vent. So I think I'll do that here, rather than in a personal letter to the President, because a lot of the things that I want to say aren't necessarily constructive or nonviolent. I feel better already.

I wonder if the President George W. Bush has a conscience. Does he feel any genuine sorrow or remorse about (allegedly) intentionally using deceit to drive the nation into an unnecessary war?

Does he care about the lives of others? Perhaps the Bohemian Grove "Cremation of Care" ceremonies have been too effective for the President. Perhaps he was born without a conscience.

Anyway, this man must be held accountable. So I am somewhat hopeful and optimistic, with all sorts of new information coming out, and new efforts being made toward the goal of investigating official misconduct, and holding those responsible for grievous breaches of the public trust, to account for their actions.

Check out the new Bill Moyers Journal program with Andrew J. Bacevich: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html

Also please see information about Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine

Short Film on Shock Doctrine:


and

Ron Suskind's The Way of the World

The War is Illegal

This is something that I whipped up on the "haloscan" comments section of The Olympian newspaper. I have edited it slightly for publication here:

The war can reasonably be understood to be illegal. Let me illustrate by using a couple of examples. Say that an underage person enters a tavern and uses a piece of fake identification to purchase and consume an alcoholic beverage. The purchase and consumption by an underage patron is not lawful, even if he or she is never called into question. Another example: if a corporation or other entity uses false evidence and makes false claims in order to justify a particular action - then its actions can rightly be understood to be illegal - it's called fraud.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, prominent officials within the Bush Administration made (and continue to make) false claims about the threat that Iraq posed (primarily via WMD.)

Just because Congress (in a condition of delinquency) has not exercised appropriate and necessary oversight authority - just because the Bush Administration's conspiracy to defraud the Congress and the People has not been tried in a court of law - doesn't mean that the Bush Administration has not violated relevant laws. The law of the land is clear. To wage an aggressive military action is highly illegal (and immoral.)

Because the matter has not (to my knowledge) been reconciled in an appropriate court of law, and because Congress has failed to exercise appropriate oversight authority, the burden falls on The People.

There were no WMD in Iraq to threaten either the USA or its allies. There was not proper justification for the invasion.

It can be rightly understood that the invasion was an aggressive military action - motivated by the aspiration amongst certain prominent Bush Administration officials to control the petroleum resource of Iraq.

Therefore, the use of the municipal Port of Olympia to further and enable the continuously aggressive occupation of Iraq is inappropriate, and unlawful, in a very real sense.

Millions of people in Iraq are suffering right now, because of the belligerent war making of the Bush Administration.

The Uniformed Services of the USA are being misused and abused to further an aggressive foreign occupation.

We have an opportunity, right here in Olympia, to do something about it.

Rather than recouping the costs from PMR Protesters whose only motive was to further the causes of peace and justice, I argue that the costs of the protests should be paid by those who profit off of an unjust and unlawful aggressive military action.

Taking the Bush Administration to Task, Taking the President, et al., to Court

Why hasn't the Bush Administration, or Prominent Officials therein, been taken to task - and taken to court - over alleged improprieties relating to the invasion of Iraq? These allegations include, but are not limited to, the deliberate falsification of facts, and "evidence," in order to "justify" invasion and occupation.

I wish that a Federal Court would hear a case in regard to the various alleged improprieties of the Bush Administration.

The case that the Bush Administration made false claims about the threat from Iraq in order to justify invasion is very strong. Look at some of the reasons that this case hasn't been tried in court.

We have to take into consideration the reasons that such a case hasn't materialized (at least to my knowledge.) I think first and foremost among these reasons is that such a case might be considered political (which it is not.) But the claim that it might be motivated by politics might enable a court to avoid hearing it. Also, look at who has the legal resources in this country and who doesn't. The people who are suffering the most from this war do happen to be the people who have comparatively less access to legal recourse. Also, I think that it can be difficult to try a case of this nature because of the general nature of the claim (I very well might be wrong about this though - certainly there are enough specific examples of alleged wrongdoing to build an effective claim, or set of claims...).

I am not a legal expert. But I know that such a case might be difficult to approach for a number of reasons. Care to chime in?

This post was inspired by commentary on OlyBlog regarding the recent violent opposition by the Olympia Police Department to the nonviolent attempts of peace activists to stop the war in Olympia Washington.

Close Guantanamo Bay Prison for the Right Reasons

This reason is not one of the right reasons to close Guantanamo Bay:

The right reasons include habeas corpus - the right to a fair trial. The men and boys being held at Guantanamo may not be guilty of plotting against the USA. It is unfair, as well as immoral and inhumane to confine a person when there is no justification to do so. Essentially, once confined, the confinement must be justified in a timely manner.

The American Empire and "Blowback"

I love America: the diversity of people and ideas, the geography, the natural beauty, the opportunity, among many other aspects, make this a great place to live; and a great place to fight for the future of - a better future without the threat of global economic hegemonists barking for more bloodletting. I love America, but not Empire. I have a vision for a future America that is free of imperial pursuits. That's why I am posting this:

Chalmers Johnson
Empire v. Democracy
...
I had set out to explain how exactly our government came to be so hated around the world. As a CIA term of tradecraft, "blowback" does not just mean retaliation for things our government has done to, and in, foreign countries. It refers specifically to retaliation for illegal operations carried out abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public. These operations have included the clandestine overthrow of governments various administrations did not like, the training of foreign militaries in the techniques of state terrorism, the rigging of elections in foreign countries, interference with the economic viability of countries that seemed to threaten the interests of influential American corporations, as well as the torture or assassination of selected foreigners. The fact that these actions were, at least originally, secret meant that when retaliation does come -- as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 -- the American public is incapable of putting the events in context. Not surprisingly, then, Americans tend to support speedy acts of revenge intended to punish the actual, or alleged, perpetrators. These moments of lashing out, of course, only prepare the ground for yet another cycle of blowback.
...

go to original