Although Occupy has disappeared from headlines, anti-military activism is on the rise

No 751 Posted by fw, May 20, 2013

David Swanson joins Paul Jay of The Real News Network (TRNN) to review anti-military protest actions across America, reminding people that while Occupy may have disappeared from the headlines, the protest movement is building momentum.

Click on the following linked title to watch the interview with Swanson and to access the complete transcript. Or scroll down to watch an embedded copy of the 14-minute interview and read an abridged version of the transcript with added subheadings, text highlighting and hyperlinks.

Occupy No Longer in Headlines But Activism Continues Nationwide, David Swanson interview, TRNN, May 19, 2013.

ABRIDGED TRANSCRIPT

[Introduction by Paul Jay, Senior Editor, TRNN]

[According to David Swanson] activists succeeding in turning public opinion against drone strikes; other forms of actions on the rise. Now joining us to discuss protest actions across the country and remind us that in fact this movement is not over is David Swanson. David’s an author whose books include War Is a Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He also works as a campaign coordinator for online activist organization RootsAction. And he hosts Talk Nation Radio.

So the media’s filled with this. Occupy fizzled out. Occupy didn’t go anywhere. And they’re kind of back to just covering two-party politics. But you have a different story to tell.

[David Swanson is the sole source for all the following passages]

Media created Occupy then killed it, but activism didn’t die, it’s still there

The media created it [Occupy] as a national movement and then killed it off. But it didn’t die. It’s still there. And when I travel around the country and I participate in events, people are still organized as Occupy. There’s Occupy Dallas and Occupy every city you go to as a way that people are still connected and organizing to do the same sorts of actions and new kinds of actions. And activism, whether it’s part of Occupy or not, is very much alive and well in this country, little though it may be noted in the corporate media.

Drones have been a huge focus of activist attention

Well, you know, the issue of drones has been a huge focus. Earlier this year, a group of organizations and individuals got together and planned a month of activities through the month of April that was by many measures a huge success that saw massive demonstrations and protests and many people going to jail and making news and passing resolutions. We’ve passed a resolution against drones here in Charlottesville, Virginia.

I was just up in Syracuse, New York, where there was a big conference about the issue and then a protest that saw another over 30 individuals going to jail, some of them risking serious jail time because there was a protective order against them, protecting a commander of an Air Force base from nonviolent peace activists, if you can understand that. But in fact they’ve been there so many times that they’re getting through to the judge and educating the judge and the public in the process.

Activists deserve credit for the plummeting public support for drone use

And you’ve seen the polls on U.S. support for drone use domestically and abroad and to kill non-Americans, about whom supposedly we don’t care at all, plummeting–still a majority, but now a small majority of Americans who are okay with killing foreigners with drones. And that’s in large part the work of activists.

City of Charlottesville’s anti-drone resolution prompts other municipalities to take it up

The city of Charlottesville, where I live, passed a resolution that has now inspired many other towns and cities and counties to take it up, very few of which have thus far passed, but many of which are imminently pending, as well as states. The majority of U.S. state legislatures have now taken up legislation to ban or to restrict or regulate drone use, weaponized drones and surveillance drones. The state of Virginia is in the process of figuring out exactly the details on what will be a two-year moratorium on drone use, which I think is a very wise approach.

You know, we’re told that drones will bring us coffee and drones will fight fires and drones will do all these wonderful, good things. Well, let’s take a breath and figure out a way to do that that is compatible with the First and the Fourth and the Fifth Amendment. And if we can’t, well, then, you know, we survived this many millennia without getting our coffee delivered by drone; I think we can survive it going forward.

But the city of Charlottesville made a great deal of news, and city council members got more attention from the U.S. and world media than they ever had before in the rest of their lives put together because Charlottesville went first and passed a resolution against drones in our skies.

Activists protested George “Mission Accomplished” Bush Library opening in Dallas

[I swear I heard Swanson say “lie-bury”? If not, he should have].

Well, of course, I was down in Dallas for the big protest of the Bush library opening, and it was very encouraging to see such a showing. But it was, you know, sadly, something of a reunion of people who have not been together as much since Obama’s been in the White House. And so it’s very encouraging to see movements growing while Obama is in the White House, including the drone movement.

National War Tax Resistant Coordinating Committee have figured out a way not to pay war taxes

I was just down in Asheville, North Carolina, for a gathering of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee. These are people who have figured out ways to not pay their war taxes as a means of resisting militarism and the funding of war and whose experience — in some cases these are people who’ve been doing this for half a century. It’s… their experiences, I think, can be quite valuable to movements that are now growing against home foreclosures, against repaying student loans. These are types of resistance that are growing, not as dramatically as I might like, but significantly are on the rise.

