By Jodie Evans and Charles Davis

He disappeared more than a decade ago, just 18-years-old and teaching abroad, separated from  his family for the first time in life. His mother and father, sick with worry, heard nothing. For all they knew he was dead. Then, one day they opened a newspaper and learned their son was being held in a military prison run by the US of A, accused of – but never charged with – being an enemy of the state.

Yes We Can End War CODEPINK Banner Drop

Were Abdurahman al-Shubati a US citizen, his case would be featured on CNN, his face plastered on television screens next to a graphic listing his days in prison without trial. Some go-getting entrepreneur would be selling yellow wristbands with his name and “#solidarity” printed on them. The president, affecting the right level of empathy for the family and strong but stately anger toward his captors, would be telling us: “Never forget” and “There will be justice.”

But Abdurahman was born in Yemen. Which means he’s not entitled to all those rights said to be endowed to us by our creator, at least in the eyes of the US government. And that means, despite being detained since 2001 and formally cleared of any wrongdoing in 2008, he remains trapped in a prison cell at Guantanamo Bay, slowly starving to death. A combination of racism, Islamophobia and simple guilt by association, have caused the U.S. government to keep him locked up.

Since Barack Obama became US president after pledging to close Guantanamo, which his administration is now seeking to expand, conditions at the military prison have only gotten worse, prisoners there who were once promised their freedom complaining of physical and mental torture. Though he has unilaterally waged war, Obama has decided that he can’t – nay, won’t – unilaterally free them. In fact, the opposite: heissued an executive order creating “a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay.” The Obama administration has unilaterally decided that dozens of men will never be tried so much as in a military tribunal because the evidence against them was obtained through torture, but that they can never be freed because they are nonetheless deemed “too dangerous.”

Not that the US government is too keen on freeing anyone else, either. A US military committee has already determinedthat Abdurahman, like 57 other Yemenis imprisoned at Guantanamo, should be returned home; that he spent his 20s in prison for a crime he didn’t commit and with which he wasn’t even charged, much less convicted. Obama, however, refuses to release the men, ostensibly out of fear they may seek revenge against their former captors once they return to Yemen.

Understandably, this has created a sense of hopelessness among the 166 people still imprisoned at Guantanamo. More than 100 of them are now on a hunger strike. What other option is left them at this point? Because of their symbolic act of defiance, however, they are being tortured even more – “how dare you embarrass us by dying” – with US personnel force-feeding them to avoid another public relations problem (the United Nations says the practice is simply “unjustifiable”).

“Can you imagine what this is like for a mother?” asks Abdurahman’s own mom in an appeal for his freedom. “To imagine my son in such a loveless place, refusing nourishment to protest his detention; to think of him being painfully force fed – it breaks my heart every second of every day.  Don’t they realize we are human beings, not stones?”

As Mothers’ Day is celebrated this year in the US, a holidaywith roots in the fight for peace and justice, Abdurahman and more than a hundred others never charged with crimes will be sitting in prison cells, alone. George W. Bush will get to hug his mom. Michelle Obama will get to hug her children, but the mothers of Guantanamo prisoners don’t get to hug theirs- ever. The best they can hope for is a phone call every two months.

In an 1870 appeal to women of the world, writer and activist Julia Ward Howe – the originator of the Mother’s Day we celebrate – implored her readers to not let their children become complicit in the machinery of war and injustice; to not let them unlearn the lessons they were taught “of charity, mercy and patience”; to not let them “be trained to injure others.”

Here in the 21st century, we need to relearn those lessons and focus on training our children to be instruments of peace, not oppression. Right now, too many kids of American mothers are making mothers in other countries cry. We need to teach them that the practice of compassion and mercy shouldn’t stop at one’s mailbox or a country’s borders. Mothers overseas are in anguish over the kidnapping and loss of their children too.

Join us in calling on Michelle Obama to open her heart to the cries of Abdurahman’s mother and ask Barack to send those cleared home and to expedite the closing of Guantanamo. Join Diane Wilson on her 11th day outside the White House and over 1000 others in a fast of solidarity with the prisoners.

Jodie Evans is the co-founder of CODEPINK @heartofj
Charles Davis is a writer living in Los Angeles @charliearchy

Read the rest of this entry →

By Medea Benjamin

Dallas police arrest an activist wearing a George Bush costume at the People's Response, instead of arresting Bush for war crimes.

I had an opportunity to interview WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been granted political asylum since June 2012. Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden over sex allegations, although he has never been charged. Assange believes that if sent to Sweden, he would be put into prison and then sent to the United States, where he is already being investigated for espionage for publishing hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic and military memos on the WikiLeaks website.

George W. Bush’s new presidential library at Southern Methodist University in Texas has opened with great fanfare, including the attendance of Presidents Obama and former Presidents Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton. George Bush has said that the library is “a place to lay out facts.” What facts would you like to see displayed at his library?

A good place to start would be laying out the number of deaths caused by the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. At Wikileaks, we documented that from 2004-2009, the US had records of over 100,000 individual deaths of Iraqis due to violence unleashed by that invasion, roughly 80% of them civilians. These are the recorded deaths, but many more died. And in Afghanistan, the US recorded about 20,000 deaths from 2004-2010. These would be good facts to include in the presidential library.

And perhaps the library could document how people around the world protested against the invasion of Iraq, including the historic February 15, 2003 mobilization of millions of people around the globe.

Many people worked hard during the Bush years to protest the wars, but the Bush administration refused to listen. It was very demoralizing for people to think that their efforts were for naught.

They should not be demoralized. I believe that the opposition to the Iraq war was very important, and that it actually altered the behavior of US forces during the initial invasion of Iraq. Compare it to the 1991 Gulf War, when massive numbers of Iraqis, both soldiers and civilians, were killed. In the 2003 invasion there was a lot more concern about casualties. The protests rattled their cage.

We released a memo that showed that if the prospective military operation might kill over 30 people, it had to be approved all the way up the chain of command. So while the protests did not stop the war, they did have an impact on the way the war was initially conducted, and that’s important.

While George Bush is feted in Dallas, Bradley Manning languishes in jail. His trial will begin on June 2. Bradley already pleaded guilty in February to ten charges, including possessing classified information and transferring it to an unauthorized person. Those pleas alone could subject him to 20 years in prison. On top of that, the government has added espionage charges that could put him in prison for life.

What do you think the trial will be like?

It will be a show trial where the government tries to prove that by leaking the documents, Bradley “aided and abetted the enemy” or “communicated with the enemy.” The government will bring in a member of the Navy Seal team that killed bin Laden to say that he found some of the leaked information in bin Laden’s house.

But it’s ridiculous to use that as evidence that Bradley Manning “aided the enemy”. Bin Laden could have gotten the material from The New York Times! Bin Laden also had a Bob Woodword book, and no doubt had copies of articles from The New York Times.

The government doesn’t even claim that Bradley passed information directly to “the enemy” or that he had any intent to do so. But they are nonetheless making the absurd claim that merely informing the public about classified government activities makes someone a traitor because it “indirectly informs the enemy”.

With that reasoning, since bin Laden recommended that Americans read Bob Woodward book Obama’s War, should Woodward be charged with communicating with the enemy? Should The New York Times be accused of aiding the enemy if bin Laden possessed a copy of the newspaper that included the WikiLeaks material?

What are some things that Bradley Manning supporters can do to help?

Read the rest of this entry →

By Jodie Evans, Charles Davis

What is Bush's true legacy to the world?

George W. Bush presided over an international network of torture chambers and, with the help of a compliant Congress and press, launched a war of aggression that killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. However, instead of the bloody details of his time in office being recounted at a war crimes tribunal, the former president has been able to bank on his imperial privilege – and a network of rich corporate donors that he made richer while in office – to tell his version of history at a library in Texas being opened in his name.

Kill a few, they call you a murderer. Kill tens of thousands, they give you $500 million for a granite vanity project and a glossy 30-page supplement in the local paper.

Before getting into that, some facts. According to the US government, more than 100,000 people died following the 2003 invasion of Iraq; of that number, 4,486 were members of the US military. So far, the wars started by Bush and continued by his heir, Barack Obama, have cost upwards of $3.1 trillion. That’s money that could have been spent saving lives and building things, not ending and destroying them.

But that’s not going to be the narrative at the George W. Bush Presidential Library, opening this week in Dallas, Texas. No, that’s going to be: 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 (see also: 9/11).

Called the “Day of Fire,” a main attraction at the new library will be a display on the events of September 11, 2001, where “video images from the attacks flash around a twisted metal beam recovered from the wreckage of the World Trade Center,” according to the Associated Press.

“It’s very emotional and very profound,” Bush explained in an interview. “One of the reasons it has to be is because memories are fading rapidly and the profound impact of that attack is becoming dim with time.” That is to say, the former president has a keen interest in fanning the embers of outrage over the killing of nearly 3,000 Americans more than a decade ago lest the world view him poorly for the dozens of 9/11s he perpetrated not just on Iraq, but Afghanistan. Never forget the harm done to us or you just might remember the harm we inflicted on others.

The corporate media doesn’t want you to remember those depressing and damning details either. In a supplement that reads as a paid advertisement, The Dallas Morning News calls Bush’s new library, “A place to learn,” featuring a silky soft interview with the former first lady, Laura Bush, and an editorial that states that her husband “stands out as a leader whose convictions guided him.”

The latter piece, penned by columnist William McKenzie, recounts the author’s dreamy encounter with a young George W. Bush on the campaign trail.  “When I met him, I certainly didn’t think I would one day walk up to his presidential library,” McKenzie tells us. “But the day I did, I felt a sense of pride for him.” (“Maybe journalists shouldn’t feel that way,” he sheepishly adds.)

Unfortunately, when CODEPINK tried to place an ad informing the paper’s readers of Bush’s real legacy – rivers of blood flooded by a war based on lies – The Dallas Morning News rejected it. Pressed as to why, the paper cited vague “advertising guidelines,” asking us to remove a graphic of a blood splotch and to include “sourced facts and how they prove the ‘lie’” of the Bush-approved official history. One wishes corporate advertisers were subject to such scrutiny.

Bush’s legacy is reflected not in his library, but in the regular bombings that rock Baghdad, killing dozens at a time. The Connecticut blue blood turned straight talkin’ Texan is of course welcome to tell his side of the story. That’s only fair. But let him do it at the Hague.

Read the rest of this entry →

Medea Benjamin

When CODEPINK, MoveOn and representatives of other organizations marched into Senator Harry Reid’s DC office on Tuesday, December 18, they wanted a simple answer to a simple question: Does the Senator support a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips, such as the legislation proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein and
supported by President Obama and Vice President Biden? It would seem like a no-brainer for the Senate Majority Leader to fall in line with the leadership of his party in backing a modest bill that would ban the sale of weapons that are only good for mass murder. Unfortunately, Reid’s senior policy advisor Kasey Gillette was unable to give an answer.

While there is a lot of talk in Democratic circles about Republicans standing in the way of sensible gun laws, a hidden secret is that the Democratic Senator leader from Nevada, who is key to getting gun control legislation passed in this country, has been as pro-gunas most Republicans.

In the past, Reid has touted the rights of gun owners and eagerly sought the NRA’s endorsements, contributions and praise. In 2004, Reid was one of the rare Democrats to be endorsed by the NRA. In 2009 he sought to please the powerful lobby by supporting a controversial bill to allow gun owners with concealed weapon permits to cross state lines. The legislation, which was vehemently opposed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, fell just two votes short of the 60 votes needed. The NRA, however, was delighted that Reid had supported the bill and allowed it to be brought to the floor for a vote.

In 2010, when Reid was engaged in a bitter re-election campaign against Republican Sharron Angle, the NRA refrained from endorsing, but contributed to Reid’s campaign and reminded voters of his pro-gun record. An NRA letter to its Nevada members touted that Reid “opposed the Obama administration’s interest in reinstating the assault weapons ban, halting momentum; helped pass a law that allows gun owners to carry firearms in national parks; voted against the District of Columbia’s gun ban; voted for legislation to allow pilots in commercial airline cockpits to be armed.” It also noted that Reid was instrumental in passing legislation halting lawsuits that were attempting to hold gun manufacturers and dealers responsible for weapons used in criminal acts.

NRA head Wayne LaPierre called Senator Reid “a true champion of the Second Amendment” and said “no one has been a stronger advocate for responsible gun ownership than him.”

After the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shootings in July 2012, Senator Reid blocked any debate about gun control, insisting that the Senate schedule was “too packed” to spend time on it.

After this latest tragedy at Sandy Hook that left 20 children dead, Reid took a timid step forward, saying it was time to “engage in a meaningful conversation and thoughtful debate about how to change laws and culture that allow violence to grow.” Hinting at a softening of his position, he said that as we discuss how best to protect our nation’s
children, “every idea should be on the table.”

But for the gun control advocates in his office on Tuesday, Reid’s faint-hearted call for reform was not nearly enough. With alarm clocks in hand, they said the time for discussion was long past; they wanted action. They said it was time for Senator Reid to stand up to the NRA and to use his leadership to protect our children, not the gun manufacturers.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been making the same demand. “Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough,” he said. “We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership — not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it
demands a national response.”

In a move that seems to heed the call for action, President Obama just appointed Vice President Joe Biden to lead a task force on new gun laws. Senator Dianne Feinstein said she will introduce legislation early next year to ban the sale of new assault weapons, as well as big clips, drums and strips of more than 10 bullets. Even Virginia’s Mark Warner, one of the few staunch pro-gun Senate Democrats, reversed course to back restrictions on assault weapons, declaring that “the status quo is not acceptable anymore.”

With 20 children dead, President Obama insisting that preventing gun violence will be a second-term policy priority, and Harry Reid not facing re-election until 2016, perhaps the Senator will now be willing to stand up to the NRA? The clock is ticking.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of www.codepink.org and www.globalexchange.org. She is author of the recent book Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.

By Medea Benjamin

When are we, as a nation, going to have a frank discussion about drones and remote-controlled killing? One might think that such a dialogue could take place when thousands of people come together, once a year, at the gathering of the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI). Wrong.

But AUVSI, the lobby group for the drone industry, brooked no dissent at its August 6-9 Las Vegas Convention. When I, as author of a new book Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control, tried to rent a room at the Convention Center to give a presentation on my book, AUVSI vetoed my request. When I tried to register as a journalist, I was told that I did not meet their criteria, but they refused to say what that criteria was. And after registering online as a normal participant and paying the $200 fee, when I appeared to get my badge I was yanked off the line, surrounded by police, and told I would be arrested if I set foot in the Convention Center during the duration of the gathering.

The same thing happened to Father Louie Vitale, an 80-year-old Franciscan priest who had registered and pre-paid for the conference. Father Vitale is known for his dignified, faith-driven stance against war, including drone killing. “There’s something from my Air Force days that fascinates me about drones, which is one of the reasons I wanted to get in to see the exhibits,” said Father Vitale, “but I also wanted to have conversations with some of the drone manufacturers and operators.” That was not to be. Unprovoked, Father Vitale found himself surrounded by Convention Security and Las Vegas police, who threatened him with arrest.

CODEPINK supporter and writer Tighe Barry flew all the way from Washington DC to attend the conference. Pre-registration confirmation in hand, he was given his badge, only to find it snatched away from him 20 minutes later. “I was sitting quietly in a session on the integration of drones into US airspace when I was grabbed by security agents and pulled out of the room. How sick is that?” said Barry. “These people are crazy!”

A few peace activists did not get immediately stopped by AUVSI’s thuggish security, but two of them were banned when they dared to simply ask a few probing questions to the exhibitors at the booth of General Atomics, the company making the lethal Predator and Reaper drones. “I was merely asking if the company feels any responsibility when its products are used to kill innocent people in places like Pakistan and Yemen,” said Jim Haber of Nevada Desert Experience, a group that has been peacefully protesting nuclear weapons for decades.

Janis Sevre-Duszynska, a writer for National Catholic Reporter, was allowed inside but was overwhelmed by the experience. “Walking through the exhibit hall was surreal. It is all about performance, speed, targets and sales—nothing about consequences,” said Sevre-Duszynska.  “It felt like a war zone, and I felt like an alien. There didn’t seem to be others who were questioning the deadly uses of this technology.”

CODEPINK cofounder Jodie Evans, who managed to get in for a few hours, had the same alien feeling—especially from a women’s perspective. “There were so few women it was spooky,” said Evans. “I would say the ratio of men to women was about 500 to one—and some of the women were girlfriends of the guys. Let’s just say the Ladies Room was empty.”

Lockheed Martin used the occasion to announce that it had completed flight tests for a new drone that can be repowered in the air by laser. “You know what they named their drone? The Stalker,” said Evans, who is a longtime advocate for women’s rights. “Misogynistic, macho and violent messages were everywhere—stalking, neutralizing, eliminating the enemy—and of course the phallic symbols start with the drones themselves.”

Mary Lou Anderson, Council Member of Nevada Desert Experience, who was also ejected from the trade show floor, noted that there was a huge discrepancy between the keynote addresses that focused on the potential civilian uses and benefits of drones versus the overwhelming presence of the military in the exhibit hall. “I would say over 85% of the vendor and manufacturer exhibitors were either entirely military based, or partnered with the military and police.”

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps had their exhibits. So did weapons manufactures such as General Atomics (maker of the Reaper and Predator drones), Northrop Grumman (maker of the Gray Eagle, known for its “lethal persistence”) and Boeing (maker of the Phantom Eye).

Other exhibitors were military bases like Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona and Edward Air Force Base in California that are trying to rent space out to private companies to test and develop drones, and universities like the University of North Dakota touting their training programs for drone operators.

“Some of us are worried about the unregulated proliferation of drones, and the innocent people who are being killed in our remote-controlled wars” said Jim Haber, who lives in Las Vegas and often vigils outside the nearby Creech Air Force Base where drones killing people in Afghanistan are being piloted. “But AUVSI is worried about peace—and people who profess pro-peace views. I suppose they see us as bad for business.” Indeed, some of the sessions addressed the dronemakers’ concern about finding new markets with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down.

Outside the Convention Center, protesters staged a die-in to commemorate the innocent people killed by lethal drones. And the next morning at 6 am, a handful of peace activists headed out to Creech Air Force Base 40 miles away to greet military personnel driving into the base, some of whom are drone operators.

The group included Father Vitale and 75-year-old Father Zawada, who sat on his walker in the blazing sun. Vitale and Zawada held a banner that read “Ground the Drones, Lest You Reap What You Sow.” Another vigiler held a sign with a friendly-looking bee saying “Make Honey, Not Drones.”

“Peace be with you, brother,” the priests called to the military personnel in their cars. Overhead, a menacing Reaper pierced the desert sky.

Twenty minutes later, alerted to the ragtag pro-peace group, several large police SUVs came careening down Route 95 towards the base. AUVSI is not the only group threatened by devout peacemakers.

Medea Benjamin, author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control, is cofounder of CODEPINK and Global Exchange.

It is not every day that the voices for justice triumph over the actions of the rich and powerful, especially when it comes to the Israel-Palestine debate. That’s why it is so important to acknowledge and celebrate the settlement just negotiated by CODEPINK activist Rae Abileah and her lawyers after suing American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)volunteer lobbyist Stanley Shulster.

Code Pink's Medea Benjamin at NoNATO Rally (Photo: Chicagosee / Flickr)

It all started on May 24, 2011, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington, DC speaking before a joint session of Congress. Abileah, a 29-year-old Jewish woman who has traveled to the West Bank, Israel and Gaza, was in the audience. She became more and more appalled as she listened to Netanyahu’s speech and watched our congress people giving him a stream of standing ovations. “I couldn’t watch this hero’s welcome for a man who supports the continued building of illegal settlements, won’t lift the siege of Gaza, and refuses to negotiate with the Palestinian unity government,” said Abileah.

So Abileah did what most people would never have the courage to do. She got up and shouted: “No more occupation! Stop Israeli war crimes! Equal rights for Palestinians!” And she unfurled a banner thatread: “Occupying land is Indefensible!”

She was immediately grabbed, violently pulled toward the floor, and gagged—not by the Capitol Police but by a member of the audience, Stanley Shulster, a retired attorney from Ashland, Oregon, who had traveled to Washington DC to attend the yearly conference of the Israel lobby group AIPAC. An online bio for Shulster revealed that he was an unpaid lobbyist, a volunteer in the Israeli Defense Forces, and a Navyveteran. In his bio Shulster bragged that he “grabbed the woman who heckled the Prime Minister while he was speaking.”

Abileah was rushed to the hospital, where she was treated for neck and shoulder injuries. She subsequently had to undergo months of physical therapy, chiropractic care and other treatments to heal from these injuries.

But Abileah was also determined to pursue her attacker.She pressed charges and got a warrant for his arrest, and she filed a civil suit for damages. Thanks to the tenacity and generosity of her attorneys, they just reached a settlement in which Shulster was forced to pay her medical fees  and issue an apology. In the joint statement issued by Shulster and Abileah, Shulster acknowledges that he “respects the right of Ms. Abileah to hold a different view on the Israel-Palestine conflict and believes she holds this view in good faith,” and Abileah does the same. Both Abileah and Shulster recognize “the right, as Americans, to agree to disagree peacefully.” This might sound like a common sense statement but coming from a man who works with the IDF and AIPAC, which routinely categorizes any critique of Israel as anti-Semitic, this is extraordinary.

Read the rest of this entry →

By Charles Davis and Medea Benjamin

One could be forgiven for thinking there’s anything honorable or honest about Colin Powell. For more than two decades now the Washington media has portrayed the former Secretary of State as something of a real life action hero, a reluctant warrior whose greatest fault – should they deign to mention any – was just being too darn loyal to a guy named George and his buddy Dick. What you might have missed is that Powell is a war criminal in his own right, one who in more than four decades of “public service” helped kill people from Vietnam to Panama to Iraq who never posed a threat to America. But don’t just take some anti-war activists’ word for it: Powell will proudly tell you as much, so long as he can make a buck from doing it in a book.

Powell’s latest $27.99 account of his legendary life is billed as a “powerful portrait of a leader who is reflective, self-effacing, and grateful for the contributions of everyone he works with.” But the title, It Worked for Me: In Life and Leadership, could very well refer to Powell’s own careerist ambitions: saying and doing whatever served the interests of power – as a young officer in Vietnam, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the illegal invasion of Panama, as Secretary of State under George W. Bush  – has worked out tremendously well for the man, if not so much for those unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of his public service.

Though billed as a self-effacing, humble leader prepared to admit mistakes, the real Colin Powell is not the one advertised by the P.R. department at HarperCollins. His book makes that clear enough when he discusses his now infamous 2003 presentation before the United Nations on Iraq’s alleged stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. Nearly every line in that speech has since proven to be false – indeed, much of his presentation was known to be false at the time – but you won’t find Powell owning up to that.

“There is nothing worse than a leader believing he has accurate information when folks who know he doesn’t don’t tell him that he doesn’t,” Powell writes. “I found myself in trouble on more than one occasion because people kept silent when they should have spoken up. My infamous speech at the U.N. in 2003 about Iraqi WMD programs was not based on facts, though I thought it was.”

In other words, according to Powell, the fact that he lied to the American public as well as the international community on the eve of a disastrous war is not his fault – heavens no – but the fault of his anonymous underlings, the allegedly timid State Department staffers who lacked the courage to speak truth to their courageous boss. Like much of Powell’s anecdotes, it’s a tidy little story about leadership that’s about as truthful as his U.N. speech.

The reality is Powell, like most powerful men in Washington, is a well-documented liar. In fact, those State Department employees Powell blames for his repeating thinly sourced lies before the international community did in fact speak up. Powell just ignored them since what they had to say wasn’t convenient to the task at hand: selling an unjust war against a third-rate military power.

As writer Jonathan Schwarz notes, State Department staff actually went through all the claims Powell was to make in his U.N. speech – and they found most of them wanting. But Powell ignored them, boasting that “every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”

Let’s look at a few of those definitely-not-just-assertions. In an effort to dismiss the value of the U.N. weapons inspectors who were on the ground – and not finding anything – Powell declared that the Iraqis had in fact replaced actual scientists in at least one facility with “Iraqi intelligence agents who were to deceive inspectors about the work that was being done there.” However, in a memo prepared by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), that assertion was characterized as “weak” and “not credible.”

But that didn’t stop Honest Powell, who went on to make what INR termed a “[h]ighly questionable” claim about the Iraqi government placing its WMD experts “under house arrest . . .  at one of Saddam Hussein’s guest houses.” Likewise, veteran journalist Bob Woodward noted in his book Plan of Attack, that Powell took a transcript of a benign conversation between Iraqi soldiers talking about complying with U.N. weapons inspectors and portrayed it “in the most negative light” possible” as an effort to deceive the inspectors, even adding dialogue that wasn’t in the original.

But in terms of Powell’s own credibility, the most damning part of his U.N. presentation came when he cited documents smuggled out of Iraq by the Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law as evidence of ongoing Iraqi perfidy. Powell insisted that Iraq only came clean about its possession of “the deadly nerve agent, VX,” after “inspectors came across documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamal.” What he left out: that Kamal was categorical that all WMDs Iraq may have ever had in the past were destroyed well before the 2003 invasion. “All weapons,” Kamal told inspectors, “biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed.” Asked about this in 2006 by journalist Sam Husseini, Powell claimed ignorance and angrily shut the door to his chauffeured vehicle. He has never taken responsibility for his own role in a war that killed well over 115,000 Iraqis and more than 4,400 U.S. soldiers.

When it comes to admitting his own role in war crimes, though, Powell wasn’t always so tight-lipped. In an earlier book, My American Journey, Powell was upfront about the collective punishment he inflicted against the people of Vietnam when he led a contingent of South Vietnamese soldiers in an attack on a village full of noncombatants. “The people had fled at our approach, except for an old woman too feeble to move,” he wrote. “We burned down the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and Zippo cigarette lighters.” That’s because “Ho Chi Minh had said the people were like the sea in which his guerrillas swam,” Powell explained. “We tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable.”

If Powell’s sorry about violating the Geneva Conventions and killing innocent people, he’s never said so. But he has tried to explain his thinking. “I had been conditioned to believe in the wisdom of my superiors, and to obey,” Powell wrote. “I had no qualms about what we were doing.”

Blinding obeying authority – always for personal gain – has been a hallmark of Powell’s career. As the top deputy to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger during the Reagan administration, Powell was a party to the transfer of thousands of missiles to Iran as part of an illegal arms-for-hostages swap, with proceeds from the sales used in defiance of Congress and the World Court in support of the right-wing Contra insurgency in Nicaragua, later known as the Iran-Contra scandal. And as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the first George Bush, Powell led a brutal invasion of Panama in which hundreds of civilians died, an illegal act that was widely condemned by Latin American governments.

Powell’s career culminated with the illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq. Rather than apologize to the victims of that war, however, he has decided to cash in, hawking his latest volume of apologia at a Costco or Sam’s Club near you. Since President Barack Obama had decided to let Bush administration war criminals go free – a “look forward, not backward” privilege allowed powerful men in Washington but denied America’s 2.3 million mostly non-violent prisoners – it’s up to us to remind Powell that while his subservience to deadly state power may have worked for him, it didn’t work out so well for the hundreds of thousands of victims that lay in his wake. And not all of us are willing to forget.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK: Women for Peace and Global Exchange. She is author of the new book Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.

Charles Davis is a writer who has covered politics for public radio and outlets including Al Jazeera and Inter Press Service. More of his work may be found on his website.

John Brennan (photo: CSIS: Center for Strategic & International Studies/flickr)

By Medea Benjamin

Counterterrorism adviser John Brennan spoke at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington DC on April 30 to mark the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden. It was the first time a high level member of the Obama Administration spoke at length about the U.S. drone strikes that the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command have been carrying out in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

“President Obama has instructed us to be more open with the American people about these efforts,” Brennan explained.

I had just co-organized a Drone Summit over the weekend, where Pakistani lawyer Shahzad Akbar told us heart-wrenching stories about the hundreds of innocent victims of our drone attacks. We saw horrific photos of people whose bodies were blown apart by Hellfire missiles, with only a hand or a slab of flesh remaining. We saw poor children on the receiving end of our attacks—maimed for life, with no legs, no eyes, no future. And for all these innocents, there was no apology, no compensation, not even an acknowledgement of their losses. Nothing.

The U.S. government refuses to disclose who has been killed, for what reason, and with what collateral consequences. It deems the entire world a war zone, where it can operate at will, beyond the confines of international law.

Read the rest of this entry →

By Janet Weil

My husband works in information technology for a large corporation. After a little encouragement from me when I mentioned the upcoming General Strike on May Day, he decided to take a “comp day” and join the action with me on May Day. Here’s why in his own words:  “I’m striking because I refuse to be part of a chastened and fearful American workforce and I am fed up with injustice … and I knew it would make you happy.”

His statement, and the “why I strike” tumblr (http://whyistrike.tumblr.com), inspired me to write my own reasons for striking:

• Because war criminals go on book tours while their victims’ corpses rot, and the families grieve.
• Because women bear the brunt of economic injustice.
• Because 22-yr-olds leave college with heavy loads of debt and few job prospects.
• Because men and women (and yes, even children) roll themselves in blankets and sleep in doorways, night after night.
• Because my friend – a professor – got a police baton in the chest when she tried to protect UC students from violent cops at Occupy Cal.
• Because “there aren’t enough funds” for childcare or shelters, but there are always enough funds for the Pentagon and the increasingly militarized police forces.

• Because financial crooks hedge their funds and shield their income from taxes and play games with the global economy.
• Because poor people have to pay large fees to cash their small paychecks.
• Because women do so much emotional labor, mostly unpaid and unthanked.
• Because 22-yr-olds leave college with heavy loads of debt and few job prospects.
• Because my friend the professor got a police baton in the chest when she tried to protect UC students from violent cops.
• Because November 2’s General Strike in Oakland was one of the most free and joyous days of my life.
• Because December 12’s West Coast Port Shutdown was filled wtih solidarity and love. Because people are counting on me to show up and speak out with them.
• Because I know I’ll have a good time. Because I know we’ll make a difference. Because I want to.
• Because I am part of the 99%. Because I’m not waiting any longer for someone else to do something to “save” us. Because the 1% need to see us in action, and I am part of that.
• Because of Mary “Mother” Jones the widowed, childless, brilliant labor organizer. Because of Malallai Joya, the Afghan woman leader. Because of women everywhere who risk their lives to go on strike, to support their men on strike, to refuse sex to men in their own form of strikes that aren’t in history books (yet).
• Because of my son. Because of my young friends and colleagues. Because of children. Because of the grandchild I hope someday to hold in my arms.
• Because I’m sick of the way things are, and because I know we can make another way, many other ways forward.

Thousands of people are taking today off work, leaving early or at least posting a sign in their window or cubicle wall showing solidarity.  I was inspired to see a May Pole go up in Union Square today.

May Day started as a struggle for the 8-hour work day in Chicago in 1886. Many people have suffered and died over the past decade of economic injustice and wars. Let’s remember the words of labor organizer Mary “Mother” Jones, who lived in Chicago in 1886: “Pray for the dead, and work like hell for the living!”

Janet Weil is the national grassroots coordinator at CODEPINK Women for Peace (www.codepink.org), and is an activist with Occupy Oakland and Women Occupy (www.womenoccupy.org).  She lives in the Bay Area, CA and can be reached at info[at]codepink.org.

By Rae Abileah and Medea Benjamin

On Friday, March 30, First Lady Michelle Obama received an unusual request at her San Francisco fundraiser. Instead of “Can I have a picture with you?,” one major donor asked, “Will you use your leadership to prevent an attack on Iran?”  Kristin Hull hand delivered to Ms. Obama a petition against war on Iran that was signed by prominent women including Gloria Steinem, Alice Walker, and Eve Ensler, and over 20,000 American women and allies. Hull implored the First Lady to think of the military families and veterans who have paid the price of war.  Ms. Obama has championed veterans’ issues while in office and for this reason, in addition to her obvious proximity to the President, women’s groups have made her a focus of their peace efforts.

Ms. Obama thanked Hull for her advocacy and said, “Keep up the great work.”  As Hull was walking away after her photo with the First Lady, Michelle Obama grabbed her hand, squeezed it and said, “We really need you.”

The petition implores three powerful American female politicians—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice and First Lady Michelle Obama—to use their influence to push for diplomacy, not bombing, in US relations with Iran.  The next step will be to hand-deliver the petition to Clinton.  CODEPINK launched this petition online on March 20^th, the 9^th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq (coincidentally also on the Iranian New Year, Norooz), with a call from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Alice Walker. “Nine years ago, I joined CODEPINK in front of the White House in an act of civil disobedience to try to stop our government from bombing Iraq,” said Alice Walker. “None of us could live with ourselves if we sat by idly while a country filled with children was blown to bits using money we needed in the United States to build hospitals, housing and schools. We must not let another tragic war begin.”

Indeed, the writing on the wall looks eerily similar to the lead up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, with the government using crippling sanctions and the media stirring up fear among the public. The millions who marched against war in 2003 did not succeed in preventing an attack on Iraq, but the American public is now war weary and more interested in fixing our tattered economy than getting involved in another draining military adventure overseas. While one recent poll showed that if Israel attacks Iran, 47 percent thought the United States should support Israel vs. 42 percent who said we should not get involved, another poll found that the public overwhelmingly favors a diplomatic solution—69 percent preferred negotiations while 24 percent wanted an Israeli strike.

The CODEPINK petition is designed to increase the visibility of that anti-war sentiment. It was created at the request of an Israeli group, the Coalition of Women for Peace, who modeled their own petition after a call to action from a group of women inside Iran. “I thought it was so beautiful that women from Iran, Israel and the United States were coming together across borders to stop war,” said Alice Walker.

“This petition reminds us that governments don’t always represent their people,” said Dr. Dalit Baum, a founding member of the Israeli Coalition of Women for Peace. “With all the war mongering between the leaders of Israel, the US and Iran, it is the voice of women that reminds us that people will try to avoid war and seek out humanity.”

U.S. feminist author Gloria Steinem has also lent her voice to this effort to stop a new war. “Before the U.S. military attacked Iraq, I joined many activists, writers and artists in signing a call opposing a preemptive military invasion of Iraq,” said Steinem. “We feared such a war would increase human suffering, arouse animosity toward our country, damage the economy and undermine our moral standing in the world.  Our fears turned out to be right. Once again we are calling on people to stop another devastating war, and we’re especially calling on women—as we’ve seen from Ireland to Libya, women often have a peacemaking advantage. Let’s hope this time our government listens.” Read the rest of this entry →