*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Bay Area United Against War Newsletter
Table of Contents:
A. EVENTS AND ACTIONS
B. SPECIAL APPEALS, VIDEOS AND ONGOING CAMPAIGNS
C. ARTICLES IN FULL
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
A. EVENTS AND ACTIONS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
FTA [F**k The Army] Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HlkgPCgU7g
Jon Stewart: Obama Is Channeling Bush (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/jon-stewart-obama-is-chan_n_378283.html
US anti-war activists protest
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/12/200912283650408132.html
Buffy Sainte Marie - No No Keshagesh
[Keshagesh is the Cree word to describe a greedy puppy that wants to keep eating everything, a metaphor for corporate greed]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKmAb1gNN74&feature=player_embedded#
Buffy Sainte-Marie - No No Keshagesh lyrics:
http://www.lyricsmode.com/?i=print_lyrics&id=705368
I never saw so many business suits.
Never knew a dollar sign that looked so cute.
Never knew a junkie with a money Jones:
He's singing, "Who's selling Park Place. Who's buying Boardwalk"?
These old men they make their dirty deals.
Go in the back room and see what they can steal.
Talk about your beautiful and spacious skies.
It's about uranium; it's about the water rights.
Put Mother Nature on a luncheon plate.
They cut her up and call it real estate.
Want all the resources and all of the land.
They make a war over it: Blow things up for it.
The reservation now is poverty row.
There's something cooking and the lights are low.
Somebody's trying to save our mother earth.
I'm gonna help them to save it,
To sing it and bring it
Singing: No no Keshagesh:
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
No, no, no, no Keshagesh
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
No, no, no, no Keshagesh
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
No, no, no, no Keshagesh
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
Ole Columbus he was looking good,
When he got lost in our neighborhood.
Garden of Eden right before his eyes.
Now it's all spy ware: now it's all income tax.
Ole' brother Midas looking hungry today.
What he can't buy he'll get some other way.
Send in the troopers if the natives resist.
Old, old story boys, that's how you do it boys.
Look at these people; ah they're on a roll.
Gonna have it all, gonna have complete control.
Want all the resources and all of the land.
They'll break the law for it: Blow things up for it.
When all our champions are off in the war,
Their final rip off here and is always on.
Mr. greed I think your time has come.
We're gonna sing it and pray it and live it then say it.
Singing: No no Keshagesh:
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
No, no, no, no Keshagesh
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
No, no, no, no Keshagesh
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
No, no, no, no Keshagesh
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
Lyrics provided by LyricsMode.com
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
United Anti-War Movement Tells Obama: No Escalation!
Letter ties economic pain at home to suffering in Afghanistan Urges widespread, massive protests day after announcement
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/11/30-1
CONTACT: Anti-War Groups
Mike Ferner, President, Veterans for Peace 419-360-3621
Michael McPhearson, Exec. Dir., Veterans for Peace 314-303-8874
WASHINGTON - November 30 - On November 30th, representatives of 34 antiwar groups delivered an open letter to President Obama strongly opposing his anticipated decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan with the commitment of tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops.
The document called increased war spending, in light of the ongoing U.S. economic crisis, an "utter folly" and named the war "a war against ordinary people, both here in the United States and in Afghanistan," which "if continued, will result in the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of U.S. troops and untold thousands of Afghans" and "cause other people in other lands to despise the U.S." as "the world's richest nation making war on one of the world's very poorest."
The signatories pledged "to keep opposing this war in every nonviolent way possible. We will urge elected representatives to cut all funding for war. Some of us will be led to withhold our taxes, practice civil resistance, and promote slowdowns and strikes at schools and workplaces."
Signed by veterans and peace activists and religious leaders the document represents one of the most widespread antiwar coalitions in decades, including many of the organizations which, in 2003, brought millions onto the streets to oppose the U.S.-Iraq war.
Signers to the letter are urging their colleagues to participate in local demonstrations the day after an announcement of troop escalations is made.
The letter ends by warning President Obama, "we will do everything in our power, as nonviolent peace activists, to build the kind of massive movement -- which today represents the sentiments of a majority of the American people - that will play a key role in ending U.S. war in Afghanistan. Such is the folly of your decision and such is the depth of our opposition to the death and suffering it will cause."
###
President Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, D.C.
November 30, 2009
Dear President Obama,
With millions of U.S. people feeling the fear and desperation of no longer having a home; with millions feeling the terror and loss of dignity that comes with unemployment; with millions of our children slipping further into poverty and hunger, your decision to deploy thousands more troops and throw hundreds of billions more dollars into prolonging the profoundly tragic war in Afghanistan strikes us as utter folly. We believe this decision represents a war against ordinary people, both here in the United States and in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan, if continued, will result in the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of U.S. troops, and untold thousands of Afghans.
Polls indicate that a majority of those who labored with so much hope to elect you as president now fear that you will make a wrong decision -- a tragic decision that will destroy their dreams for America. More tragic is the price of your decision. It will be paid with the blood, suffering and broken hearts of our young troops, their loved ones and an even greater number of Afghan men, women and children.
The U.S. military claims that this war must be fought to protect U.S. national security, but we believe it is being waged to expand U.S. empire in the interests of oil and pipeline companies.
Your decision to escalate U.S. troops and continue the occupation will cause other people in other lands to despise the U.S. as a menacing military power that violates international law. Keep in mind that to most of the peoples of the world, widening the war in Afghanistan will look exactly like what it is: the world's richest nation making war on one of the world's very poorest.
The war must be ended now. Humanitarian aid programs should address the deep poverty that has always been a part of the life of Afghan people.
We will keep opposing this war in every nonviolent way possible. We will urge elected representatives to cut all funding for war. Some of us will be led to withhold our taxes, practice civil resistance, and promote slowdowns and strikes at schools and workplaces.
In short, President Obama, we will do everything in our power, as nonviolent peace activists, to build the kind of massive movement --which today represents the sentiments of a majority of the American people--that will play a key role in ending U.S. war in Afghanistan.
Such would be the folly of a decision to escalate troop deployment and such is the depth of our opposition to the death and suffering it would cause.
Sincerely, (Signers names listed in alphabetical order)
Jack Amoureux, Executive Committee Military Families Speak Out; Michael Baxter, Catholic Peace Fellowship; Medea Benjamin, Co-founder Global Exchange; Frida Berrigan, Witness Against Torture; Elaine Brower, World Can't Wait; Leslie Cagan, Co-Founder United for Peace and Justice; Tom Cornell, Catholic Peace Fellowship; Matt Daloisio, War Resisters League; Marie Dennis, Director Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns; Robby Diesu, Our Spring Break; Pat Elder, Co-coordinator National Network Opposing Militarization of Youth; Mike Ferner, President Veterans For Peace; Joy First, Convener National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance; Sara Flounders, Co-Director International Action Center; Sunil Freeman, ANSWER Coalition, Washington, D.C.; Diana Gibson, Coordinator Multifaith Voices for Peace and Justice; Jerry Gordon, Co-Coordinator National Assembly To End Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupation; Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, Shomer Shalom Network for Jewish Nonviolence; David Hartsough, Peaceworkers San Francisco; Mike Hearington, Steering Committee Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition, Atlanta; Larry Holmes, Coordinator Troops Out Now Coalition; Mark C. Johnson, Ph.D., Executive Director Fellowship of Reconciliation; Hany Khalil, War Times; Kathy Kelly, Co-Coordinator Voices for Creative Nonviolence; Leslie Kielson , Co-Chair United for Peace and Justice; Malachy Kilbride, National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance; Adele Kubein, Executive Committee Military Families Speak Out; Jeff Mackler, Co-Coordinator National Assembly to End Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations; Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, Chair-Elect World Parliament of Religion; Michael T. McPhearson, Executive Director Veterans For Peace; Gael Murphy, Co-founder Code Pink; Michael Nagler, Founder Metta Center for Nonviolence; Max Obuszewski, Director Baltimore Nonviolence Center; Pete Perry, Peace of the Action; Dave Robinson, Executive Director Pax Christi USA; Terry Rockefeller, September 11th Families For Peaceful Tomorrows; Samina Sundas, Founding Executive Director American Muslim Voice; David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet.org; Carmen Trotta, Catholic Worker; Nancy Tsou, Coordinator Rockland Coalition for Peace and Justice; Kevin Zeese, Voters for Peace.
Bay Area United Against War endorses this letter.
bauaw.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
"The End of Poverty?"
Democracy Now Interview with Filmmaker Philippe Diaz
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/10/filmmaker_philippe_diaz_on_the_end
The film opens in San Francisco on December 4 at the 4-Star Theatre on Clement Street.
http://www.theendofpoverty.com/
Mark you calendar to GO SEE this movie, starts Friday 12/4 for a one week run at 4 Star Theatre. It's the first film to connect the dots between colonialism, globalization and poverty.
Director Philippe Diaz will be in attendance for Q&A on Friday and Saturday and joined by Global Exchange's Kevin Danaher on Saturday 12/5.
"****..EXCELLENT"
Kam Williams, NewsBlaze.com
"POWERFUL"
Andrew O'Hehir, Salon.com
"...should be required viewing by every politician in the world."
Eric Monder, Film Journal International
"Simply the finest documentary ever made about global inequality. Puts the victims of the capitalist system in the forefront and allows them to tell their stories."
Louis Proyect, The Unrepentant Marxist
Sold out shows during its opening weekend in NYC, beating out at the box office every film playing at City Cinemas Village East including Disney's 'A Christmas Carol' starring Jim Carrey!
Narrated by Martin Sheen, The End of Poverty? is a daring, thought-provoking and very timely documentary by award-winning filmmaker, Philippe Diaz, revealing that poverty is not an accident. It began with military conquest, slavery and colonization that resulted in forced labor and the seizure of land and minerals. Today, global poverty has reached new levels because of unfair debt, trade and tax policies -- in other words, wealthy countries exploiting the weaknesses of poor, developing countries.
The End of Poverty? asks why today 20% of the planet's population uses 80% of its resources and consumes 30% more than the planet can regenerate? Can we really end poverty within our current economic system? Think again.
Official Selection to over 25+ International Film Festivals
Watch the Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRZnEBFYNS0
One Week run starts in San Francisco December 4th
4-Star Theatre
2200 Clement Street
San Francisco, CA 94121
(415) 666-3488
http://www.hkinsf.com/4star/
Showtimes: 12:25 2:25 4:25 6:25 8:25
*Q&A with director following the Fri. (12/4) 8:25p show & Sat. (12/5) 2:25p show
& with special guest, Kevin Danaher of Global Exchange following the 8:25 show.
Admission: $9.00 for general admission
$7.00 for bargain shows & seniors 65 and over/children 11 and under
(Bargain matinee shows are before 4pm Mon to Fri, before 2pm on Sat, Sun and Holidays.
BUY TICKETS HERE: http://www.movietickets.com/house_detail.asp?house_id=1118&rdate=12%2F4%2F2009
Also in coming to theatres in Los Angeles , Irvine , Seattle , Portland , Austin and Atlanta with more cities to follow - for details, visit http://www.theendofpoverty.com
Read reviews:
Louis Proyect's: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/the-end-of-poverty/
Andrew Schenker @ Village Voice: http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-11-10/film/the-end-of-poverty-maps-post-colonial-injustice/
Andrew O' Hehir@ Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/entertainment/the_end_of_poverty/index.html?story=/ent/movies/btm/feature/2009/11/13/poverty
Find us on:
Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/endpovertymovie
Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/endpovertymovie
Social Network - http://www.endpoverty.ning.com
Join our mailing list: http:/Re/www.cinemalibrestudio.com/mailinglist/
Please help us spread the word about this important and powerful film. We are a small, independent distribution company dedicated to social issue films.
Thank you,
The Cinema Libre Studio team
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
FIGHT FOR "JUST CAUSE" EVICTION PROTECTIONS FOR ALL SAN FRANCISCO TENANTS!
--TENANTS LIVING IN UNITS BUILT AFTER 1979 HAVE NO PROTECTIONS FROM EVICTIONS. THIS IS SIMPLY UNFAIR!
--LEGISLATION HAS BEEN INTRODUCED TO EXTEND JUST CAUSE EVICTION PROTECTIONS TO THESE APPROXIMATELY 20,000 UNITS.
--YOUR STORY IS IMPORTANT. COME TESTIFY ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 7 AND/OR WRITE OR CALL BOARD MEMBERS.
RALLY: MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 12:00 NOON, CITY HALL STEPS
TESTIFY: 1:00 P.M., BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LAND USE COMMITTEE
Supported by: St. Peter's Housing Committee; Housing Rights Committee; Chinatown CDC and San Francisco Tenants' Union; Senior Action Network; Coalition on Homelessness.
For more information: info@hrcsf.org
Supervisor Avalos has proposed legislation that would extend "just cause" eviction protections to rentals built after 1979.
Without this protection, 16,000-23,000 renters can be arbitrarily evicted, suddenly and for no reason at all.
The Land Use Committee will be voting on Monday.
JOIN US IF YOU CAN! Please call or email the following board members and the Mayor to urge them to support the "Avalos Just Cause Bill". A Sample email is below.
Mayor Gavin Newsom
Telephone: (415) 554-6141
Fax: (415) 554-6160
gavin.newsom@sfgov.org
Sup. Sophie Maxwell
(415) 554-7670 - voice
(415) 554-7674 - fax
Sophie.Maxwell@sfgov.org
Sup. Bevan Dufty
(415) 554-6968- voice
(415) 554-6909 - fax
Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org
Sample Letter/ Email
Dear Supervisor,
I am a renter in San Francisco and I am very concerned to learn that many renters here are not protected from evictions because their home was build after 1979.
There is no reason why a random group of renters could suddenly lose their housing at the drop of a hat.
Rents are still so high in this city. Getting evicted means quickly finding housing that you can afford, which is nearly impossible in this market.
Please support Supervisor Avalos's "Just Cause" ordinance. It is only fair.
Sincerely,
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
DEFEND JR VALREY!
Drop all Charges Against the Activists in the Protests of the Police Murder of Oscar Grant!
Rally at JRs Next Court Hearing
Monday, December 7, 2009, 8:00 A.M.
Alameda County Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland, CA
Journalist JR Valrey was arrested by Oakland Police on the night of January 7, 2009, for covering the street uprising following the police murder of Oscar Grant. JR has consistently covered police brutality and terrorism. The bogus charge he faces: felony arson!
JR Varley is a POCC (People of Color Conference) Minister of Information, host of Block Report Radio, a producer at KPFA and associate editor of the San Francisco Bay View Newspaper.
PROTEST THE POLICE MURDER OF OSCAR GRANT!
The BART cop who put a bullet in the back of the young Oscar Grant while Grant was lying face-down on a BART platform is Johannes Mehserle. With 45 police killings in Oakland in the past five years, Mehserle is the only cop to be charged with murder while on duty. But the cops are pulling out all the stops to avoid a conviction. With a starkly racist argument, Mesherle's lawyer has succeeded in getting hte trial moved out of Oakland--to Los Angeles.
Labor Action Committee To Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
P.O. Box 16222
Oakland, CA 94610
(510) 763-2347
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Initial March 20 Coalition meeting
Wed., Dec. 9, 7 p
From: Richard Becker [mailto:rbecker17@yahoo.com]
Friends,
President Obama's Dec. 1 announcement of another major escalation of the war in Afghanistan -- this time dressed up with rhetoric about it being a plan to "end the war" -- has given added urgency to strengthening and mobilizing the anti-war movement. At the end of Pres. Obama's first year, there will be more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than on the day he took office.
Today, there will be demonstrations in many cities opposing the escalation and demanding the withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO troops and mercenaries/contractors from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Saturday, March 20, 2010 will mark the exact 7th anniversary of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. March 20 will be a national and international day of protest. Major demonstrations are expected in many cities around the world, including Washington DC, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
There will be initial organizing meeting for the March 20, 2010 march and rally on Wednesday, December 9, 7 p.m., at Centro del Pueblo, 474 Valencia St., San Francisco (near the corner of 16th St.)
The main demands of the March 20 protests include: End the wars and occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Everywhere; Fund People's Needs, Not War; and U.S. Hands Off Latin America.
We hope to see you there.
Richard Becker
ANSWER Coalition
Cristina Gutierrez
Companeros del Barrio
To see the ANSWER statement on Obama's speech, "Rhetoric and Reality: Masking War Escalation Masked as a Withdrawal Plan," click on:
http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2/371323814?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=9237&news_iv_ctrl=1621.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Four years ago activists around the world were mobilizing and organizing against the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams. We need to continue that fight today.
Fourth Annual Stanley Tookie Williams Legacy Summit
MOBILIZING THE MOVEMENT FOR JUSICE
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 13TH, 3:00-6:00 P.M.
MERRITT COLLEGE
Huey P. Newton/Bobby Seale Student Lounge
12500 Campus Drive, Oakland
For directions go to www.merritt.edu
For more information: 510-235-9780
KEVIN COOPER, TROY DAVIS, MUMIA ABU-JAMAL: THREE INNOCENT MEN ON DEATH ROW
Featuring:
Angela Davis, author and activist.
Barbara Becnel, co-author and friend of Stanley Tookie Williams
Martina Correia, sister of Troy Davis
Release of report, "What's Really Happening on California's Death Row?"
Messages from "The Three Innocent Men"
Sneak Preview, "The Justice Chronicles," dramatic presentation of prison writings
Memorial Movie, for Oscar Grant III
Sponsors:
Stanley Tookie Williams Legacy Network; Campaign to End the Death Penalty; Kevin Cooper Defense Committee, African American Studies Department, Merritt College
URGENT -- THIS JUST IN -- KEVIN COOPER'S APPEAL DENIED!
Dear supporters,
The news just broke that the U.S. Supreme Court denied Kevin Cooper's appeal. Below is an LA Times story.
This is very bad news. But it is important that we do not give up hope - we need to continue the fight! California won't be able to set an execution date at the present time because of the ongoing lethal injection legal challenges in the state. This means we need to use this window to educate people about Kevin's case, expose the racism and
injustice, and grow our movement for real justice for Kevin Cooper - to free Kevin Cooper.
We will be sending out more updates and stories soon, and plans for how you can help. In the meantime, feel free to call or e-mail with any questions or ideas.
Crystal Bybee
Campaign to End the Death Penalty
Kevin Cooper Defense Committee
510-333-7966
crystal@nodeathpenalty.org
www.savekevincooper.org
Supreme Court rejects appeal from California death row inmate convicted of killing 4
By Associated Press
November 30, 2009
latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-supreme-court-cooper-execution,0,6189324.story
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a California death row inmate who was convicted in the gruesome murders of four people in 1983.
The justices said Monday they would not review an appeals court ruling that upheld the murder conviction and death sentence of Kevin Cooper.
Cooper came within a few hours of execution in 2004 before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in to order genetic testing on a hair and a bloody shirt found at the murder scene that Cooper said would prove he was not the killer.
The San Francisco-based appeals court later backed a district judge's ruling that the test results did not show Cooper's innocence.
