Browsed by
Category: Human Rights

No Permanent Bases in Iraq – Sign Biden’s Petition

No Permanent Bases in Iraq – Sign Biden’s Petition

Comments 1 comment

I support Senator Biden’s Amendment to bar any funds from being used to establish permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq or to control Iraq’s oil. I disagree with Biden’s stated opinion on the following points: I don’t think it’s at all “obvious to most Americans” that we have no designs or Iraq’s oil or strategic control of bases, nor do I believe that such topics can so easily be pushed off into the realm of “conspiracy theory” tinfoil-hatland anymore. I don’t even believe that for many Americans the idea of our being there to get “our oil out from under their sand” is a significant ethical issue. Sometimes it seems that even “freedom and democracy” is just insider code for “steal our natural resources.” Maybe it’s just me… In any case, it’s significant that the provision that both the Senate and the House had separately approved was stripped from the bill. It’s significant that this administration will not say that we aren’t building permanent bases. By some accounts, they are already nearing completion.

No Permanent Bases in Iraq.
Sign Senator Joe Biden’s petition.

Last week, the Senate and House voted on a joint emergency spending bill to support our troops in Iraq. That’s the good news. The bad news is that Republicans stripped out a key provision proposed by me and Representative Barbara Lee – and that the Senate and House had each separately approved — that would bar any funds from being used to establish permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq or to control Iraq’s oil.

That will make life even more difficult for our men and women in uniform and undercut our nation’s broader effort against terrorism.

While it may be obvious to most Americans that we don’t intend to stay in Iraq indefinitely and that we have no designs on its oil, such conspiracy theories are accepted as fact by many Iraqis. In an opinion poll conducted by the University of Maryland in January 2006, 80 percent of Iraqis – and 92 percent of the Sunni Arabs — believe we have plans to establish permanent military bases.

These views extend well beyond Iraq. In a 2004 Pew Charitable Trust survey, majorities in all four Muslim states surveyed — Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan, and Morocco — believed that control of Mideast oil was an important factor in our invasion of Iraq.

Why do Iraqis and the rest of the region believe we want permanent bases? Why do they think we would subject ourselves to the enormous ongoing costs in Iraq? Do they think we want their sand? No, they think we want their oil.

Osama bin Laden and like-minded jihadists use the U.S. “occupation” and their assertion that we aim to steal the region’s oil as rallying cries in their regular calls to arms.

Before we dismiss the resonance of their propaganda, we must remember what Iraqis have been through in the past three decades: three wars and a tyrannical regime that turned paranoia into a way of life. And there’s a longer history, too: 400 years of British and Ottoman occupation have led to a deeply ingrained suspicion of foreign military presence.

Our military leadership understands the importance of this issue. Last September, General John Abizaid, the commander of all US troops in the Middle East, told Congress: “We must make clear to the people of the region we have no designs on their territory or resources.”

No Permanent Bases in Iraq.

Against this backdrop, I had hoped the Congress would speak clearly because the Bush Administration has not.

To my knowledge, President Bush has never explicitly stated that we will not establish permanent bases in Iraq. And both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State have left the door open to do just that.

In February, Secretary Rumsfeld told the Senate Committee on Armed Services: “We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.”

That same month, in response to a question about our policy on bases from my colleague Senator John Kerry, Secretary Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “I don’t want to in this forum try to prejudice everything that might happen way into the future.”

Just last Thursday, columnist Helen Thomas asked the White House press secretary to unambiguously declare that the United States will not seek permanent bases in Iraq. Again, the press secretary could not unequivocally declare this to be the case.

The failure to speak clearly on this issue feeds the conspiracy theories and vindicates those who ascribe the worst intentions to the United States. They also make it that much more difficult to win the battle for the hearts and minds of 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Our success in that battle will determine our success in the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism.

I’ve introduced the amendment again, to the Defense (Authorization) bill that is now being debated by the Senate. It may not immediately change a lot of minds on the ground or in the region. But it can mark the beginning of a sustained effort to demonstrate through words and deeds that we have no intention of controlling Iraq’s oil or staying there forever.

It’s beyond time for the American people to have spoken clearly on this important issue. The Bush Administration has not.

But we can.

Please sign the petition to support our efforts to convince the world that we have no desire for permanent bases in Iraq or to control that country’s oil.

No Permanent Bases in Iraq.

Propaganda Action: Tell FCC to Enforce Fake News Ban

Propaganda Action: Tell FCC to Enforce Fake News Ban

Comments 0 Comment

The Center for Media and Democracy has produced a report that documents 98 instances that TV stations used “fake news” – segments that look like journalism but are actually produced to sell a product – by corporations like Pfizer, Intel, General Motors, and Capital One.

Last year, the New York Times (13 March 2005) reported that at least 20 federal agencies also distributed “Video News Releases” on topics such as Iraq and the Medicare prescription drug act.

The FCC announced that it would investigate fake news, but there’s no sign yet that they intend even to enforce their own rules banning it. Such “fake news” segments are required to clearly disclose the fact that they are produced by the government or other entities.