Big efforts are being planned for worldwide fasts in solidarity with Guantanamo prisoners

It’s changing very, very slowly. You know, there are big efforts planned for fasts in this country and around the world in solidarity with the prisoners of Guantanamo, who are now thought of as Obama’s prisoners, no longer Bush’s. It’s been too long. There are huge demonstrations planned, as I’m sure you know.

It’s possible to take a stand on military issue without being for Obama or for Bush

When we were in Dallas there were people there protesting who have been protesting throughout the Obama years. But there were also people I just haven’t seen in five years. So it was very much a reunion. And you did hear chants against Republicans and so forth.

And, in fact, when everybody came out of the ceremony with the five former presidents there at the Bush library, a woman came up and yelled at me as a protester and said, why don’t you people protest Obama? And I was wearing my Arrest Bush and Obama shirt, so I said, ma’am, can you read? But then she sort of–eventually she switched and started saying, well, if Obama does it, why don’t you like it? You know, because this is the mindset that everybody’s got – either you’re with Obama or you’re with Bush; you’re not against murder; you’re not for peace. And slowly people are beginning to grasp that that can be a position that you don’t have to be with one side or the other.

People are beginning to understand that Obama is engaged in a massive drone-based program of murder

Of course, we’re sort of right in the middle between presidential election seasons at the moment, so this is the closest chance we have for nonpartisan breathing space, but it is beginning to grow, and it’s beginning to grow in large part because of the dramatically increased awareness of the drone kill program, that when it was on the front page of The New York Times before the election, with the cooperation of the White House, nobody who disapproved of it noticed it. You know, they just remained oblivious. And now people are beginning to understand that there is a massive program of murder, including of U.S. citizens, but primarily of non-U.S. citizens, and people are beginning to get upset about that.

Yemeni man tells Senate Judiciary Committee drone strike “tore my heart”

Just a few weeks ago, there was a hearing, and the Obama administration sent no witnesses, has never sent any to any of these hearings. But there was a young man from Yemen scheduled to speak. And because the hearing was delayed — it so happens that his village in Yemen was struck by a drone the week before he testified. And his testimony — a young man named Farea al-Muslimi – was absolutely stunning. It was as if somebody had brought the dead bodies of the children we’re killing and put them on the committee table in front of these senators who didn’t want to see it.

“It’s outrageous to have this notion that a president can make war without limit in time or space”

But I think, you know, what really struck me in that hearing was how concisely one of the law professors — I think her name was Rosa Brooks — summed up the attitude of the legal community. And she said, if these drone strikes are part of a war, they are perfectly acceptable. If they are not part of a war, then they are murder. And she used that word, the word I think everybody should be using. And how can we know, she continued, whether they are part of a war or not? Well, we can’t, because the memos are secret.

So what distinguishes a war from a nonwar? Nothing substantive. Something you can write on a piece of paper and stick in a drawer in the White House and hide. And if it’s a war, well, then murder has become acceptable. And if it’s not, well, then it’s murder. This is the absurd approach that’s been reached not just by the neocons but by the human rights organizations, by anyone who sort of accepts war and then tries to figure out what’s legal within it and what’s legal in peacetime and how do these two sets of laws work.

But, in fact, under the Kellogg-Briand Pact and under the UN Charter and under the U.S. Constitution, war itself is illegal. And so you cannot legalize murder by maintaining that it’s part of a war. In fact, there was a law professor who had been scheduled to speak, who I’m told would have testified to that effect and was uninvited. So this is the consensus in Washington at this point.

Although Congresswoman Barbara Lee’s bill to repeal authorization to use military force is exemplary activism, the question of interpretation remains open

Congresswoman Barbara Lee’s bill that would repeal the so-called authorization to use military force is exactly right and should be passed and should be signed into law. It’s outrageous to have this notion that a president can make war without limit in time or space. But this is the understanding of the witnesses and the senators and congress members in these hearings. There is no limit in time or space.

And, of course, you have this retroactive identification of victims as enemies if they are male and fighting age. And, of course, the victims are almost entirely Muslim. And so you have this message being sent to the world that we are at war with Muslim men, there is no limit in time or space, and it is everywhere.

How is drone-bombing a peaceful Yemen village any different from bombing the Boston Marathon?

And so, I mean, that attitude that blows up a peaceful village in Yemen is not altogether different from the attitude that puts bombs at marathons and sporting events. I mean, killing has been declared righteous and legal and without limit in time or space. It’s a global war. And so we have to undo that idea.