Cooper, who has long maintained his innocence, had escaped from a California state prison. He was convicted of the murders of Douglas and Peggy Ryen, both 41, their 10-year-old daughter, Jessica, and Christopher Hughes, her friend. They were stabbed and hacked repeatedly with a hatchet and buck knife. Joshua Ryen, then 8, survived a slit throat.
Cooper claimed a trio of murderers committed the attacks and said the DNA tests would exonerate him.
Prosecutors persuaded a jury of Cooper's guilt, but the investigation was plagued with problems.
Judge M. Margaret McKeown agreed with the outcome in the 9th Circuit, but noted that important evidence in Cooper's case was "lost, destroyed or left unpursued." That included blood-covered overalls that a detective threw away and a missing bloody T-shirt.
"The forensic evidence in this case is critical and yet was compromised," she wrote. "These facts are all the more troubling because Cooper's life is at stake."
McKeown also said the criminologist in charge of the evidence turned out to be a heroin addict who was later fired for stealing drugs seized by the police.
"The result is wholly discomforting," she wrote. "But one that the law demands."
The case is Cooper v. Wong, 09-363.
LETTER FROM KEVIN COOPER'S ATTORNEY:
Kevin Cooper's Attorneys Will Continue Fight To Stop Execution Of Innocent Man
Contacts: Norman Hile (916) 329-7900
John Pitts 202-339-8605
Contacts: Norman Hile (916) 329-7900
John Pitts 202-339-8605
To learn more about Kevin Cooper's case, including the unprecedented 103-page dissent
by five federal judges, go to: http://www.savekevincooper.org/
After U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Consider Appeal, Additional Witnesses With
Information To Save Cooper's Life Should Come Forward
Attorneys Urge U.S. Attorney General Holder To Investigate Civil Rights Violations
Washington, D.C. -- Kevin Cooper's attorneys said today they would continue to
fight to prevent his execution, notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to
consider Cooper's appeal.
"Evidence that we discovered after trial shows that Kevin is innocent of the crime
for which he is now sentenced to die. We urge any and all witnesses with information
about Kevin's case to come forward," said Norman Hile, Cooper's lead attorney and a
partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. "Time is running out. Many witnesses
have come forward with helpful evidence, but we now need more. Anyone with
information about this case should examine their conscience and ask whether they are
willing to let their silence contribute to the execution of a man for crimes he did not
commit."
Cooper's case was on appeal from a U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threejudge
panel decision denying his habeas corpus petition. At least eleven judges on the
Ninth Circuit voted in favor of giving Mr. Cooper a further hearing on his claims of
innocence and evidence-tampering, noting that "a full and fair evidentiary hearing
would have given us confidence that Cooper received his due opportunity to prove the
innocence he has insisted upon since his arrest." An unprecedented 103-page dissent
signed by five of those judges warned that "the State of California may be about to
execute an innocent man."
Cooper's habeas petition was based on new evidence that his attorneys and
investigators discovered while working at the Northern California Innocence Project's
request. In the 103-page dissent pleading for a fair hearing for Mr. Cooper, the appellate judges identified multiple instances of police and prosecutorial misconduct, including:
--False testimony- Josh Ryen, the only eyewitness to the murders and the
victims' 8-year old son, initially told the police that three white men killed
his family. According to the dissent, after the police arrested Cooper, who
is black, "[d]eputies misrepresented [Josh's] recollections and gradually
shaped his testimony so that it was consistent with the prosecution's
theory that there was only one killer."
--Destruction of evidence and lying at trial- A witness told the police that
her boyfriend, a white supremacist gang member and convicted murderer,
came to her house covered in blood on the night of the murders. She
turned a pair of his blood-spattered coveralls over to the sheriff as
evidence. The sheriff discarded the coveralls without testing the blood
stains and did not tell Cooper's defense lawyer about this evidence until
the middle of his preliminary hearing. This witness is now dead and
unable to testify to Cooper's innocence. At trial, the sheriff's deputy who
discarded the coveralls testified he did so without sheriff-department
approval, testimony that has recently been shown to be a lie. As the five
federal judges wrote, "a responsible officer . . . deliberately destroyed
material evidence that should have been provided to Cooper."
--Undisclosed exculpatory evidence: The prosecution retrieved a blue
shirt with blood on it near the crime scene a few days after the crimes but
never disclosed this to Cooper's defense. "The prosecution committed a .
. . violation by not making the blue shirt available to Cooper's attorneys."
What's worse, "the prosecution committed a . . . violation in not turning
over a copy of the [sheriff's] daily logs that recorded the discovery of the
blue shirt."
--Planting false evidence- Prosecution lab tests of a second bloody shirt
showed "an extremely high level of EDTA in the sample that was
supposed to contain Cooper's blood." According to five federal judges,
"[i]f that test result was valid, it showed that Cooper's blood had been
planted on the t-shirt, just as Cooper maintained."
--Falsified lab reports- A drop of blood was taken from the crime scene,
labeled "A-41," and tested by police criminologist Daniel Gregonis.
According to five federal judges, "[w]hen the results of Gregonis's tests
on A-41 were initially inconsistent with . . . a known sample of Cooper's
blood, Gregonis altered his lab notes and claimed that he had
misrepresented his results."
--Presenting false evidence- Trying to tie Cooper to the crime scene,
prosecutors presented evidence that has now been shown to be false: that
only prison-issue shoes could have made footprints at the crime scene. As
five federal judges found, these shoes "were, contrary to testimony at trial,
available (though not in large quantities) at retail stores in the United
States."
Despite these constitutional violations which have prevented Cooper from ever
receiving a fair hearing, Cooper now faces execution. Hile called on U.S. Attorney
General Eric Holder to investigate Cooper's case and the local prosecutorial and police
misconduct. "Multiple witnesses have provided testimony suggesting that the police
planted evidence against Kevin Cooper and destroyed evidence that demonstrated his
innocence, and that local prosecutors violated Kevin Cooper's Constitutional rights," Mr. Hile said. "We need a federal investigation to get to the bottom of this and stop the killing of an innocent man."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
U.S. OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN NOW!
FREE PALESTINE!
San Francisco March and Rally
on Saturday, March 20, 2010
11am, Civic Center Plaza
National March on Washington
on Saturday, March 20, 2010
Fri., March 19 Day of Action & Outreach in D.C.
People from all over the country are organizing to converge on Washington, D.C., to demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan and Iraq.
On Saturday, March 20, 2010, there will be a massive National March & Rally in D.C. A day of action and outreach in Washington, D.C., will take place on Friday, March 19, preceding the Saturday march.
There will be coinciding mass marches on March 20 in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The national actions are initiated by a large number of organizations and prominent individuals. (see below)
Click here to become an endorser:
http://answer.pephost.org/site/Survey?SURVEY_ID=5940&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&autologin=true&link=endorse-body-1
Click here to make a donation:
https://secure2.convio.net/pep/site/Donation?ACTION=SHOW_DONATION_OPTIONS&CAMPAIGN_ID=2302&autologin=true&donate=body-1&JServSessionIdr002=2yzk5fh8x2.app13b
We will march together to say "No Colonial-type Wars and Occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine!" We will march together to say "No War Against Iran!" We will march together to say "No War for Empire Anywhere!"
Instead of war, we will demand funds so that every person can have a job, free and universal health care, decent schools, and affordable housing.
March 20 is the seventh anniversary of the criminal war of aggression launched by Bush and Cheney against Iraq. One million or more Iraqis have died. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops have lost their lives or been maimed, and continue to suffer a whole host of enduring problems from this terrible war.
This is the time for united action. The slogans on banners may differ, but all those who carry them should be marching shoulder to shoulder.
Killing and dying to avoid the perception of defeat
Bush is gone, but the war and occupation in Iraq still go on. The Pentagon is demanding a widening of the war in Afghanistan. They project an endless war with shifting battlefields. And a "single-payer" war budget that only grows larger and larger each year. We must act.
Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were predicated on the imperial fantasy that the U.S. could create stable, proxy colonial-type governments in both countries. They were to serve as an extension of "American" power in these strategic and resource-rich regions.
That fantasy has been destroyed. Now U.S. troops are being sent to kill or be killed so that the politicians in uniform ("the generals and admirals") and those in three-piece suits ("our elected officials") can avoid taking responsibility for a military setback in wars that should have never been started. Their military ambitions are now reduced to avoiding the appearance of defeat.
That is exactly what happened in Vietnam! Avoiding defeat, or the perception of defeat, was the goal Nixon and Kissinger set for themselves when they took office in 1969. For this noble cause, another 30,000 young GIs perished before the inevitable troop pullout from Vietnam in 1973. The number of Vietnamese killed between 1969 and 1973 was greater by many hundreds of thousands.
All of us can make the difference - progress and change comes from the streets and from the grassroots.
The people went to the polls in 2008, and the enthusiasm and desire for change after eight years of the Bush regime was the dominant cause that led to election of a big Democratic Party majority in both Houses of Congress and the election of Barack Obama to the White House.
But it should now be obvious to all that waiting for politicians to bring real change - on any front - is simply a prescription for passivity by progressives and an invitation to the array of corporate interests from military contractors to the banks, to big oil, to the health insurance giants that dominate the political life of the country. These corporate interests work around the clock to frustrate efforts for real change, and they are the guiding hand behind the recent street mobilizations of the ultra-right.
It is up to us to act. If people had waited for politicians to do the right thing, there would have never been a Civil Rights Act, or unions, women's rights, an end to the Vietnam war or any of the profound social achievements and basic rights that people cherish.
It is time to be back in the streets. Organizing centers are being set up in cities and towns throughout the country.
We must raise $50,000 immediately just to get started. Please make your contribution today. We need to reserve buses, which are expensive ($1,800 from NYC, $5,000 from Chicago, etc.). We have to print 100,000 leaflets, posters and stickers. There will be other substantial expenses as March 20 draws closer.
Please become an endorser and active supporter of the March 20 National March on Washington.
Please make an urgently needed tax-deductible donation today. We can't do this without your active support.
The initiators of the March 20 National March on Washington (preceded by the March 19 Day of Action and Outreach in D.C.) include: the ANSWER Coalition; Muslim American Society Freedom; National Council of Arab Americans; Cynthia McKinney; Malik Rahim, co-founder of Common Ground Collective; Ramsey Clark; Cindy Sheehan; Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK; Deborah Sweet, Director, World Can't Wait; Mike Ferner, President, Veterans for Peace; Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition; Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild; Ron Kovic, author of "Born on the 4th of July"; Juan Jose Gutierrez, Director, Latino Movement USA; Col. Ann Wright (ret.); March Forward!; Partnership for Civil Justice; Palestinian American Women Association; Alliance for a Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines; Alliance for Global Justice; Claudia de la Cruz, Pastor, Iglesia San Romero de Las Americas-UCC; Phil Portluck, Social Justice Ministry, Covenant Baptist Church, D.C.; Blase & Theresa Bonpane, Office of the Americas; Coalition for Peace and Democracy in Honduras; Comite Pro-Democracia en Mexico; Frente Unido de los Pueblos Americanos; Comites de Base FMLN, Los Angeles; Free Palestine Alliance; GABRIELA Network; Justice for Filipino American Veterans; KmB Pro-People Youth; Students Fight Back; Jim Lafferty, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild - LA Chapter; LEF Foundation; National Coalition to Free the Angola 3; Community Futures Collective; Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival; Companeros del Barrio; Barrio Unido for Full and Unconditional Amnesty, Bay Area United Against War.
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
http://www.answercoalition.org/
info@internationalanswer.org
National Office in Washington DC: 202-265-1948
New York City: 212-694-8720
Los Angeles: 213-251-1025
San Francisco: 415-821-6545
Chicago: 773-463-0311
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
The US Social Forum II
• June 22-26, 2010 •
Detroit, Michigan, USA
Another World Is Possible! Another US is Necessary!
http://www.ussf2010.org/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
B. SPECIAL APPEALS, VIDEOS AND ONGOING CAMPAIGNS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
FREE LYNNE STEWART NOW!
Lynne Stewart in Jail!
For further information contact: Jeff Mackler, Coordinator, West Coast Lynne Stewart Defense Committee 510-268-9429 jmackler@lmi.net
Mail tax free contributions payable to National Lawyers Guild Foundation. Write in memo box: "Lynne Stewart Defense." Mail to: Lynne Stewart Defense, P.O. Box 10328, Oakland, CA 94610.
SEND RESOLUTIONS AND STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT TO DEFENSE ATTORNEY JOSHUA L. DRATEL, ESQ. FAX: (212) 571 3792 AND EMAIL: jdratel@aol.com
SEND PROTESTS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER:
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Department of Justice Main Switchboard - 202-514-2000
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
Office of the Attorney General Public Comment Line - 202-353-1555
To send Lynne a letter, write:
Lynne Stewart
53504-054
MCC-NY
150 Park Row
New York, NY NY 10007
Lynne Stewart speaks in support of Mumia Abu-Jamal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOQ5_VKRf5k&feature=related
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
The trial of Johannes Mehserle, killer of unarmed Oscar Grant, has been moved to Los Angeles.
In the case of an innocent verdict, folks are encouraged to head to Oakland City Hall ASAP to express our outrage in a massive and peaceful way! Our power is in our numbers! Oscar Grant's family and friends need our support!
For more information:
Contact BAMN at 510-502-9072
letters@bamn.com
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
URGENT! Dhoruba Bin Wahad and Naji Mujahid detained at Israeli checkpoint
http://www.indybay.org/ newsitems/2009/11/25/18630531. php
Please help us spread the word. Dhoruba bin-Wahad (a former Black Panther political prisoner) and Naji Fenwick have been prevented from entering Palestine (11-23-09). They were going to attend a political Prisoner conference. They are asking for our support by contacting the US Embassy and anyone else we can think of that can help. Below is a sample letter for sending an email to the US Embassy in Amman, Jordan
MESSAGE FROM DHORUBA BIN WAHAD:
Greetings:
What obviously began as racial profiling, ended up as an Israeli
attempt to conceal their treatment of Palestinian Detainees from the
African-American community. As a former political prisoner, and
international activist concerned with human rights and civil
liberties, I along with Naji Mujahid, a DC based college student and
videographer, were invited to an international conference on Political
Detainees in the occupied Territories sponsored by the Palestinian
Authority. Unlike most international representatives attending the
conference, who were white and could therefore avoid pre-emptive
scrutiny for entering the occupied territory, I could not (and would
not) enter a country on disingenuous grounds. It is one thing to be
cooperative with officials while traveling, quite another to be
detained and interrogated like a common criminal about your religious
beliefs, personal associations, and family relations with no apparent
objective other than to find some excuse to ban you from entry into a
country that is under international censure for its treatment of an
entire people, the Palestinians.
When I was asked by the Political Prisoner support group Jericho to
answer the Palestinian invitation to the Conference On the Palestinian
Political Detainees in Israeli jails, I accepted. I also was asked by
"Still Here Harlem Productions" to cover the conference because the
African-American community know very little about the middle east.
This lack of knowledge is not coincidental. Many Black elected
officials in America have succumbed to the influence and financial
subsidies of the Israeli lobby, and are fearful for their political
careers should they oppose the racist practices of the Israeli
government toward peoples of color in general and the Palestinian
people in particular. African-Americans have no advocates on capital
hill who will demand their fair treatment while traveling abroad,
except where the governments in question are critical of U.S. foreign
policies. For these reason I undertook the task of reporting the
Conference on Palestinian Detainees.
SAMPLE LETTER BELOW:
----------------------------
DATE:
To Ambassador Robert Beecroft, et al.:
Yesterday, 11-23-09, two American citizens, Dhoruba Bin Wahad and William Fenwick were denied entry into Israel at the Allenby/King Hussein Bridge. After being singled out of a crowd of people that arrived via bus to cross the border, they were kept there for approximately 11hrs (most of those hours they were held incommunicado) and subjected to several searches of their persons and luggage (including strip searches) and questioned extensively; many of the questions were completely irrelevant to legitimate security concerns. Finally, they were told they were being refused entry for "security reasons". Before leaving, they were photographed and fingerprinted and their passports were stamped three times (once stamp that oddly granted them access and two stamps that denied access).
The nature of their business in Jericho, was upon invitation by the Palestinian Authority to attend/participate/document a conference on Palestinian Political Prisoners and Detainees in Israel. The official title of the conference is "The International Conference on Prisoners and Detainees in Israeli Prisons" and it features a keynote address by PA President Mahmoud Abbas. It should be noted that EVERY conference attendee that arrived for the conference through Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv were allowed access into the Territory. This is a blatant disregard for the right of tax-paying American citizens to travel (ironically, millions of those tax dollars go to subsidize the Israeli security apparatus) and International Law that supports freedom of movement and travel. Moreover, it is and a denial of their 1st Amendment rights; Israel is supposed to be a US ally.
Finally, considering the nature of how this encounter between Fenwick and Bin Wahad and the Israeli security began, it looks strikingly familiar to what the United States would consider to be racial profiling. The US consulate has a duty to secure for its citizens the same rights guaranteed at home while abroad and to protect them from arbitrary harassment and discrimination from foreign governments. Therefore, we urge you to express emphatic dismay and disappointment that the only, purportedly, "democratic nation" in the Middle East curtails the free flow of information and ideas, particularly regarding the treatment of the Palestinian people.
Respectfully yours,
John Q. Citizen
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
The Tar Sands Blow
Hi -
I just signed the Tar Sands Blow petition -- and I hope you'll do the same.
The Canadian tar sands produce the dirtiest oil on earth -- including five times the greenhouse gases of conventional oil. World leaders meet next month in Copenhagen to deal with climate change. Sign the petition -- so that we all don't get a raw deal.
http://ien.thetarsandsblow.org/
The Story of Mouseland: As told by Tommy Douglas in 1944
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqgOvzUeiAA
The Communist Manifesto illustrated by Cartoons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KUl4yfABE4
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Holiday gifts from Courage to Resist
www.couragetoresist.org/orders
Free and fast 2-3 day priority shipping!*
Please place your order this week to ensure holiday delivery.
Support mom still facing Afghanistan deployment, court martial
By Jeff Paterson, Courage to Resist. November 16, 2009
"I currently don't have a family care plan, but they told me they did not
care and for me to get ready to go to Afghanistan," explained Oakland,
California native Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, a 21-year-old soldier based at
Hunter Army Airfield outside of Savannah, Georgia.
As I spoke to Alexis on the phone, I believed if I found her a civilian
lawyer to work with the military, a reasonable resolution would be quickly
found. Unlike most service members Courage to Resist assists, Alexis was not
refusing to deploy. She was not looking to speak out against war. She was
simply asking for more time to find someone to care for her 11-month old son
Kamani. Within a few days, however, the Army had tossed Alexis in the
stockade and turned Kamani over to the Chatham County (Georgia) foster care
system.
Read more...
http://couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/792/1/
Please make a tax-deductible donation to Alexis' legal and family support
fund.
http://couragetoresist.org/alexis
Details:
Courage to Resist Urgent Action Alert
Army sends infant to protective services, mom to Afghanistan this weekend
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/789/1/
Army has mom, Alexis Hutchinson, arrested and 11-month old son put into county foster care system. Alexis has now been ordered to deploy to Afghanistan on Sunday, November 15, where she will be court martialed.
Action Alert: Contact Congresswoman Barbara Lee to urge her to "Request that the Army not deploy Alexis Hutchinson to Afghanistan so that she can care for her son." From the 9th District (Oakland-Berkeley, CA) phone: 510-763-0370 (fax: 510-763-6538). Nationwide: 202- 225-2661 (fax: 202-225-9817).
Donate to Alexis' legal and family support fund (couragetoresist.org/alexis)
Alexis' attorney now available for media interviews.
By friends of Alexis and Courage to Resist. November 12, 2009
Also in the news:
Army Sends Infant to Protective Services, Mom to Afghanistan
by Dahr Jamail, Inter Press Service. November 13, 2009
Online version with possible updates
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/789/1/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
HANDS OFF JUANITA YOUNG!
Statement from the NY October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality
http://www.petitiononline.com/JYoungNY/petition.html
Soon after 6:00am on October 27th, five cops raided the house of Juanita Young, the mother of Malcolm Ferguson who was gunned down by a plainclothes cop in 2000. They threatened to break down her door, tried to climb in through her bathroom window, put a gun in Juanita's face and took away her son, Buddy. The cops justified their outrageous and illegal behavior by citing a warrant, refusing to identify who or what the warrant was for. Later it was claimed that the warrant was for Buddy failing to appear in court for a Desk Appearance Ticket on October 13th, just two weeks earlier. This made it clear that it was both an unusually quick response and out of the ordinary violence for this offense.
This is not the first time cops have run roughshod over the rights of Juanita and her family. Juanita Young has been an outspoken opponent of police brutality, fighting for justice not only for her son Malcolm, but for all victims of police brutality. This has made her a target of persistent persecution by the police:
--June 2003: During an illegal eviction carried out by the NYPD, Juanita was arrested for trespassing in her own home. She was handcuffed and aggressively pushed out of her apartment and building, falling twice and injuring her arm. In October 2007, a Bronx civil jury determined that the arresting officer used excessive force in her arrest.
--November 2005: After voicing her disapproval of a brutal arrest at a demonstration, Juanita was arrested after a commanding officer said, "Get her, too." She was refused medical attention that she needed due to an asthma attack. Young was hospitalized for three days and faced criminal charges, but before the date of her arraignment, she received notice in the mail that the charges were dropped.
--November 2006: Juanita was arrested after more than 8 cops entered her apartment during an ambulance call for her daughter. The cops jumped her, punched and kicked her. She was taken to the hospital, where she was handcuffed to the bed and tortured by police for four days, only to be handed a ticket on the last day an hour after a press conference about her attack took place. In October 2008, a Bronx jury acquitted Young of all charges.
--August 2009: During a cookout in front of Juanita's building, over a dozen cops broke down the front door, slammed her oldest son up behind the door, and beat him on the head. The cops also arrested her daughters. This was another attempt to intimidate Juanita Young - through striking out at her loved ones - in hopes of silencing this powerful voice against police brutality.
All these attacks are outrageous, illegitimate and illegal. We say: HANDS OFF JUANITA YOUNG! The NYPD must stop this intimidation and harassment of Juanita and her family. Speaking out against police brutality is no crime. But targeting someone in retaliation for speaking out is illegal.
From Juanita Young's statement to supporters:
"Not only have my rights been violated in the most blatant ways, but I feel physically and psychologically terrorized. I fear for my safety, my very life, and the lives of my children and grandchildren." (October 29, 2009)
We refuse to allow Juanita Young, this fighter against police brutality and injustice, to stand alone against this onslaught.
We demand:
1: The NYPD stop its persecution of Juanita Young!
2: Bronx DA Robert Johnson investigate the role of the 43rd Precinct in this persecution.
3: An investigation of the Warrant Squad and how they were charged, and how they went about, in serving the warrant at Juanita Young's house on October 27th.
Sign Petition Here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/JYoungNY/petition.html
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
VIDEO INTERVIEW: Dan Berger on Political Prisoners in the United States
By Angola 3 News
Angola 3 News
37 years ago in Louisiana, 3 young black men were silenced for trying to expose continued segregation, systematic corruption, and horrific abuse in the biggest prison in the US, an 18,000-acre former slave plantation called Angola. In 1972 and 1973 prison officials charged Herman Wallace, Albert Woodfox, and Robert King with murders they did not commit and threw them into 6x9 ft. cells in solitary confinement, for over 36 years. Robert was freed in 2001, but Herman and Albert remain behind bars.
http://angola3news.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-dan-berger-on-political-prisoners.html
Taking Aim Radio Program with
Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone
The Chimera of Capitalist Recovery, Parts 1 and 2
http://www.takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
JROTC MUST GO!
The San Francisco Board of Education has re-installed the Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps in San Francisco schools -- including allowing it to count for Physical Education credits.
This is a complete reversal of the 2006 decision to end JROTC altogether in San Francisco public schools. Our children need a good physical education program, not a death education program!
With the economy in crisis; jobs and higher education for youth more unattainable; the lure, lies and false promises of military recruiters is driving more and more of our children into the military trap.
This is an economic draft and the San Francisco Board of Education is helping to snare our children to provide cannon fodder for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and for over 700 U.S. military bases around the world!
We can't depend upon "friendly politicians" who, while they are campaigning for office claim they are against the wars but when they get elected vote in favor of military recruitment--the economic draft--in our schools. We can't depend upon them. That has been proven beyond doubt!
It is up to all of us to come together to stop this NOW!
GET JROTC AND ALL MILITARY RECRUITERS OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS NOW!
Write, call, pester and ORGANIZE against the re-institution of JROTC in our San Francisco public schools NOW!
In solidarity,
Bonnie Weinstein
Bay Area United Against War Newsletter
San Francisco Board of Education
555 Franklin Street, 1st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
415/241-6427, (415) 241-6493
cascoe@sfusd.edu
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
HELP VFP PUT THIS BOOK IN YOUR HIGH SCHOOL OR PUBLIC LIBRARY
For a donation of only $18.95, we can put a copy of the book "10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military" into a public or high school library of your choice. [Reason number 1: You may be killed]
A letter and bookplate will let readers know that your donation helped make this possible.
Putting a book in either a public or school library ensures that students, parents, and members of the community will have this valuable information when they need it.
Don't have a library you would like us to put it in? We'll find one for you!
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/826/t/9311/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=4906
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
This is a must-see video about the life of Oscar Grant, a young man who loved his family and was loved by his family. It's important to watch to understand the tremendous loss felt by his whole family as a result of his cold-blooded murder by BART police officers--Johannes Mehserle being the shooter while the others held Oscar down and handcuffed him to aid Mehserle in the murder of Oscar Grant January 1, 2009.
The family wants to share this video here with you who support justice for Oscar Grant.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/21/18611878.php
WE DEMAND JUSTICE FOR OSCAR GRANT!
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Urgent: Ahmad Sa'adat transferred to isolation in Ramon prison!
http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org/
Imprisoned Palestinian national leader Ahmad Sa'adat, the General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, was transferred on August 11, 2009 to Ramon prison in the Naqab desert from Asqelan prison, where he had been held for a number of months. He remains in isolation; prior to his transfer from Asqelan, he had been held since August 1 in a tiny isolation cell of 140 cm x 240 cm after being penalized for communicating with another prisoner in the isolation unit.
Attorney Buthaina Duqmaq, president of the Mandela Association for prisoners' and detainees' rights, reported that this transfer is yet another continuation of the policy of repression and isolation directed at Sa'adat by the Israeli prison administration, aimed at undermining his steadfastness and weakening his health and his leadership in the prisoners' movement. Sa'adat has been moved repeatedly from prison to prison and subject to fines, harsh conditions, isolation and solitary confinement, and medical neglect. Further reports have indicated that he is being denied attorney visits upon his transfer to Ramon.
Ahmad Sa'adat undertook a nine-day hunger strike in June in order to protest the increasing use of isolation against Palestinian prisoners and the denial of prisoners' rights, won through long and hard struggle. The isolation unit at Ramon prison is reported to be one of the worst isolation units in terms of conditions and repeated violations of prisoners' rights in the Israeli prison system.
Sa'adat is serving a 30 year sentence in Israeli military prisons. He was sentenced on December 25, 2008 after a long and illegitimate military trial on political charges, which he boycotted. He was kidnapped by force in a military siege on the Palestinian Authority prison in Jericho, where he had been held since 2002 under U.S., British and PA guard.
Sa'adat is suffering from back injuries that require medical assistance and treatment. Instead of receiving the medical care he needs, the Israeli prison officials are refusing him access to specialists and engaging in medical neglect and maltreatment.
The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat demands an end to this isolation and calls upon all to protest at local Israeli embassies and consulates (the list is available at: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ About+the+Ministry/Diplomatic+mission/Web+Sites+of+Israeli+ Missions+Abroad.htm) and to write to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other human rights organizations to exercise their responsibilities and act swiftly to demand that the Israelis ensure that Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners receive needed medical care and that this punitive isolation be ended. Email the ICRC, whose humanitarian mission includes monitoring the conditions of prisoners, at jerusalem..jer@icrc.org, and inform them about the urgent situation of Ahmad Sa'adat!
Ahmad Sa'adat has been repeatedly moved in an attempt to punish him for his steadfastness and leadership and to undermine his leadership in the prisoners' movement. Of course, these tactics have done nothing of the sort. The Palestinian prisoners are daily on the front lines, confronting Israeli oppression and crimes. Today, it is urgent that we stand with Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners against these abuses, and for freedom for all Palestinian prisoners and for all of Palestine!
The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat
http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org
info@freeahmadsaadat.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Troy Anthony Davis is an African American man who has spent the last 18 years on death row for a murder he did not commit. There is no physical evidence tying him to the crime and seven out of nine witnesses have recanted. New evidence and new testimony have been presented to the Georgia courts, but the justice system refuses to consider this evidence, which would prove Troy Davis' innocence once and for all.
Sign the petition and join the NAACP, Amnesty International USA, and other partners in demanding justice for Troy Davis!
http://www.iamtroy.com/
For Now, High Court Punts on Troy Davis, on Death Row for 18 Years
By Ashby Jones
Wall Street Journal Law Blog
June 30, 2009
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/06/30/for-now-high-court-punts-on-troy-davis-on-death-row-for-18-years/
Take action now:
http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=2590179&aid=12361&ICID=A0906A01&tr=y&auid=5030305
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Committee To Save Mumia Abu-Jamal
P.O. Box 2012
New York, NY 10159-2012
New videos from April 24 Oakland Mumia event
http://abu-jamal-news.com/article?name=jlboak
Donations for Mumia's Legal Defense in the U.S. Our legal effort is the front line of the battle for Mumia's freedom and life. His legal defense needs help. The costs are substantial for our litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court and at the state level. To help, please make your checks payable to the National Lawyers Guild Foundation (indicate "Mumia" on the bottom left). All donations are tax deductible under the Internal Revenue Code, section 501(c)(3), and should be mailed to:
It is outrageous and a violation of human rights that Mumia remains in prison and on death row. His life hangs in the balance. My career has been marked by successfully representing people facing death in murder cases. I will not rest until we win Mumia's case. Justice requires no less.
With best wishes,
Robert R. Bryan
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Short Video About Al-Awda's Work
The following link is to a short video which provides an overview of Al-Awda's work since the founding of our organization in 2000. This video was first shown on Saturday May 23, 2009 at the fundraising banquet of the 7th Annual Int'l Al-Awda Convention in Anaheim California. It was produced from footage collected over the past nine years.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTiAkbB5uC0&eurl
Support Al-Awda, a Great Organization and Cause!
Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, depends on your financial support to carry out its work.
To submit your tax-deductible donation to support our work, go to
http://www.al-awda.org/donate.html and follow the simple instructions.
Thank you for your generosity!
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
KEVIN COOPER IS INNOCENT!
FLASHPOINTS Interview with Innocent San Quentin Death Row Inmate
Kevin Cooper -- Aired Monday, May 18,2009
http://www.flashpoints.net/#GOOGLE_SEARCH_ENGINE
To learn more about Kevin Cooper go to:
savekevincooper.org
LINKS
San Francisco Chronicle article on the recent ruling:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/13/BAM517J8T3.DTL
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and dissent:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/05/11/05-99004o.pdf
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
COURAGE TO RESIST!
Support the troops who refuse to fight!
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/
Donate:
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/21/57/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
C. ARTICLES IN FULL
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) Obama's Address on the War in Afghanistan -- Text
December 2, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02prexy.text.html?scp=1&sq=Obama%27s%20speech%20text&st=cse
2) Between the Lines, an Expansion in Pakistan
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
December 2, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02strategy.html?ref=world
3) Message to Obama: You Can't Have Muhammad Ali
By Dave Zirin
December 3, 2009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-zirin/message-to-obama-you-cant_3_b_378429.html
4) Rhetoric and Reality:
Masking War Escalation as a Withdrawal Plan
The anti-war movement responds
to President Obama's speech
Statement from the ANSWER Coalition
http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2/730504312?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=9237&news_iv_ctrl=1621
5) Immigration Detention System Lapses Detailed
By NINA BERNSTEIN
December 3, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/us/03immig.html?ref=us
6) We May Be Born With an Urge to Help
By NICHOLAS WADE
December 1, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html?ref=health
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) Obama's Address on the War in Afghanistan -- Text
December 2, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02prexy.text.html?scp=1&sq=Obama%27s%20speech%20text&st=cse
Following is the text of President Obama's address on a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, as released by the White House on Tuesday:
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.
Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: The status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less.
This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.
But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.
Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.
We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America's authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)
As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.)
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
America -- we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.)
Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) Between the Lines, an Expansion in Pakistan
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
December 2, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02strategy.html?ref=world
WASHINGTON - President Obama focused his speech on Afghanistan. He left much unsaid about Pakistan, where the main terrorists he is targeting are located, but where he can send no troops.
Mr. Obama could not be very specific about his Pakistan strategy, his advisers conceded on Monday evening. American operations there are classified, most run by the Central Intelligence Agency. Any overt American presence would only fuel anti-Americanism in a country that reacts sharply to every missile strike against extremists that kills civilians as well, and that fears the United States is plotting to run its government and seize its nuclear weapons.
Yet quietly, Mr. Obama has authorized an expansion of the war in Pakistan as well - if only he can get a weak, divided, suspicious Pakistani government to agree to the terms.
In recent months, in addition to providing White House officials with classified assessments about Afghanistan, the C.I.A. delivered a plan for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C.I.A.'s budget for operations inside the country.
The expanded operations could include drone strikes in the southern province of Baluchistan, where senior Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, officials said. It is from there that they direct many of the attacks on American troops, attacks that are likely to increase as more Americans pour into Afghanistan.
"The president endorsed an intensification of the campaign against Al Qaeda and its violent allies, including even more operations targeting terrorism safe havens," said one American official. "More people, more places, more operations."
That was the message delivered in recent weeks to Pakistani officials by Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser. But the Pakistanis, suspicious of Mr. Obama's intentions and his staying power, have not yet agreed.
General Jones was one of a series of American officials who arrived in Pakistan in recent weeks with the same message: no matter how many troops the president commits to Afghanistan, the strategy will founder unless the safe haven inside Pakistan is dealt with.
However, the United States does not have much leverage and is counting on a new attitude and a huge acceleration of efforts from a weak government. Making matters worse, the president, Asif Ali Zardari, is often at odds with the nation's powerful military and intelligence establishment.
The question about Mr. Obama's Pakistan strategy is whether the new commitment of troops and resources can ultimately make America safer at a time of an evolving terrorist threat. Mr. Obama insisted that was his central focus.
"This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by Al Qaeda," he said to the cadets at West Point, speaking of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the murky border area between the two that offers refuge to extremists of many stripes. The region was the birthplace of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he said, and "it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak." Many times in the speech he returned to that threat, saying it was what made this war different from Vietnam.
And he referenced another threat, one that focuses the attention of Mr. Obama's national security team daily, but which it speaks about rarely.
"The stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that Al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them," he said.
Mr. Obama's decision to raise the nuclear specter was notable because a succession of American officials have publicly stated recently that the Pakistani arsenal is secure. In private, however, they have commissioned new intelligence studies on how vulnerable Pakistani warheads and laboratories would be if insurgents made greater inroads, with one official saying recently, "It is the scenario we spend the most time thinking about."
Even if Mr. Obama is successful in lessening the terrorist threat in the region, many analysts say that Al Qaeda has changed into a transnational movement beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"There is no direct impact on stopping terrorists around the world because we are or are not in Afghanistan," said Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, the former C.I.A. officer who was sent into Pakistan after 9/11 to determine if Osama bin Laden had access to the country's nuclear technology. The nature of modern terrorism, Mr. Mowatt-Larssen, now at Harvard, argued, is that a safe haven can be moved to many different states, and the bigger threat exists in cells, including in Europe and the United States.
Even Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, acknowledged in an interview this evening that the steps announced by the president would not address Al Qaeda cells in Africa or the Middle East, or even homegrown extremists. But she argued that he had to begin somewhere.
"Can you totally eliminate the threat from Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda types in Yemen or Somalia? No," she said. "But what you have done is taken a major action to limit their ability out of this major theater, from which their leaders and major actions emanate."
Making the Pakistan plan even more complex was Mr. Obama's effort to reconcile two seemingly contradictory messages on Tuesday evening. He had to convince the Pakistanis that he was not planning to leave the region - as the United States did 20 years ago, after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan - while reassuring American citizens that after an 18-month buildup, he would begin to head for the exits.
The United States, he said, simply could not afford an open-ended war. Unlike President Bush, he suggested, he would not set "goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests."
Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Message to Obama: You Can't Have Muhammad Ali
By Dave Zirin
December 3, 2009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-zirin/message-to-obama-you-cant_3_b_378429.html
On November 19th, President Barack Obama wrote a stirring tribute in USA Today to the most famous draft resister in US history, Muhammad Ali. On Tuesday, Obama spoke at West Point, calling for an increase of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan, with a speech that recalled the worst shadings of George W. Bush's "war on terror."
On November 19th, Obama wrote about why Ali's photo hangs over his desk, praising "The Greatest" for "his unique ability to summon extraordinary strength and courage in the face of adversity, to navigate the storm and never lose his way." On Tuesday, Obama showed neither courage nor strength but the worst kind of imperial arrogance. He asserted America's right to go into a deeply impoverished country that - from Alexander the Great to the USSR to today - has made clear to the world's empires that it wants to be left the hell alone.
On Tuesday, Obama summoned the spectre of 9/11 and said, "It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united--bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear." He didn't mention how many innocent Afghans had already died in eight years of "horrific attacks" on their homeland or how many would die in the months ahead, defending their own homeland.
On November 19th, Obama praised Ali as "a force for reconciliation and peace around the world." On Tuesday the Nobel Peace Prize winner, reconciled himself with war.
Would that Muhammad Ali still had his voice. Would that Parkinson's disease and dementia had not robbed us of his razor-sharp tongue.
Today, Ali has been described as "America's only living saint." But like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, both postage stamps before people, Ali has had his political teeth extracted.
But in a time when billions go to war and prisons while 50% of children will be on food stamps for the coming year, we can't afford Ali, the harmless icon. Maybe Muhammad Ali has been robbed of speech, but I think we can safely guess what the Champ would say in the face of Obama's war. We can safely guess, because he said it perfectly four decades ago:
"Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No, I'm not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. This is the day when such evils must come to an end. I have been warned that to take such a stand would cost me millions of dollars. But I have said it once and I will say it again. The real enemy of my people is here..... If I thought the war was going to bring freedom and equality to 22 million of my people, they wouldn't have to draft me, I'd join tomorrow. I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I'll go to jail, so what? We've been in jail for 400 years."
Replace Vietnam with Afghanistan and it's a message Barack Obama and our troops need to hear. But we shouldn't wait for some celebrity or athlete to make that statement for us. Muhammad Ali may have helped shape the 1960s, but those years of resistance also shaped him. We need to rebuild the movement against war. We need to revive the real Muhammad Ali to inspire draft resistors of the future. We need to reclaim Ali from warmongers who would use his image to sell a war that will create more orphans than peace. This is the struggle of our lives and we have the Nobel-minted President of the United States on the other side of the barricades. Barack Obama can have the fawning media, the oadring generals, the RNC, and the liberal apologists on his side. But he can't have the Champ. Remove that poster from your wall Mr. President. Your Ali privileges have been revoked.
[Dave Zirin is the author of "A People's History of Sports in the United States" (The New Press) Receive his column every week by emailing dave@edgeofsports.com . Contact him at edgeofsports@gmail.com .]
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) Rhetoric and Reality:
Masking War Escalation as a Withdrawal Plan
The anti-war movement responds
to President Obama's speech
Statement from the ANSWER Coalition
http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2/730504312?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=9237&news_iv_ctrl=1621
Rhetoric and Reality:
Masking War Escalation as a Withdrawal Plan
The U.S. cannot "win" the war in Afghanistan. It was losing the war when Barack Obama took office. In March 2009, President Obama ordered another 30,000 troops. Rather than reverse the outcome, the U.S. and NATO effort lost even more ground. Now President Obama has ordered another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
Attempting to deflect growing opposition to the announcement of his dramatic escalation of the war in Afghanistan, President Obama is simultaneously claiming that U.S. troops will start to be withdrawn in July 2011.
The Generals and Admirals, and now the White House, are unwilling to accept responsibility for a military setback. The President knows they cannot win and yet is unwilling to leave. Since no leader is willing to take responsibility, they are instead sending thousands more to their deaths.
Bush and Cheney ordered the invasion thinking it would be easy going. They thought Iraq would be easy, too. They were going to wipe out the governments in Iran, Syria and North Korea. This colonial-type fantasy, nourished by "great nation" arrogance and the acquiescence of a caste of corrupt politicians in Congress, set the stage for the current catastrophe of a war without end.
After eight years of war, more than 140 armed insurgent groups of Afghans now exist as a response to the invasion and they control large parts of the country. The people in Afghanistan perceive the occupation as a colonial-type takeover of their country. September 11 was a pretext, but there were no Afghans or Iraqis who hijacked the planes. The people of Afghanistan, like the people in Vietnam, will never accept foreign military occupation in their country.
In the 1968 election Nixon ran on a platform of a "secret peace plan" for Vietnam. In reality, Nixon's "peace plan" meant more bombing of Vietnam, expansion of the war into Cambodia, and "Vietnamization" - the building up of the South Vietnamese puppet army under the direction of U.S. "advisors." The puppet army was supposed to do the fighting and dying in the place of U.S. troops in an increasingly unpopular war.
The new plan for Afghanistan calls for more bombing and drone attacks, and "Afghanization" - the building up of a puppet Afghan army trained and led by U.S. commanders. This follows President Obama's escalation of massive bombing of the people of Pakistan.
Bush Policy - Obama Policy
On Jan. 20, the day that Barack Obama took the oath of office, a government helicopter carrying George W. Bush lifted off and made the ceremonial flight away from the nation's capital, signaling the end of one era and the start of a new administration.
It was a remarkable event to witness. As the Bush helicopter passed over the inaugural throng, millions of people on the ground started cheering spontaneously. The official pomp of the transfer of power was overwhelmed by the euphoria of those who hated Bush and his policies.
But was there a transfer of power? The personalities change, but the institutions of militarism, war and empire remain intact.
Since Obama took over as president, the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan has nearly doubled, and that's before the new deployment of 30,000 more soldiers.
Today, less than a year since Bush departed, there are actually more combined U.S. military forces occupying Iraq and Afghanistan than at any time during Bush's tenure. Between official military forces, private mercenaries and other contractors, by the middle of 2010 there will be nearly a half-million U.S. personnel in the two countries.
At a time of deep economic crisis, with tens of millions out of work and losing their homes, the cost of the wars and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq is already running at over $225 billion per year or $1.2 billion every two days. Escalating the war will escalate that cost.
The war is not about "the security of the people of the United States being at stake." If it was, there could be no talk about exit strategies and announced plans for withdrawal.
Starting today, there will be a growing escalation of anti-war protests in the United States. Tonight and tomorrow there are demonstrations across the country.
On Saturday, March 20, 2010, tens of thousands will march in Washington, D.C., with coinciding mass actions in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Real change comes from below. It comes from the millions who are suffering from unemployment, foreclosure, evictions and poverty. It comes from the young people who are being driven from college because of soaring tuition. The children of working-class families are the ones who do the bleeding and the killing, and they are told they do it for "national security."
This is not our war. This is a war for empire, one that has gone very badly for the occupying force. How many more will die for the U.S. to avoid the appearance of defeat?
The ANSWER Coalition, in partnership with scores of organizations and echoing the sentiment of millions of people who want the wars to end, will be in the streets today, tomorrow and in the months to come. That is now clearly the only prescription to end the violence and occupation of the American Empire.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) Immigration Detention System Lapses Detailed
By NINA BERNSTEIN
December 3, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/us/03immig.html?ref=us
Growing numbers of noncitizens, including legal immigrants, are held unnecessarily and transferred heedlessly in an expensive immigration detention system that denies many of them basic fairness, a bipartisan study group and a human rights organization concluded in reports released jointly on Wednesday.
Confirmation of some of their critical conclusions came separately from the Homeland Security Department's inspector general, in an investigation that found detainee transfers by Immigration and Customs Enforcement were so haphazard that some detainees arrived at a new detention center without having been served a notice of why they were being held, or despite a high probability of being granted bond, or with pending criminal prosecutions or arrest warrants in the previous jurisdiction.
The bipartisan group, the Constitution Project, whose members include Asa Hutchinson, a former under secretary of homeland security, called for sweeping changes in agency policies and amendments to immigration law, including new access to government-appointed counsel for many of those facing deportation.
In its report, the human rights organization, Human Rights Watch, revealed government data showing 1.4 million detainee transfers from 1999 to 2008, most of them since 2006. The transfers are accelerating, the report found, with tens of thousands of longtime residents of cities like Philadelphia and Los Angeles being sent to remote immigration jails in Texas and Louisiana, far from legal counsel and the evidence that might help them win release.
"ICE is increasingly subjecting detainees to a chaotic game of musical chairs, and it's a game with dire consequences," said Alison Parker, deputy director in the United States for the human rights group, and author of its report. The data underlying the report was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) of Syracuse University, which issued its own report.
The inspector general's investigation found that the consequences of haphazard transfers include a loss of access to legal counsel and relevant evidence; additional time in detention; and "errors, delays and confusion for detainees, their families, legal representatives" and the immigration courts.
Some detainees were transferred with files lacking a photo and a security classification, field inspectors found in work conducted from October 2008 to February.
Officials at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is part of Homeland Security, said the agency would issue advisories reminding field offices of 10-year-old national detention standards that require a review of a detainee's "alien file" before any transfer, and reinforcing the need to coordinate with immigration courts.
In August, the Obama administration announced ambitious plans to overhaul immigration detention, a disjointed network that relies heavily on private prisons and county jails. But taken together, the three reports underscore the gap between the plans and the problems on the ground in a system that, according to the inspector general, is estimated to be detaining more than 442,000 people a year - more than double the number in 2003, ICE's first year of operation.
John T. Morton, director of the immigration agency, envisions a "truly civil detention system" shaped by more centralized agency control. In contrast, the Constitution Project recommends shrinking the use of detention, in part by adding more constitutional safeguards required in the criminal justice system.
"None of the recommendations being made should in any way compromise national security," Mr. Hutchinson said Wednesday in an interview before he presented the report at the National Press Club in Washington. "It simply allows for a more humane and more efficient system."
Immigration law is complex, and the deprivation of liberty is quite similar to the situation in other settings that require court-appointed counsel for the indigent. But 60 percent of noncitizens face deportation without a lawyer, and transfers compound the problem, the reports said.
The immigration agency has said it uses transfers to deal with an imbalance in the number of detention beds at various locations. But the TRAC analysis shows that the number of transfers has grown much more rapidly than the detention population. It found that in the first six months of the 2008 fiscal year, 53 percent of detainees were transferred at least once, and that one in four were transferred multiple times, a fivefold increase since 1999.
Though transfers occur in almost every state, the data show that the jurisdiction receiving the most transferred detainees is the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, covering Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas - which is widely known for decisions hostile to the rights of noncitizens and has the worst ratio of immigration lawyers to detainees, the human rights report said.
A strong case against deportation sometimes simply evaporates in such a transfer, the report said. It cited a Jamaican New Yorker transferred to Texas after three months in detention in New York and New Jersey.
Immigration authorities contended that he should be deported based on two prior convictions for drug possession.
In New York, his drug misdemeanors were not considered an "aggravated felony," and based on the man's 22 years of legal residency and strong family relationships in the United States, he would have been eligible for "cancellation of removal," a form of relief from deportation. In Texas, he was barred from relief based on Fifth Circuit rulings, and deported.
The bipartisan group said the agency makes it too hard for people to avoid detention while challenging deportation. It recommended a significant easing in the burden of proof, and a hardship waiver from mandatory detention for lawful permanent residents.
In what it called "an aspirational goal," it recommended that where free counsel is not available, all indigent noncitizens in standard deportation proceedings have access to a government-paid lawyer. It also urged Congress to give immigration judges discretion to appoint counsel, and to require a lawyer in certain cases, including those involving unaccompanied children and the mentally ill.
Mr. Hutchinson said that the immigration agency could make many other changes immediately, including some that would "correct some potential unfairness in the system" unintentionally left by his own efforts when he was in office.
According to the Human Rights Watch report, a memorandum Mr. Hutchinson issued in 2004 is now used as a loophole to hold detainees for weeks without giving them notice of why the government is seeking to deport them. "This can certainly be tightened up and narrowed," Mr. Hutchinson said.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) We May Be Born With an Urge to Help
By NICHOLAS WADE
December 1, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html?ref=health
What is the essence of human nature? Flawed, say many theologians. Vicious and addicted to warfare, wrote Hobbes. Selfish and in need of considerable improvement, think many parents.
But biologists are beginning to form a generally sunnier view of humankind. Their conclusions are derived in part from testing very young children, and partly from comparing human children with those of chimpanzees, hoping that the differences will point to what is distinctively human.
The somewhat surprising answer at which some biologists have arrived is that babies are innately sociable and helpful to others. Of course every animal must to some extent be selfish to survive. But the biologists also see in humans a natural willingness to help.
When infants 18 months old see an unrelated adult whose hands are full and who needs assistance opening a door or picking up a dropped clothespin, they will immediately help, Michael Tomasello writes in "Why We Cooperate," a book published in October. Dr. Tomasello, a developmental psychologist, is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.
The helping behavior seems to be innate because it appears so early and before many parents start teaching children the rules of polite behavior.
"It's probably safe to assume that they haven't been explicitly and directly taught to do this," said Elizabeth Spelke, a developmental psychologist at Harvard. "On the other hand, they've had lots of opportunities to experience acts of helping by others. I think the jury is out on the innateness question."
But Dr. Tomasello finds the helping is not enhanced by rewards, suggesting that it is not influenced by training. It seems to occur across cultures that have different timetables for teaching social rules. And helping behavior can even be seen in infant chimpanzees under the right experimental conditions. For all these reasons, Dr. Tomasello concludes that helping is a natural inclination, not something imposed by parents or culture.
Infants will help with information, as well as in practical ways. From the age of 12 months they will point at objects that an adult pretends to have lost. Chimpanzees, by contrast, never point at things for each other, and when they point for people, it seems to be as a command to go fetch something rather than to share information.
For parents who may think their children somehow skipped the cooperative phase, Dr. Tomasello offers the reassuring advice that children are often more cooperative outside the home, which is why parents may be surprised to hear from a teacher or coach how nice their child is. "In families, the competitive element is in ascendancy," he said.
As children grow older, they become more selective in their helpfulness. Starting around age 3, they will share more generously with a child who was previously nice to them. Another behavior that emerges at the same age is a sense of social norms. "Most social norms are about being nice to other people," Dr. Tomasello said in an interview, "so children learn social norms because they want to be part of the group."
Children not only feel they should obey these rules themselves, but also that they should make others in the group do the same. Even 3-year-olds are willing to enforce social norms. If they are shown how to play a game, and a puppet then joins in with its own idea of the rules, the children will object, some of them vociferously.
Where do they get this idea of group rules, the sense of "we who do it this way"? Dr. Tomasello believes children develop what he calls "shared intentionality," a notion of what others expect to happen and hence a sense of a group "we." It is from this shared intentionality that children derive their sense of norms and of expecting others to obey them.
Shared intentionality, in Dr. Tomasello's view, is close to the essence of what distinguishes people from chimpanzees. A group of human children will use all kinds of words and gestures to form goals and coordinate activities, but young chimps seem to have little interest in what may be their companions' minds.
If children are naturally helpful and sociable, what system of child-rearing best takes advantage of this surprising propensity? Dr. Tomasello says that the approach known as inductive parenting works best because it reinforces the child's natural propensity to cooperate with others. Inductive parenting is simply communicating with children about the effect of their actions on others and emphasizing the logic of social cooperation.
"Children are altruistic by nature," he writes, and though they are also naturally selfish, all parents need do is try to tip the balance toward social behavior.
The shared intentionality lies at the basis of human society, Dr. Tomasello argues. From it flow ideas of norms, of punishing those who violate the norms and of shame and guilt for punishing oneself. Shared intentionality evolved very early in the human lineage, he believes, and its probable purpose was for cooperation in gathering food. Anthropologists report that when men cooperate in hunting, they can take down large game, which single hunters generally cannot do. Chimpanzees gather to hunt colobus monkeys, but Dr. Tomasello argues this is far less of a cooperative endeavor because the participants act on an ad hoc basis and do not really share their catch.
An interesting bodily reflection of humans' shared intentionality is the sclera, or whites, of the eyes. All 200 or so species of primates have dark eyes and a barely visible sclera. All, that is, except humans, whose sclera is three times as large, a feature that makes it much easier to follow the direction of someone else's gaze. Chimps will follow a person's gaze, but by looking at his head, even if his eyes are closed. Babies follow a person's eyes, even if the experimenter keeps his head still.
Advertising what one is looking at could be a risk. Dr. Tomasello argues that the behavior evolved "in cooperative social groups in which monitoring one another's focus was to everyone's benefit in completing joint tasks."
This could have happened at some point early in human evolution, when in order to survive, people were forced to cooperate in hunting game or gathering fruit. The path to obligatory cooperation - one that other primates did not take - led to social rules and their enforcement, to human altruism and to language.
"Humans putting their heads together in shared cooperative activities are thus the originators of human culture," Dr. Tomasello writes.
A similar conclusion has been reached independently by Hillard S. Kaplan, an anthropologist at the University of New Mexico. Modern humans have lived for most of their existence as hunter gatherers, so much of human nature has presumably been shaped for survival in such conditions. From study of existing hunter gatherer peoples, Dr. Kaplan has found evidence of cooperation woven into many levels of human activity.
The division of labor between men and women - men gather 68 percent of the calories in foraging societies - requires cooperation between the sexes. Young people in these societies consume more than they produce until age 20, which in turn requires cooperation between the generations. This long period of dependency was needed to develop the special skills required for the hunter gatherer way of life.
The structure of early human societies, including their "high levels of cooperation between kin and nonkin," was thus an adaptation to the "specialized foraging niche" of food resources that were too difficult for other primates to capture, Dr. Kaplan and colleagues wrote recently in The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. We evolved to be nice to each other, in other words, because there was no alternative.
Much the same conclusion is reached by Frans de Waal in another book published in October, "The Age of Empathy." Dr. de Waal, a primatologist, has long studied the cooperative side of primate behavior and believes that aggression, which he has also studied, is often overrated as a human motivation.
"We're preprogrammed to reach out," Dr. de Waal writes. "Empathy is an automated response over which we have limited control." The only people emotionally immune to another's situation, he notes, are psychopaths.
Indeed, it is in our biological nature, not our political institutions, that we should put our trust, in his view. Our empathy is innate and cannot be changed or long suppressed. "In fact," Dr. de Waal writes, "I'd argue that biology constitutes our greatest hope. One can only shudder at the thought that the humaneness of our societies would depend on the whims of politics, culture or religion."
The basic sociability of human nature does not mean, of course, that people are nice to each other all the time. Social structure requires that things be done to maintain it, some of which involve negative attitudes toward others. The instinct for enforcing norms is powerful, as is the instinct for fairness. Experiments have shown that people will reject unfair distributions of money even it means they receive nothing.
"Humans clearly evolved the ability to detect inequities, control immediate desires, foresee the virtues of norm following and gain the personal, emotional rewards that come from seeing another punished," write three Harvard biologists, Marc Hauser, Katherine McAuliffe and Peter R. Blake, in reviewing their experiments with tamarin monkeys and young children.
If people do bad things to others in their group, they can behave even worse to those outside it. Indeed the human capacity for cooperation "seems to have evolved mainly for interactions within the local group," Dr. Tomasello writes.
Sociality, the binding together of members of a group, is the first requirement of defense, since without it people will not put the group's interests ahead of their own or be willing to sacrifice their lives in battle. Lawrence H. Keeley, an anthropologist who has traced aggression among early peoples, writes in his book "War Before Civilization" that, "Warfare is ultimately not a denial of the human capacity for cooperation, but merely the most destructive expression of it."
The roots of human cooperation may lie in human aggression. We are selfish by nature, yet also follow rules requiring us to be nice to others.
"That's why we have moral dilemmas," Dr. Tomasello said, "because we are both selfish and altruistic at the same time."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
No comments:
Post a Comment