Send a message to FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, urging him to enforce the ban on fake news (True Majority)

White House Switchboard

White House Switchboard

Comments 3 comments

Political comedy email making the rounds…

“Thank you for calling the White House switchboard. Our new voice activated system will help direct you to the proper office.”

“If you are calling to complain about the mishandling of the war in Iraq, press one.”

“If you are calling to complain about the abuse of prisoners and the White House’s endorsement of torture, press two, and then say the name of the torture site that you wish to complain about (and please note for the sake of the voice mail system that it is pronounced Abu GRABE, not Abu grahb).”

“If you are calling to complain about illegal spying on American citizens and the abuse of FISA laws, press 3, but do know that these calls will be recorded.”

“If you are calling to complain about the disastrous mismanagement of the hurricane Katrina recovery, please press 4, and your call will be directed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If you wait for more than 48 hours without anyone picking up the phone, hang-up and send a letter. We have been assured that all letters will receive a prompt reply within one year.”

“If you are calling regarding the administration’s unwillingness to enforce immigration law, press cinco, por favor, or direct any thanks to your local chamber of commerce office, which can explain why we like cheap labor that can’t vote and where you may be able to find willing illegal day laborers in your local area.”

“If you are Jack Abramoff or any Saudi prince, please call the private line * it is always open.”

“If you are calling about the Medicare prescription debacle, please press 6. If you are having a medical emergency, you should proceed directly to your local emergency room, although please understand that your health coverage may not pay for the visit and you can no longer get out from under the bill by declaring bankruptcy.”

“If you are calling about the ballooning federal deficit or the recent hike in the debt ceiling to $3 trillion, please press 7, unless you are Bill Clinton calling to brag about the surpluses under your administration, in which case we don’t want to hear about it.”

“If you are calling to complain about the White House’s efforts to block stem cell research, please press 8, and then say the disease that you are most concerned about that may ultimately be cured through scientific
research. If you are a scientist calling with new research findings or important clinical data, please hang up, we don’t want to hear from you.”

“If you are calling to express concern about global warming and our efforts to roll back environmental laws, please press 9, unless you are a government scientist, in which case you are forbidden to talk without first clearing it with the oil lobbyist we hired to screen and edit your research. He can be reached at Exxon 4-2611.”

“If you are calling to complain about the President’s efforts to “privatize” social security, please press 1 and then the pound key, and your call will be redirected to representatives at Merrill Lynch, who will explain the
virtues of putting all your savings in the stock market.”

“If you are calling about the need for more prayer in public schools or any other faith-based initiatives, please press 1 and then the star key, and Reverend Falwell will be with you shortly.”

“If you are calling to lobby for more Supreme Court Justices who will block a woman’s right to choose, please stay on the line and the President will be with you immediately.”

“If you are calling about all the tax breaks for the wealthy, press *1 if you have ideas for more loopholes and are making more than a million dollars per year; if you are earning less than a million per year but have ideas for how you may help the wealthy, press *2; if you are earning less than a million per year and just want to complain that all the burden is now falling on you, please call back in a couple of years.”

“If you voted for President Bush and are now concerned that over 12% of the U.S. population now falls below the poverty line while the top 1% has wildly increased their wealth, please understand that we are not laughing AT you.”

“Press zero at any time if you would like to hear these options again.”

“Thank you for calling the White House. It is our pleasure to serve you.”

(Thanks Corinne!)

What greater mockery of the flag?

What greater mockery of the flag?

Comments 1 comment

In the previous post, I made mention of the language of the sacred. If the government decrees that the flag is sacred, does that violate the separation of church and state?

As may be, it’s actually going to come to a vote in the Senate. We may only be able to sit and watch our government amend the First Amendment to restrict political freedom of expression.

So this seems to be the overall plan – get as much power away from the judicial branch as possible by handing it to Congress and the executive branch. Where Congress isn’t pliant enough, then disempower Congress, and focus on executive power.

The US Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that the First Amendment to the Constitution protected Americans’ right to desecrate the flag as a means of free expression. Interesting – the majority opinion was joined by Scalia.

Back in 1997, Dr. Roger Pilon, Ph.D., J.D broke with colleagues at the libertarian/conservative think tank Cato Institute in his testimony before the Subcommittee on the Judiciary of the House. It’s worth a read – here’s my favorite part:

Sir Winston Churchill captured well that essential feature of our system when he observed in 1945 that “the United States is a land of free speech. Nowhere is speech freer–not even [in England], where we sedulously cultivate it even in its most repulsive forms.” In so observing, Churchill was merely echoing thoughts attributed to Voltaire, that he may disapprove of what you say but would defend to the death your right to say it, and the ironic question of Benjamin Franklin: “Abuses of the freedom of speech ought to be repressed; but to whom are we to commit the power of doing it?”

When so many for so long have understood the principles at issue today, how can this Congress so lightly abandon those principles? It is said by some that the flag is a special case, a unique symbol. That claim may be true, but it does not go to the principle of the matter: in a free society, individuals have a right to express themselves, even in offensive ways. Once we bar such expression, however, Franklin’s question will immediately be upon us. What is more, we will soon find that the flag is not unique, that the Bible and much else will next be in line for special protection.

It is said also that the flag is special because men have fought and died for it. Let me suggest in response that men have fought and died not for the flag but for the principles it represents. People give their lives for principles, not for symbols. When we dishonor those principles, to protect their symbol, we dishonor the men who died to preserve them. That is not a business this Congress should be about. We owe it to those men, men who have made the ultimate sacrifice, to resist the pressures of the moment so that we may preserve the principles of the ages.

After all, free expression and the right to dissent are among the core principles that the American flag is meant to represent. What greater defacement of the flag can there be than to shift its meaning into something that makes a mockery of American values and rights? Freedom of expression is one of the the truest tests of our dedication to the principles that our flag is supposed to represent.

Flag Issue History – Resources

Three countries ban flag-burning – Quick! Who are they?

Iran | China | Cuba

Iraq for Sale

Iraq for Sale

Comments 0 Comment

Private military contractors are earning billions of dollars in Iraq — much of it from U.S. taxpayers. “Lucrative U.S. government contracts go to firms called on to provide security for projects and personnel — jobs that in previous conflicts have been done by the military” (and under military regulations).

From Hunter at Daily Kos, on the Aegis contractor video (complete with Elvis soundtrack):

And so the circle — or spiral — continues. For those with short memories, it was the alleged misconduct of armed contractors in Iraq that led to the killing and public display of four of them, hanging from a bridge… which led to two separate massive retaliatory assaults against Fallujah… which led to a widespread backlash in Iraq… which led to, among other things, a widened insurgency… which contributed to a situation in Iraq in which armed contractors are necessary for protection of private clients… which led to the alleged misconduct of several of them…

Keep an eye out for Robert Greenwald’s Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers in the fall. The argument of the film wil be that the ones who benefit from the war are Bush’s and Cheney’s friends in construction, security, services, and oil. Here’s a taste:

Oppose Flag Idolatry

Oppose Flag Idolatry

Comments 7 comments

Oppose the “Flag Anti-desecration” Amendment.

First off, notice the language of religion and the sacred here. To “desecrate” is to violate the sacredness of something. To be “anti-desecration” is to be against the violation of the sacred. This assumes that the flag is holy, sacred, sanctified, blessed, consecrated.

The American flag should not be made into a golden calf, a graven image; to worship the symbol would be a grave mistake.*

Making a “holy” thing of the American flag is a form of idolatry. The flag is only a piece of cloth. It is wrong to worship a flag. (On this one issue I still agree with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.)

The flag is, at its best, an emblem or symbol of the United States of America. To focus on the symbol is a way of forgetting that to which it points. What it’s meant to stand for are things like our constitutionally-protected rights and values, our freedom, our democracy. (Unfortunately, in some places it stands for other things.)

It is also symbolic of America that we don’t worship a flag. Have one, don’t worship it. We have freedom of expression. Criticism of actions and policies of our government is also a form of patriotism, and part of a functional democracy in the land of the free.

The more important and “sacred” the flag becomes, the uglier the country becomes (including ours). There is a huge difference between patriotism and nationalism. Self-aborbed nationalism is a dead end in our world. We are crossing that line into a major fall already.

Of course, if they somehow pass this thing, a lot of Americans are going to be in deep trouble some weeks after Independence Day (you know, that celebration now referred to as “4th of July”) when ratty flags start getting reported. Maybe that’s one way to start people snitching on one another. Maybe it would even stop the practice of requiring that international students pledge their loyalty in homeroom to a piece of cloth that signifies a country that isn’t even theirs. Or not. (I wonder how many Americans would tolerate that in another country?)

Why are these pseudo-Christians so tied up with flag issues? You’d think they might see the idolatry in it, but maybe not. The current governor of Georgia got elected on the Confederate flag.

What a cowardly path to take. With so many more important issues and challenges facing us, this transparently political strategy is yet another issue aimed at igniting hate and fanning its flames. Like so many other interpretations held by this administration, it is profoundly anti-American. I suppose that anyone who happens to mention that freedom of expression is a Constitutional right, and that enforced patriotism in a democracy seems a little strange will then be called “treasonous”?

We would do better in this global economy to open up to other friendly countries, rather than set ourselves so pridefully and arrogantly above all others. We aren’t in the Crusades or the Inquisitions or the Witch Hunts (not yet anyway). We’re not going to accept Bush as a king, an emperor, or (a) god.

We’re not ready to say “Heil,” not even in Georgia.

The flag itself is meaningful as a symbol of our freedom and democracy, neither of which seem particularly valuable to this administration.

Oppose the “Flag Anti-desecration” Amendment. Oppose flag idolatry.

Oh, and Congress? Get off this constitutional amendment kick. We all know you have something better to do.

*Nelson, I rewrote this a bit after yr email (but yes, it’s a pun). Post revised June 14th.