But even with that authorization on the books, there’s the question of how it should be interpreted. And many never dreamed of interpreting it the way it has been interpreted since about 2006, when they started shooting missiles into places like Yemen that were not officially war zones. And there remain a handful of law professors in this country who will tell you, yes, Afghanistan, it’s fine; you can kill anybody you like. But go to Yemen, go to some other country, go to Somalia, and you’re now outside the realm of legality. And so I would agree with them as far as they go and further.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Large-scale public protests in Japan against secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership

“If TPP advances and is implemented it will destroy the American social system,” says former Japanese politician

No 742 Posted by fw, May 09, 2013

“Unfortunately, most people have never even heard of the TPP in America. Our corporate media sure isn’t telling us anything about it…. Sure we can sign petitions but most are ignored. AND President Obama has something called “fast track authority”, left over from what Rahm Emmanuel helped Bush get. From what I understand he can quietly sign this thing and the next day, it’ll be in our faces. Get ready, by the time people realize that our sovereignty has been taken away, it’ll be too late.” —Visitor’s comment posted to Real News website

The Japanese are up in arms over the proposed TPP deal. Some of their concerns are highlighted in the following post. Meanwhile, Harper is doing his best to keep Canadians in the dark about the impact of TPP. According to Toronto Star reporter, Michael Geist,  “[A] November 2012 email to government officials noted that their access to TPP texts was conditioned on ‘Secret’ level clearance, an acknowledgement that all texts are watermarked and can be traced back to the source, and confirmation that no sharing within government is permitted without prior approval.” This is why no one not in Canada’s tiny trade policy club knows the slightest thing about the TPP or Canada-European Union free trade deal, even though both will impact policy across dozens of departments. Source: Business lobbyists ride inside track of Conservative trade agenda, Stuart Trew, rabble.ca, May 6, 2013

Returning to the Japanese reaction to TPP, watch the 8:42-minute video report and read the accompanying transcript below. Or click on the following linked title to access the original broadcast.

Japanese Movement against TPP Growing, Michael Penn reporting for The Real News Network, May 7, 2013

TRANSCRIPT

Critics of the Trans-Pacific Partnership say it’s an attempt to impose an American system on Japan and would threaten Japanese public healthcare system -   

Michael Penn, Tokyo — The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, may not yet be a household topic of discussion in the United States and many other countries, but it has been one of the most prominent political issues in Japan for several years. The debate over whether or not Japan should enter the TPP negotiation process has divided major political parties and led to large-scale protests, especially from Japan’s agricultural sector. Indeed, in the Japanese media and elsewhere, supporters of TPP have painted the issue as mainly a conflict between the interests of the urban, modern sectors of the Japanese economy and the backward, inefficient farmers, who they say are only interested in maintaining high tariff protection against foreign foodstuffs, especially rice.

Protesters — Participation in TPP negotiations is a violation of the government’s campaign promise!

Penn – But this is only a caricature, as in fact there are plenty of voices in urban areas who fear the economic effects of trade liberalization:

Protester — Foreign laborers could come into the country; not only the workers, but the companies too. The fact that they are foreigners is no problem. We are worried about the effect on wages. For skilled Japanese craftsmen, we worry this will be used to bid down the money we make.

Penn – Others point to deeper implications arising from TPP, which they see as far more than another free trade agreement. Nobuhiko Suto, until recently a House of Representatives lawmaker, is a leading Japanese critic of TPP.

Nobuhiko Suto, Former Representative, Democratic Party Of Japan — What we really fear has nothing to do with trade and economy but with ethnic diversity. Local and regional variations may be deeply affected by this systemic change. When I first learned of this fact, I wanted to know more, but the negotiations are secret. My studies led me to understand that TPP is not trade liberalization but systemic liberalization. Put simply, they want to take the U.S. system and make it operate across the Pacific region.

Penn – Outside of the agricultural sector, some of the deepest fears that Japanese have about TPP regards what it will mean for the nation’s excellent system of national health care.

Suto – It would destroy our health insurance system. This is not because America intends this result. When the U.S. insurance companies enter our market, they will focus on profitable sectors. But Japanese health insurance depends on pooling together profitable and other sectors. The U.S. companies would go after cancer and other specialized medicine to make their profits, and this would leave out poor people who can’t pay and would destroy our insurance system.

~~~

Penn – Do you want American health insurance?

Protester — No!

Penn – Why not?

Protester — They are money-crazed! We have the best system now. Japanese have universal insurance and the U.S. does not. that’s why it is no good. The U.S. system isn’t fair and favors the rich. We don’t need it here in Japan!

