06 December 2007
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.
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.
05 December 2007
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.
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.
03 December 2007
29 November 2007
What if the Occupier Were to Come to this Land
What if it were you. What if, for example, a foreign country X decided that it was in its best interests to invade YOUR country. Let's use water as an example here. What if Country X was worried about running out of water. It's people were in danger, in the not so distant future, of not having sufficient water to live normally.
So Country X started to think about how important it is economically that mostly everyone have enough water to function normally. So they start to buy water from foreign countries. At first a little, then some more, then a lot. This goes on for some time, and most people are mostly happy. Country X starts to build a big military so that it can protect its water interests in the future, because it looks like there might not be enough for everyone in the world to have enough. And they want to make sure that they have access to enough for themselves.
At some point, Country X runs into some major water problems. There is fast approaching a point where there is just not enough supply to meet growing demands... And yuck, they even managed to contaminate large amounts of their own native supplies. Whoops. But damn, wasn't building that military a good idea. Because you know what, Country X is now able to go into other countries and take water without asking. In fact, this idea of using military conquest for resource control even has the potential to be lucrative for those who know how to work it.
What if this were to happen? What if it were to happen to you? What if you found soldiers from Country X in your city, hooking up hoses to your artesian well and shipping it back, perhaps even across an ocean to another continent. Hooking up to the water that you have always depended on for your quality of life in order to supply its own people with enough water so that they can function normally? Don't worry they say - they will start to pay you for the water once they hold elections and establish a new government.
This is what is happening in Iraq. The US is piping oil from Iraq to ships that then bring it to the USA.
I like the old adage that you get what you give.
I want the USA to be aware of how it wages wars for control over resources. Because it might come back to haunt "us" someday. Maybe there is a Country X somewhere out there, polluting its own water resources, watching its supplies struggle to keep up with demands in the face of a growing, and thirsty, population - and anticipating a time when it may be necessary to occupy other countries in order to ensure its own access to sufficient water supplies. Water, oil, air, land. Isn't it time that we figure out ways to use and share the resources of this planet responsibly so that aggressive wars of control over resources are not necessary in the first place?
There are other options besides fueling an addiction to easy petroleum. We need to explore those alternatives if we care about human rights and human dignity. There will be other options, in the future, besides waging wars over who gets access to the world's great water supplies. We can enable those options by speaking out against the great crime of our day - the aggressive crusade for control over oil in Iraq.
Water, unlike petroleum, is absolutely necessary to life on Earth. We need to learn how (if we care about the well-being of future generations) to share and use the Earth's resources responsibly before major wars over water erupt. Because it might just be us who wake up to occupiers in our own backyard.
So Country X started to think about how important it is economically that mostly everyone have enough water to function normally. So they start to buy water from foreign countries. At first a little, then some more, then a lot. This goes on for some time, and most people are mostly happy. Country X starts to build a big military so that it can protect its water interests in the future, because it looks like there might not be enough for everyone in the world to have enough. And they want to make sure that they have access to enough for themselves.
At some point, Country X runs into some major water problems. There is fast approaching a point where there is just not enough supply to meet growing demands... And yuck, they even managed to contaminate large amounts of their own native supplies. Whoops. But damn, wasn't building that military a good idea. Because you know what, Country X is now able to go into other countries and take water without asking. In fact, this idea of using military conquest for resource control even has the potential to be lucrative for those who know how to work it.
What if this were to happen? What if it were to happen to you? What if you found soldiers from Country X in your city, hooking up hoses to your artesian well and shipping it back, perhaps even across an ocean to another continent. Hooking up to the water that you have always depended on for your quality of life in order to supply its own people with enough water so that they can function normally? Don't worry they say - they will start to pay you for the water once they hold elections and establish a new government.
This is what is happening in Iraq. The US is piping oil from Iraq to ships that then bring it to the USA.
I like the old adage that you get what you give.
I want the USA to be aware of how it wages wars for control over resources. Because it might come back to haunt "us" someday. Maybe there is a Country X somewhere out there, polluting its own water resources, watching its supplies struggle to keep up with demands in the face of a growing, and thirsty, population - and anticipating a time when it may be necessary to occupy other countries in order to ensure its own access to sufficient water supplies. Water, oil, air, land. Isn't it time that we figure out ways to use and share the resources of this planet responsibly so that aggressive wars of control over resources are not necessary in the first place?
There are other options besides fueling an addiction to easy petroleum. We need to explore those alternatives if we care about human rights and human dignity. There will be other options, in the future, besides waging wars over who gets access to the world's great water supplies. We can enable those options by speaking out against the great crime of our day - the aggressive crusade for control over oil in Iraq.
Water, unlike petroleum, is absolutely necessary to life on Earth. We need to learn how (if we care about the well-being of future generations) to share and use the Earth's resources responsibly before major wars over water erupt. Because it might just be us who wake up to occupiers in our own backyard.
Ken Silverstein Interview with Douglas MacGregor
This is an excerpt of an interview of Retired Army Officer Douglas MacGregor, by Ken Silverstein, from Harper's Magazine.
go to originalread more
1. How big of a change has there been in recent months in the military situation in Iraq?
The situation on the ground has definitely changed, but not for the reasons the Bush Administration and its generals claim. The main reasons include cash-based deals with Sunni leaders and Shiite leader Muqtada al Sadr’s independent decision earlier this year to temporarily restrain his Mahdi army from attacking U.S. forces...
2. Has the “surge” in troop levels played an important role here as well?
Not really. Where once there was one country called Iraq, there are now three emerging states: one Kurdish, one Sunni, and one Shiite. More than two years of sectarian violence have left districts in and around Baghdad completely Sunni or completely Shiite, and that has significantly reduced violence in those districts and resulted in fewer bodies in the streets. This new strategic reality, combined with huge cash payments to the Sunni insurgent enemy, is what has given U.S. forces a respite from the chaos of the last four years. The introduction of a few thousand additional troops into Baghdad’s neighborhoods was never going to result in any kind of strategic sea change...
28 November 2007
Haunting Lesson from Vietnam
The Vietnam 'war' was horrible. There are horror stories about life in the jungle and the killing of innocent civilians in acts so brutal that it causes, for me, emotional shock. Some stories have already surfaced about horrible stories from Iraq like Haditha, and the siege of Falluja. I wonder what, and how many, horror stories will continue surface, in time, about the current 'war' (of occupation) in Iraq. Here's an excerpt from a Robert Parry article about one horrible incident from the Vietnam War. The article is entitled The Truth About Colin Powell:
...
My Lai
On March 16, 1968, a bloodied unit of the Americal Division stormed into a hamlet known as My Lai 4.
With military helicopters circling overhead, revenge-seeking American soldiers rousted Vietnamese civilians – mostly old men, women and children – from their thatched huts and herded them into the village’s irrigation ditches.
As the round-up continued, some Americans raped the girls. Then, under orders from junior officers on the ground, soldiers began emptying their M-16s into the terrified peasants.
Some parents used their bodies futilely to shield their children from the bullets. Soldiers stepped among the corpses to finish off the wounded.
The slaughter raged for four hours. A total of 347 Vietnamese, including babies, died in the carnage.
...
27 November 2007
TJ Johnson and Laura Ware, Olympia City Councilors
Video of TJ Johnson, Mayor Foutch, and Laura Ware, Olympia City Council Members as they spoke during a Council Meeting on November 20th about recent protests at the Port of Olympia:
25 November 2007
22 November 2007
Civil Resistance - Nonviolent Direct Action
Scott McClellan is due to release a book in which he allegedly names names regarding the outing of Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie "Plame," as a covert CIA operative. Wilson had published an OP-ED in the NYT [linked], in which he called into question the veracity of Bush Administration claims of a specific threat from Iraqi WMD. According to McClellan, high officials (Bush, Cheney, Rove, among them) were involved in the outing. Read more about McClellan's new book here [salon] or here.
News has also breached the wire of another failure in the Democratic Congress to pass a bill that would require the substantial withdrawal of the US military from Iraq. (If that link doesn't work, try this one ["Dems bill on Iraq wouldn't end war"].)
The current system is not working. I want to stop the war. I want to protect our soldiers from being coerced into fighting an improper and unnecessary, aggressive war of occupation. I want to protect the Iraqi people from the harms that the occupation has wrought.
I want to see a civil resistance to this delinquent federal government. I believe that one of the most effective tactics that we can use is nonviolent direct action.
Remember that the democrats, elected under a mandate to end the (illegal, immoral, etc.) aggressive war of occupation - are not living up to their mandate. Congress, and the Democratic wing in particular, are derelict in their duty to exercise oversight.
The burden falls upon us, "the People," to enforce the rules that govern society. These rules (e.g. against aggressive war making) exist for the benefit of all people.
Wars of occupation that are designed to control natural resources - like the war over oil in Iraq - are inherently unjust and do immeasurable harm - to human beings, and to humanity in general.
There exists within all of us a human capacity to care, and to respond out of heartfelt emotions.
These deaths and this suffering never needed to happen.
Please, ask of yourself, what can I do to make it so my government doesn't wage unnecessary and illegal aggressive wars?
We, as regular people, can have an impact. We can have a beneficial impact. We can work to stop needless suffering.
News has also breached the wire of another failure in the Democratic Congress to pass a bill that would require the substantial withdrawal of the US military from Iraq. (If that link doesn't work, try this one ["Dems bill on Iraq wouldn't end war"].)
The current system is not working. I want to stop the war. I want to protect our soldiers from being coerced into fighting an improper and unnecessary, aggressive war of occupation. I want to protect the Iraqi people from the harms that the occupation has wrought.I want to see a civil resistance to this delinquent federal government. I believe that one of the most effective tactics that we can use is nonviolent direct action.
Remember that the democrats, elected under a mandate to end the (illegal, immoral, etc.) aggressive war of occupation - are not living up to their mandate. Congress, and the Democratic wing in particular, are derelict in their duty to exercise oversight.
The burden falls upon us, "the People," to enforce the rules that govern society. These rules (e.g. against aggressive war making) exist for the benefit of all people.
Wars of occupation that are designed to control natural resources - like the war over oil in Iraq - are inherently unjust and do immeasurable harm - to human beings, and to humanity in general.
There exists within all of us a human capacity to care, and to respond out of heartfelt emotions.These deaths and this suffering never needed to happen.
Please, ask of yourself, what can I do to make it so my government doesn't wage unnecessary and illegal aggressive wars?
We, as regular people, can have an impact. We can have a beneficial impact. We can work to stop needless suffering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)