~~~

Penn – Another area of deep concern among those Japanese who have studied the TPP issue at some length is the international harmonization of patent laws and intellectual property rights. There is a fear that the United States wants Japan to adopt a new system of rules that will unfairly pour money into the pockets of American corporations.

Suto – The U.S. way of thinking is that those who develop original technologies should profit. To take an extreme example, consider the case of someone developing some new software. Well, originally you need screens to see what the software does, meaning it is based on TV. That means any new software technology is originally based on television technology. Going further back, all television technology is based on the mastery of electricity. That means that they want Japanese software developers to pay money to Thomas Edison. I’m being facetious, but this is the kind of idea the U.S. wants us to base patent laws upon.

Penn – Suto asserts that the Japanese government’s strong attachment to TPP has less to do with a rational assessment of its own national interests and is more connected to the fact that conservative political leaders like Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have been duped by Washington’s so-called “Japan Handlers” into seeing TPP as a strengthening of the U.S.-Japan military alliance.

Suto – Even if TPP has no economic merits for the Japanese economy, Prime Minister Abe would still want to join on alleged national security grounds. There are a lot of people in Japan who accept this reasoning all too easily. But I believe this is quite a dangerous way to approach this issue.

Penn – In the end, however, Suto believes that the TPP process will fail, first of all because it will prove impossible to match so many different kinds of economic systems in the Pacific region, but also because the United States itself will reject TPP when its full implications become clear to local leaders and to the general public.

Suto – What really surprises me about TPP, and I might add ISD as well, is that if TPP advances and is implemented it will destroy the American social system. Take as an example the United States’ federal system of government. Since its founding, the states had their power and formed “The United States of America.” But under the TPP regime the power of individual states would evaporate. Right now you have cases in which one state has the death penalty but the next doesn’t, or maybe this state here allows people to buy alcohol and the other doesn’t. TPP would take these kinds of powers out of the hands of state governments. You could have foreign liquor companies suing states that try to restrict sales of alcohol. Up until now, such a thing couldn’t happen, and quite naturally so. TPP would break down the United States’ own independent system.

So when it comes to TPP, I think you’ll see their own citizens’ groups rise up against it. And when the Americans themselves begin to figure out the strange things entailed by TPP, their own opposition will grow. And so, finally, I believe that it will not be enacted.

Penn – Some well-informed observers in Japan believe that TPP is so ambitious and its consequences would be so profound that it is likely to ultimately collapse under its own weight, even with the powerful political support it currently enjoys.

SEE ALSO

• TPP: Corporate Power Tool of the 1%, excellent briefing published by Public Citizen, probably in 2012. Threats posed by TPP include: Power to corporations to attack nations; Threats to public health; Bye “Buy America” and jobs; Undermining food safety; Curtailing Internet freedom; and Banksters’ delight.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.

Canadian Jewish activists protest Canadian Jewish lobby’s support for Israel’s violence, injustice and repression

No 740 Posted by fw, May 08, 2013

Thanks to Independent Jewish Voices — Canada (IJV) for this brief news item. For those who may not be familiar with this national human rights organization, IJV’s mandate is “…to promote a just resolution to the dispute in Israel and Palestine through the application of international law and respect for the human rights of all parties.”

More about IJV

We are a group of Jews in Canada from diverse backgrounds, occupations and affiliations who have in common a strong commitment to social justice and universal human rights. We come together in the belief that the broad spectrum of opinion among the Jewish population of this country is not reflected by those institutions which claim authority to represent the Jewish community as a whole. We further believe that individuals and groups within all communities should feel free to express their views on any issue of public concern without incurring accusations of disloyalty.

By way of background to this post, IJV showed up in protest at the First Annual Western Regional Policy Conference organized by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. The events was held in Vancouver on Sunday May 5, 2013. Here’s the news item explaining why IJV picketed this event –

Vancouver activists protest Israel Advocacy lobby, by David Mivasair, IJV Vancouver, published by ijvcanada.org, May 6, 2013

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) is the right wing, Conservative party ally that replaced the former Canadian Jewish Congress.

Together we [IJV] created a presence for about an hour outside the building where the CIJA conference was and engaged people in conversation including several who were at the conference.

Subjectively, my sense is that it was well worthwhile to simply create a protest against CIJA doing business as usual. 

The simple fact that we were there meant that the assumptions implicit in CIJA’s perspective were being challenged.  I think this is important and hope that we will continue to do at least this much.

Through our various social media connections we had [an] impact far beyond as people learned about this Jewish protest against CIJA and its support for Israel’s violence, injustice and repression.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I claim no ownership of such materials. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing.