Thorne Webb Dreyer, Editor

SEARCH
RECENT POSTS
JAN LANCE / RETIREES / Senior Solidarity
April 2, 2026
DAVE ZIRIN / CULTURE / Bad Bunny Steals the Show
February 10, 2026
CARL DAVIDSON / POLITICS / SUMMING UP THE YEAR 2025
January 16, 2026
BRUCE MELTON / CLIMATE CHANGE / Climate Change Review 2025
December 31, 2025
JONAH RASKIN / BOOK REVIEW / Levitating the Pentagon
December 29, 2025
ARCHIVES
Witnessing a Terrible Human Rights Crime in Gaza

A Human Rights Crime
By Jimmy Carter / May 8, 2008
The world must stop standing idle while the people of Gaza are treated with such cruelty
The world is witnessing a terrible human rights crime in Gaza, where a million and a half human beings are being imprisoned with almost no access to the outside world. An entire population is being brutally punished.
This gross mistreatment of the Palestinians in Gaza was escalated dramatically by Israel, with United States backing, after political candidates representing Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authority parliament in 2006. The election was unanimously judged to be honest and fair by all international observers.
Israel and the US refused to accept the right of Palestinians to form a unity government with Hamas and Fatah and now, after internal strife, Hamas alone controls Gaza. Forty-one of the 43 victorious Hamas candidates who lived in the West Bank have been imprisoned by Israel, plus an additional 10 who assumed positions in the short-lived coalition cabinet.
Regardless of one’s choice in the partisan struggle between Fatah and Hamas within occupied Palestine, we must remember that economic sanctions and restrictions on the supply of water, food, electricity and fuel are causing extreme hardship among the innocent people in Gaza, about one million of whom are refugees.
Israeli bombs and missiles periodically strike the area, causing high casualties among both militants and innocent women and children. Prior to the highly publicised killing of a woman and her four children last week, this pattern had been illustrated by a report from B’Tselem, the leading Israeli human rights organisation, which stated that 106 Palestinians were killed between February 27 and March 3. Fifty-four of them were civilians, and 25 were under 18 years of age.
On a recent trip through the Middle East, I attempted to gain a better understanding of the crisis. One of my visits was to Sderot, a community of about 20,000 in southern Israel that is frequently struck by rockets fired from nearby Gaza. I condemned these attacks as abominable acts of terrorism, since most of the 13 victims during the past seven years have been non-combatants.
Subsequently, I met with leaders of Hamas – a delegation from Gaza and the top officials in Damascus. I made the same condemnation to them, and urged that they declare a unilateral ceasefire or orchestrate with Israel a mutual agreement to terminate all military action in and around Gaza for an extended period.
They responded that such action by them in the past had not been reciprocated, and they reminded me that Hamas had previously insisted on a ceasefire throughout Palestine, including Gaza and the West Bank, which Israel had refused. Hamas then made a public proposal of a mutual ceasefire restricted to Gaza, which the Israelis also rejected.
There are fervent arguments heard on both sides concerning blame for a lack of peace in the Holy Land. Israel has occupied and colonised the Palestinian West Bank, which is approximately a quarter the size of the nation of Israel as recognised by the international community. Some Israeli religious factions claim a right to the land on both sides of the Jordan river, others that their 205 settlements of some 500,000 people are necessary for “security”.
All Arab nations have agreed to recognise Israel fully if it will comply with key United Nations resolutions. Hamas has agreed to accept any negotiated peace settlement between the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, provided it is approved in a referendum of the Palestinian people.
This holds promise of progress, but despite the brief fanfare and positive statements at the peace conference last November in Annapolis, the process has gone backwards. Nine thousand new Israeli housing units have been announced in Palestine; the number of roadblocks within the West Bank has increased; and the stranglehold on Gaza has been tightened.
It is one thing for other leaders to defer to the US in the crucial peace negotiations, but the world must not stand idle while innocent people are treated cruelly. It is time for strong voices in Europe, the US, Israel and elsewhere to speak out and condemn the human rights tragedy that has befallen the Palestinian people.
Jimmy Carter, a former president of the United States, is founder of The Carter Center project-syndicate.org.
Source / The Guardian / Information Clearing House
The Rag Blog
This Should Not Be Happening
More Than 43,000 Unfit Troops Deployed
By Gregg Zoroya / May 8, 2008
WASHINGTON — More than 43,000 U.S. troops listed as medically unfit for combat in the weeks before their scheduled deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2003 were sent anyway, Pentagon records show.
This reliance on troops found medically “non-deployable” is another sign of stress placed on a military that has sent 1.6 million servicemembers to the war zones, soldier advocacy groups say.
“It is a consequence of the consistent churning of our troops,” said Bobby Muller, president of Veterans For America. “They are repeatedly exposed to high-intensity combat with insufficient time at home to rest and heal before redeploying.”
The numbers of non-deployable soldiers are based on health assessment forms filled out by medical personnel at each military installation before a servicemember’s deployment.
According to those statistics, the number of troops that doctors found non-deployable, but who were still sent to Iraq or Afghanistan fluctuated from 10,854 in 2003, down to 5,397 in 2005, and back up to 9,140 in 2007.
Read it here. / USA Today
The Rag Blog
From an "Anonymous Foreign Correspondent"
“To live outside the law you must be honest…” – R. Zimmerman
Outlaws first become outlaws by refusing to be victims.
Outlaws are not bandits. An outlaw ignores thievery as a base human impulse. Outlaws never steal…unless it is necessary. Criminals are victims. To break a law out of frustration or for greed or vengeance is the act of a victim. Revolutionaries who strive to overthrow the laws in order to replace them with revolutionary laws are also victims.
Outlaws cannot be victimized by the law because they live beyond the letter of the law, as do the police, politicians and corporations. Outlaws go FURTHER, they live outside the spirit of the law, and they live beyond society. Outlaws turn the tables on the nature of society. It’s fun when they succeed. It is even fun when they fail.
Outlaws hate war, as do many others. War is a nightmare for so many victimized by its senselessness, its brutality. Outlaws change the nightmare; they knock it off its base, to be rearranged artistically, poetically. They bring beauty and love to the nightmare of war.
One of the great loves of the outlaw is the love of trinitrotoluene. Outlaws love the feel of its erect potential. They adore the sound. The clap, then the rumble, deep, an orgasmic moan, instantly rising to the sound of the blast; a chorus of ejaculated glass and the roar of architectural rearrangement. After the sound and the fury, there is the beauty of it all. Slow motion, glass that bulges then breaks. Bricks try to fly, only to flutter earthward, unable to escape. The walls that sag into a grin, melt and crumble into themselves. Then the smell, acrid sulfur mixed with the sweetness of teen-age sex, Lucifer ravaging a band of willing angels. Outlaws make public buildings truly public, the doors flung open and the walls breached to permit all to see their scrambled guts. Free at last!
In the last moment, before escape consumes the soul there is the feeling of perfection, the knowing at that instant: they are the perfect outlaw. One last sniff and trembling legs begin to run hauling the outlaw ass, no longer constricted, down the street like a rubber ball that has escaped the last attempt to be caught.
TNT is only one of the many loves of the outlaw. They love the outlaw myth that only they can make real. They love the black outlaw clothes, and the smile that only another outlaw can penetrate. They love tequila, Colombian coffee and the unity of people in the presence of weed. They love the sound of the word “outlaw” when the enemy sneers and spits it out or when young women gasp at its sound. Ladies love outlaws like a banker loves gold.
The outlaw boat goes FURTHER, always against the flow; it got there first, but has already left before the other boats arrive.
Bush/Ashcroft has outlawed freedom; now only outlaws are free. Outlaws do not wait for society to change; they live everyday as if it already has. The criminal government hopes to build a wall around them; that’s why outlaws always carry matches and a handcuff key. No wall is safe, inside or out from the outlaw with TNT. It is just their way of saying, “SURPRISE!”
Outlaws do not have an important role in society, they are not in society at all, but they are important to society. While poets and psychoanalysts record and explain your dreams, outlaws are the ones who act them out.
Always support your local outlaw, remember he is the one with the can opener in the supermarket of life. However, beware; the outlaw will not go quietly! Bandits ridden with guilt are the ones who go quietly; outlaws are pure and repurified by their resistance. A revolutionary can be pardoned; an outlaw can never let himself or herself be victimized by a pardon or an amnesty.
Outlaws are not heroes, except to themselves, save the outlaw-in-chief, the head honcho of all outlaws, the only one all outlaws follow slavishly, the outlaw they all aspire to emulate; the name of that outlaw is LOVE. Love never follows any rules; it is the guardian of bliss and the dealer of the deepest sorrows. Outlaws are LOVE’s accomplices, sworn to aid and abet it, to spread the message over the earth…by any means necessary!
The Rag Blog
Sean Bell Acquittal : Street Action in New York
Sean Bell Civil Disobedience ActionsCivil Disobedience actions shut down the Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queensboro Bridges today during rush hour. The protests were called by Reverend Al Sharpton and his National Action Network as part of a campaign to force a Department of Justice investigation of the Sean Bell shooting case. The NYPD reported over 200 protesters were arrested, including Sean Bell’s widow, Nicole Paultre Bell, Sharpton, and shooting survivors Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield. After his release from police custody Sharpton told reporters, “Today the Sean Bell Movement was born.” — Thomas Good.
By Elaine Brower / May 8, 2008
NEW YORK — Local anti-war activists and citizens joined on the streets of New York City yesterday to condemn the ruling handed down by Justice Arthur Cooperman declaring the three police officers who killed Sean Bell and wounded Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield innocent of any wrongdoing. Hundreds of people gathered at five locations around the City demanding justice for the death of Bell, and the Bell family.
On 60th Street and 3rd Avenue, just outside Bloomingdales, we gathered our forces starting at 3 PM and over the course of 40 minutes had a few hundred people chanting and marching outside the shopping doors. Signs counting the shots fired “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6….50″ were carried, as well as “WE ARE ALL SEAN BELL, THIS WHOLE DAMN SYSTEM IS GUILTY!” About 3:45 PM the crowd, surrounded by police, justice department officials, and some other people in unidentifiable uniforms, marched in the direction of 2nd Avenue. The police looked dumbfounded and asked where we were going. Once on 2nd Avenue, the street captain, Cynthia from Reverend Al Sharpton’s “National Action Network”, shouted for us to cross the street and circle in front of the 59th Street Bridge off ramp.
Those of us who had already committed to participate in non-violent civil disobedience knelt down and held hands in front of oncoming traffic, joined by some others who peeled off after the second warning by the cops. Cynthia told us we were the smallest group that had gathered around the city, but we were determined to slow down traffic.
About 50 of us knelt there, tractor-trailers a few feet away from our faces. A line of cops stood between us and the trucks as we chanted, “Justice for Sean Bell!”, “No Peace, No Justice,” and “We are all Sean Bell.” We counted to 50, signifying the number of shots fired, and held our ground in the street. A Reverend with NAN prayed with us and asked that justice be served for the Bell family.
The Lieutenant in charge gave us the warnings to move, and it took about 15 minutes before he gave the order to arrest. In the meantime, oncoming traffic on the bridge was backing up into Queens, and horns were blowing wildly to get us to move. We kept shouting, and locked arms. From the traffic moving down 2nd Avenue we could hear lots of honks of approval and people yelling “justice!”
All in all we had the traffic stopped for about 30 minutes on the bridge. A small price to pay for commuters considering the horrific injustice in the massacre and shooting of Sean Bell, Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield.
Once downtown, we were all herded into 1 Police Plaza, and it was party time! All of us there, many first time arrests, met each other, exchanged phone numbers, sang, laughed and were pleased that we could participate.
This was a historic day. It was the first major collaborative civil disobedience action joining the anti-war movement, civil rights activists and war veterans. The last time this happened was 40 years ago to the month, and our action had the feel of the seeds of revolutionary change.
People from every walk of life participated; women and men in suits just coming from work; young students whose backgrounds were ranging from Muslim, Jewish, Greek, and Latino; The New York Grannies; segments of different anti-war groups such as the War Resisters League, Hunter College SDS, World Can’t Wait and Activist Response Team (A.R.T.), even shoppers left stores and grabbed signs to walk with us.
Keep watching for more actions, who knows, there’s something happening and it’s good!
Source. / Next Left Notes
See photo gallery.
The Rag Blog
Posted in RagBlog
Tagged Civil Disobedience, Civil Rights, Criminal Justice, Social Action
Leave a comment
Battle of the Hawks

Hillary and McCain:
Race to be “the obliterator”
By Robert Scheer / May 6, 2008
In the increasingly unlikely event of a McCain-Clinton election, folks who care about the peace issue would have serious reason to worry. Both of these candidates are inveterate hawks, and what we would be up against is a choice between the neoconservatives and the neoliberals as to who could be more adventurous in getting us into unjustifiable foreign wars.
Both not only voted to authorize President Bush’s irrational invasion of Iraq but also have failed to apply those lessons to the real challenges we face, particularly concerning Iran. On the one hand, we have Sen. John McCain’s wildly inane “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” singing refrain, and on the other, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s commitment to “totally obliterate” Iran in response to any nuclear attack by Tehran on Israel.
Clinton has stood by her implicitly genocidal threat against the 70 million innocent Iranians, who have no effective control over their government’s policy, a threat made in response to a question raised in the heat of primary day in Pennsylvania. She later extended the threat to include retaliation on behalf of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab countries if they were attacked by Iran.
Her statement extending the U.S. “nuclear umbrella” far beyond the threat to retaliate against a Soviet nuclear attack during the Cold War was greeted with a yawn by the media, which interpreted it as an election-day ploy to appear tough and pro-Israel. The Washington Post referred to “Clinton’s apparent effort to distinguish herself from her rival for the Democratic nomination … by offering a more hawkish approach to world affairs.” That rival, Barack Obama, has called for negotiations with Iran’s leaders and condemned Clinton’s proposal as saber rattling.
But the Washington Post story provided evidence that Hillary’s hawkishness is not merely a campaign posture, as evidenced by her two key foreign policy advisers, who the Post reports helped come up with the “obliterate Iran” idea. One of them is Martin S. Indyk, the former Clinton administration ambassador to Israel, who was as strong as any of the neoconservatives in advocating the invasion of Iraq. In an article he co-wrote with Kenneth M. Pollack for the Los Angeles Times three months before the Iraq invasion, which cited their insider status as former government officials who “had access to the most sensitive U.S. intelligence on Iraq,” the two claimed that Iraq had “thousands of tons of precursor chemicals for chemical warfare agents, thousands of liters of biological warfare agents. …” That “insider” information was false.
The Clinton campaign’s national security director, Lee Feinstein, is another leading Democratic hawk and Clinton administration alum who promoted the threat to obliterate Iran. Feinstein, like Indyk, had strongly disparaged the work of the U.N. inspectors before the invasion. And even a month after the U.S. occupation began, as U.S. troops scoured all of the suggested weapons locations, Feinstein argued, “I believe they will find weapons of mass destruction.”
The dark irony here is that the unjustifiable invasion of Iraq has elevated Iran to a position of enormous power over events in the region, beginning with its influence over the puppet government in Iraq’s Green Zone, many of whose key members, including the prime minister, spent many years in exile in Tehran, where they were trained. The ability of Iran to make life miserable for the American occupation is the main counterweight to a tougher stance on Iran’s nuclear program, and that is the direct consequence of a war for which Clinton and McCain both voted.
Clinton seems to be far more hawkish than her husband, and her increasingly bellicose remarks support that perception. If she is chosen as the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer, she can be expected to tack further in that direction, once the primaries are over and the peace vote has been counted out.
I do not think this a matter of a female candidate having to prove that she is capable of being a macho commander in chief, although there is a whiff of Margaret Thatcher here, so proud of taking her nation to unneeded war. With Clinton, as with Thatcher, quite apart from gender, there seems to be a more basic philosophical commitment to using military force before other options have been seriously explored.
That the force cited by Clinton portends the “total obliteration” of another people raises the prospect of the United States, the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons, doing so again. It suggests that such weapons of mass destruction are not heinous inventions but rather instruments of rational policy when in the hands of the virtuous. That is a message that we dare not deliver to the world.
Robert Scheer’s new book is “The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America.”
Source. / Truthdig
Thanks to David Hamilton / The Rag Blog
The Earth : Love it or Lose It
Before it’s too late…
To reinvigorate the quest for clean air, soil, and surface water by strengthening regulation and expanding rehabilitation
By Paul Spencer / May 8, 2008 / The Rag Blog
[This is the first of a series on The Rag Blog by Paul Spencer and others that will take a serious look at the threatened ecology of the earth and explore ways to address the problem. Paul Spencer is a former Austin activist and staff member of sixties/seventies underground newsppaper The Rag, who has been running for president as a way of addressing the serious issues facing our society and the world.]
When I was about seven (1952), my mother, brother, and I travelled by train from Dallas, Texas to Buffalo, New York. We left the blue sky and bright sunshine of Dallas and ran through the night to St. Louis. In the morning I looked down, as we crossed the Mississippi River, and noted the character of this wide and brown river with its dense river traffic and smoke stacks lining the river banks. Then a strange smell began to permeate the atmosphere in the train. It became extremely irritating. It was, I was told, the normal atmosphere of East St. Louis, Illinois.
We were still somewhat elevated as we entered the city. The place itself lay like a gray cemetery below and to the north of us, and there was a brown pall above it. I was glad when we were leaving the city and the smell behind us, as we headed into the Illinois countryside.
I don’t remember much more of the trip, until we reached the Buffalo area. Buffalo itself was as red-brown as East St. Louis was gray. It was like a patina on the brick buildings. The smells were comparatively subdued and very varied. As we headed north through Lackawanna, there was an almost metallic smell in the air; as we reached the Buffalo harbor area, there was the smell of grain, both fresh and roasting.
Eight years later, we were living in the Buffalo area. Elmwood Avenue, Delaware Avenue, Linwood Avenue were relatively wide boulevards overhung with 70-feet-tall Elm trees. They were tunnels of cool green for at least six months of the year. Lake Erie was a recreational focus – fishing, swimming, boating. Everybody in the town was busy and working hard – except, of course, the county road crews.
In 1966 I stayed in the area for six months. I went to work for the South Buffalo Railway, which was a captive service for the Bethlehem Steel plant in Lackawanna. One of our jobs was to pull the big slag pots from the back of the converters and dump the slag. The slag pots were inverted bells, hung by trunnions, one per short railcar. We would push them up a long, sloping hill – of slag – to the top, where a very large track-type crane would smack the slag pots with a wrecking ball, until they tipped over. The red-hot slag would tumble down the side of this slag hill into Lake Erie. It was quite a nice show at night.
Five years later, I came back for awhile. The Elms were two-thirds gone due to Dutch Elm disease; the Lombardy Poplars were dying en masse; fishermen were saying that the fish were disappearing from Lake Erie; the city was turning gray; the sky was turning gray-brown; and the county-crew-syndrome was spreading to many other segments of the workforce.
About that time, the federal Environmental Protection Agency was initiated. Studies were begun, and pretty soon we were hearing that: yes, Lake Erie is “dying”; yes, the local air quality is bad for people; yes, Bethlehem Steel is polluting the lake. Not too long after that, they “discovered” a huge toxic dump under a housing development up toward Niagara Falls, called Love Canal.
By the time that I left in 1979, there was hardly an Elm or a Lombardy Poplar to be found; the Sugar Maples were starting to die; Lake Erie was called “dead”; the population was declining; the sky was brown; and the county crews – among others – were being laid off permanently. That was my main environmental-destruction history, and I’m sure that most of you have experienced your own. One of the most amazing features to me was the speed of deterioration. It seemed that, if you blinked, something else was declining, dying, or dead.
There have been improvements in the Western New York area since then. Some fish species have re-established themselves in Lake Erie; the Sugar Maples have survived; the streams in the Northeast U.S.A. are not as choked with crud and algae and dead fish; the remaining population has found more employment; and the sky is not quite as brown as it was in 1979. More broadly, many species of trees are well established as replacements for the American Elms; songbirds and waterfowl are increasing in many areas; and most Rust-belt cities’ atmospheres are not laden with levels of noxious exhaust fumes as high as those of the late 1970s.
Of course, much of the basis for these improvements is the facts that: U.S. Steel in Gary, Bethlehem Steel in Buffalo, and Republic Steel in Cleveland are gone; many industries have moved manufacturing operations to foreign plants; exploitation of natural resources has declined within the contiguous 48 states; and international competition has caused improvement in the fuel-efficiency of cars and trucks. (Are these good developments? Yes and no.)
Other important factors mostly derive from regulation by government agency. Laws and regulations promulgated by the EPA (established in 1970), state environmental/ecological agencies, and some local authorities have protected species and habitat, promoted recycling, and mandated mitigation – both by device and by remediation. (Are these all good developments? Almost without exception.)
Where are we now in this situation? Just looking at the Pacific Northwest, there are tons of PCBs in and out of drums buried in Hamilton Island just below the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River. There are many tons of radioactive waste water – and who knows what else – leaking into the water table under the Hanford reservation. The old Portland harbor area is a Superfund site (essentially inactive due to lack of funds). Wild (non-hatchery) salmon are barely hanging on. And the list continues ….
Where could we be, given the right spending and legislative priorities? We can:
1) Finish remediation of the 375 Superfund sites that are known to “degrade or threaten either groundwater or human health” before the next presidential election cycle (2012);
2) Require increases in fuel efficiency in new vehicles to the best levels currently available (e.g., VW’s GDI diesel for predominantly highway driving and Toyota Prius for city driving);
3) Nationalize (socialize) the railroads and begin to build two-way, high-speed track systems for inter-city public and freight transportation to alleviate car and truck traffic;
4) Increase the promotion of solar, wave, and wind-based power systems via increased tax credits, low-interest loans, and net-metering (at a minimum, the California model);
5) Research nuclear fuel recycling, as done in France;6) Replace all applicable lighting with fluorescent systems or, better yet, LEDs (and establish local recycling sites for these devices);
7) Promote ground-source heat pump systems for new residential or commercial construction.
This is a short list. It is merely one possible (beginning) set of projects. We have much more that we can and must do. Exciting, isn’t it – and eminently doable. One overlying question requires discussion: Is it necessary to virtually eliminate manufacturing and resource extraction to regain ecological balance? My answer is “definitely not”. Much of the current adversarial relations between environmentalists (in the organized, committed sense of the word) and industry (read primarily “corporations”) is due to the dynamics of negotiation-of-position in a market context. Simply put, the average environmentalists’ position (not the preservationists’ wishlist) is the reasonable position. Having said that, there are sustainable levels and methods of logging, mining, grazing, road-building, irrigation, dam-building, wind-farm development, etc. to be encouraged and protected. Ecological concern must include the ability of people to build a reasonably secure and comfortable life – albeit in the context of decreasing the stress on the rest of the ecosystem. We human beings are part of the environment, too.
The Rag Blog
Remain Silent to the Crime and You Are Complicit

The ‘Surge’ of Iraqi Prisoners
by Ciara Gilmartin / May 7, 2008
Amid all the talk about the U.S. military “surge” in Iraq, little has been said about the accompanying “surge” of Iraqi prisoners, whose numbers rose to nearly 51,000 at the end of 2007. Four years after the Abu Ghraib scandal, occupation forces are holding far more Iraqis than ever before and thousands more languish in horrendous Iraqi-run prisons.
The Detention Camps
Detainees are held by the U.S. command in two main locations — Camp Bucca, a 100-acre prison camp and Camp Cropper, inside a massive U.S. base near the Baghdad airport. The number of Iraqis held in these facilities has steadily risen since the early days of the occupation. In 2007, the inmate count rose 70% — from 14,500 to 24,700.
Camp Bucca, with about 20,000 inmates, is perhaps the world’s largest extrajudicial internment camp. The facility is organized into “compounds” of 800 detainees each, surrounded by fences and watch towers. Most detainees live in large communal tents, subject to collapse in the area’s frequent sandstorms. Water has at times been in short supply, while temperatures in the desert conditions can be scorching hot in the day and bone-chilling at night.
In October 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded a contract to expand Camp Bucca’s capacity from 20,000 to 30,000. While easing notorious crowding, the contract suggests Washington is preparing for even more detentions in the future.
Camp Cropper consists of more traditional cellblock buildings. Among its roughly 4,000 inmates are hundreds of juveniles. Cropper is a site of ongoing interrogation and it holds many long-term detainees who complain that they never see the light of day. Though recently expanded, the facility suffers from overcrowding, poor medical attention and miserable conditions.
Indefinite Detention
U.S. forces are holding nearly all of these persons indefinitely, without an arrest warrant, without charge, and with no opportunity for those held to defend themselves in a trial. While the United States has put in place a formal review procedure that supposedly evaluates all detainees for release on a regular basis, detainees cannot attend these reviews, cannot confront evidence against them, and cannot be represented properly by an attorney. Families are only irregularly notified of the detentions, and visits are rarely possible.
These conditions are in direct violation of international human rights law, though Washington claims that such legal constraints do not apply, because the United States considers its forces to be engaged in an “international armed conflict.” The human rights community, however, firmly disagrees arguing that the conflict is not international in the traditional legal sense. Furthermore, international human rights law applies at all times, in war as well as in peace.
The detention facilities are closed to human rights monitors like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, or the International Federation of Human Rights. Even the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq, mandated by the Security Council to provide human rights reporting, is denied access by the U.S. command. Lack of such monitors greatly increases the likelihood that detainees will suffer from abuse and bad conditions, as human rights organizations have often pointed out.
Read all of it here. / Foreign Policy in Focus / Common Dreams
The Rag Blog
We Have the Answer, and It Is Us

Dismantling Peace Movement Myths
by Frida Berrigan
[From a speech for Peace Action Maine on April 26th, 2008]
This moment in time contains so much hope and possibility and so much death and destruction. These are not easy times and they are not getting easier — and so I thought that I would take on some of the myths that burden, complicate and undermine our peace movements.
We have internalized some of these myths pretty deeply. We even reinforce them with one another. So, I thought it might be a valuable exercise to spend some time together dismantling a few of them.
What follows is my highly subjective (and certainly incomplete) compilation of the myths of the peace movement.
- In the 1960s, the peace movement was so much more powerful and so much cooler than we are.
- There are no young people active in the peace movement. Don’t they care?
- We are marginalized and we are not having an impact.
- We’re not smart enough to oppose the war.
- All we need to do is get the right person in the White House and then they’ll enact our solutions.
Does any of this sound familiar? This is what I hear from brothers and sisters over and over again. Now, these myths are not equal — some are bigger than others. And some have a kernel of truth (which is why they are myths and not lies) but cumulatively this constant bombardment is a real bummer.
So, I’m saying they are not true — I’m saying that there are young people, and we are having an impact, and that no one person in any position of power is going to offer any answer automatically or just because they promised they would.
I’m saying we are the ones we have been waiting for, that we are creating the alternative. If that is what we are doing, not just going through some exercise of opposition, some knee-jerk resistance or recalcitrance, then we have a lot of work ahead of us — and need to take the work more seriously, and ourselves less so.
And that starts with dismantling myths.
Myth One: In the 1960s, the peace movement was so much more powerful and so much cooler than we are today.
I want to start with the 1960s one. 2008 is a big year for revivals and recollections and reunions for the historians and the academics and the activists. 40 years since: the police riot in Chicago, the assassination of Martin Luther King and of Bobby Kennedy, Tommie Smith and John Carlos giving the black power salute as they received their Olympic medals, since Catonsville. And those are just a few of the things that happened in the U.S. that year — around the world there was Prague Spring, the massacre at Tlateloco, the Paris uprising, the Biafran war. Here we are forty years later, and it is a potent moment for reflection.
But, the demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer are happening under the slogan “Recreate Sixty-Eight.” Disclaimer: Now, I don’t mean to undermine or disparage the work of activists and organizers in Denver and all of the friends who will go to Colorado this summer to demonstrate, and at the same time implore the democratic party to be the party of the people.
I like the rhythm of language a lot. And I love alliteration. In that way — Recreate Sixty Eight is AWESOME. I love how it sounds. The organizers have their reasons for choosing it beyond how cool it sounds. There are a lot of lessons to learn from that era, and a lot of good things that happened that year.
But “recreate sixty-eight”? We cannot and should not recreate sixty-eight. The parallels between today and forty years ago are clear and compelling, and as I said there is a lot to learn from that period.
But here we are in 2008 and we need to be building a movement and building bridges between movements (because we are not a monolith) that is rooted in an analysis and understanding of this moment, this place, this context.
I was struck to read recently that at the beginning of 1968, less than half the American people believed the war in Vietnam was wrong, 45%, and that more than 15,000 U.S. soldiers had been killed and nearly 100,000 wounded. So the Vietnam War was both more bloody and more popular than the war and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan are in 2008.
In every way, this nation is less homogeneous than it was 40 years ago: we are racially, ethnically, religiously more diverse and more stratified. We are so much poorer, and so much richer than we were forty years ago. We are less innocent. We are less naïve. In short — we are different. And this war is different. And so our movements must also be different.
But the media compares ‘68 and ‘08, the peace movement then and now. Some activists then and now compare us, some leaders (those who survived) compare that time to now as they seek new relevance.
But, we must not fall sway to this comparison.
We live in the United States of America — a deeply nostalgic and deeply ahistorical nation saddled with a case of amnesia that approaches pathology. My SAT prep teacher would be so proud of that sentence. This is a dangerous and counterproductive combination — nostalgic amnesia. And it infects our peace movements. We are tempted to fetishize the past instead of learn from it. The past is constantly being rewritten and repackaged and then sold to us as a distorted reflection in a house of mirrors. So, we don’t want to recreate sixty-eight; we want to harness some of that energy, that sense of power and possibility and apply it to our very different context today.
Myth Two: There are no young people active in the peace movement. Don’t they care?
Read all of it here. / Common Dreams
The Rag Blog
Arabs in Israel : Still Strangers in a Strange Land
After 60 Years, Arabs in Israel Are Outsiders
By Ethan Bronner / May 7, 2008
JERUSALEM — As Israel toasts its 60th anniversary in the coming weeks, rejoicing in Jewish national rebirth and democratic values, the Arabs who make up 20 percent of its citizens will not be celebrating. Better off and better integrated than ever in their history, freer than a vast majority of other Arabs, Israel’s 1.3 million Arab citizens are still far less well off than Israeli Jews and feel increasingly unwanted.
On Thursday, which is Independence Day, thousands will gather in their former villages to protest what they have come to call the “nakba,” or catastrophe, meaning Israel’s birth. For most Israelis, Jewish identity is central to the nation, the reason they are proud to live here, the link they feel with history. But Israeli Arabs, including the most successfully integrated ones, say a new identity must be found for the country’s long-term survival.
“I am not a Jew,” protested Eman Kassem-Sliman, an Arab radio journalist with impeccable Hebrew, whose children attend a predominantly Jewish school in Jerusalem. “How can I belong to a Jewish state? If they define this as a Jewish state, they deny that I am here.”
The clash between the cherished heritage of the majority and the hopes of the minority is more than friction. Even more today than in the huge half-century festivities a decade ago, the left and the right increasingly see Israeli Arabs as one of the central challenges for Israel’s future — one intractably bound to the search for an overall settlement between Jews and Arabs. Jews fear ultimately losing the demographic battle to Arabs, both in Israel and in the larger territory it controls.
Most say that while an end to its Jewish identify means an end to Israel, equally, failure to instill in Arab citizens a sense of belonging is dangerous as Arabs promote the idea that, 60 years or no 60 years, Israel is a passing phenomenon.
“I want to convince the Jewish people that having a Jewish state is bad for them,” said Abir Kopty, an advocate for Israeli Arabs.
Land is an especially sore point. Across Israel, especially in the north, are the remains of dozens of partly unused Palestinian villages, scars on the landscape from the conflict that gave birth to the country in 1948.
Yet some original inhabitants and their descendants, all Israeli Arab citizens, live in packed towns and villages, often next to the old villages, and are barred from resettling them while Jewish communities around them are urged to expand.
One recent warm afternoon, Jamal Abdulhadi Mahameed drove past kibbutz fields of wheat and watermelon, up a dirt road surrounded by pine trees and cactuses, and climbed the worn remains of a set of stairs, declaring in the open air: “This was my house. This is where I was born.”
He said what he most wanted now, at 69, was to leave the crowded town next door, come to this piece of uncultivated land with the pomegranate bushes planted by his father and work it, as generations had before him. He has gone to court to get it.
He is no revolutionary and, by nearly any measure, is a solid and successful citizen. His children include a doctor, two lawyers and an engineer. Yet, as an Arab, his quest for a return to his land challenges a longstanding Israeli policy.
“We are prohibited from using our own land,” he said, standing in the former village of Lajoun, now a mix of overgrown scrub and pines surrounded by the fields of Kibbutz Megiddo. “They want to keep it available for Jews. My daughter makes no distinction between Jewish and Arab patients. Why should the state treat me differently?”
The answer has to do with the very essence of Zionism — the movement of Jewish rebirth and control over the land where Jewish statehood first flourished more than 2,000 years ago.
Maintaining a Haven
“Land is presence,” remarked Clinton Bailey, an Israeli scholar who has focused on Bedouin culture. “If you want to be present here, you have to have land. The country is not that big. What you cede to Arabs can no longer be used for Jews who may still want to come.”
A Palestinian state is widely seen as a potential solution to tensions with the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, but any deep conflict with Israel’s own Arab citizens could prove much more complex.
Antagonism runs both ways. Many Israeli Arabs express solidarity with their Palestinian brethren under occupation, while others praise Hezbollah, the anti-Israel group in Lebanon, and some Arabs in Parliament routinely accuse Israel of Nazism.
Meanwhile, several right-wing rabbis have forbidden Jews from renting apartments to Arabs or employing them. And a majority of Jews, polls show, favor a transfer of Arabs out of Israel as part of a two-state solution, a view that a decade ago was thought extreme.
Arabs here reject that idea partly because they prefer the certainty of an imperfect Israeli democracy to whatever system may evolve in a shaky Palestinian state. That is part of the paradox of the Israeli Arabs. Their anger has grown, but so has their sense of belonging.
In fact, the anxious and recriminating talk on both sides may give a false impression of constant tension. There is a real level of Jewish-Arab coexistence in many places, and the government has recently committed itself to affirmative action for Arabs in education, infrastructure and government employment.
“We know that they need more land, that their children need a place to live,” said Raanan Dinur, director general of the prime minister’s office. “We are working on building a new Arab city in the north. Our main goal is to take what are today two economies and integrate them into one economy.”
Still, there is a concern that time is short.
Mr. Mahameed and his fellow villagers will arrive at the Supreme Court in July with the goal of obtaining 50 acres of their families’ former land that sits uncultivated except for pine trees planted by the Jewish National Fund.
Their story is part of a larger one: After the United Nations General Assembly voted in late 1947 for two states in Palestine, one Arab and one Jewish, local Arab militias and their regional supporters went on the offensive against Jewish settlements, in anger over the United Nations’ support for a Jewish state. Zionist forces counterattacked. Hundreds of Palestinian villages, including Lajoun, were evacuated and mostly destroyed.
Palestinian Arabs became refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Gaza, then under Egypt’s supervision. But some, like Mr. Mahameed, stayed in Israel. They were made citizens and were promised equality, but never got it.
Those who had left or had been expelled from their villages were not permitted back and have spent the past 60 years often a few miles away, watching their land farmed or built upon by newcomers, many of them refugees from Nazi oppression or Soviet anti-Semitism.
In 1953, the Israeli Parliament retroactively declared 300,000 acres of captured village land to be government property for settlement or security purposes.
Mr. Mahameed and his 200 fellow complainants live in the crowded town of Um el-Fahm near their former land.
“Our claim is that since the land has not been used all these years, there was no need to confiscate it,” said Suhad Bishara, a lawyer with Adalah, a Haifa-based group devoted to Israeli Arab rights.
She lost that argument in the district court, which agreed with the government that the pine trees and a water treatment plant in Lajoun constituted settlement. For her, the ruling is part of a long tradition of trickery by Israel’s legal and political systems that have nearly always come down against expanding Arab land use.
Ms. Bishara says Arabs occupy only a tiny percentage of Israel, despite making up one-fifth of its population. The government said it could not provide an estimate of the land use.
Still, it is not hard to detail the gap between Arabs and Jews in nearly every area — health, education, employment — and in government spending. Three times as many Arab families are below the poverty line as Jewish ones, and a government study five years ago called for removing “the stain of discrimination.”
Mr. Dinur of the prime minister’s office has taken an interest in the issue and has met several times with Arab leaders. He says it may be possible one day for some Arabs to return to their native villages, but only as part of a process of integration and regional reconciliation. Otherwise, he says, Israeli Jews will fear that the Arabs’ goal will be to take back all the territory lost in the 1948 war.
Regional Tensions
For many Israelis, the challenge posed by the Arabs cannot be separated from what they see as the risks in the region — the increased influence of Iran, the growth of Islamic radicalism, the concern that another war in Lebanon or Gaza is not far away.
Michael Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Institute, a research group in Jerusalem, said that when the army prepares for war, it includes in the plan how to handle the possibility of Israeli Arabs rising up against the state.
Many also believe — and here Jews and Arabs seem to agree — that without a solution to the Palestinian dispute over the West Bank and Gaza, internal tensions will not abate. And given the pessimism about the peace talks with the Palestinians, the forecast does not look bright.
For many Israeli Jews who long resisted the idea of a Palestinian state, it was the realization that they were losing the demographic battle to Palestinians that turned them around. But of course the population challenge also comes from Israel’s Arabs.
Israeli Arabs are aware of the contest. And some figure time is on their side.
“Israel is living within the Arab-Islamic circle,” Raed Salah, head of the Islamic Movement of Israel, said in an interview. “It is important to look at the Jewish percentage in that larger context over the long term.”
Abdulwahab Darawshe, a former member of Israel’s Parliament and the current head of the Arab Democratic Party, sat in his Nazareth office recently and said: “No matter what happens, we will not leave here again. That was a big mistake in 1948. Yet our identity is becoming more and more Palestinian. You cannot cut us from the Arab tree.”
Asked his plans for Israel’s Independence Day, he said, “I will take a shovel and work the land around my olive trees.”
Source. / The New York Times
Thanks to Jim Retherford / The Rag Blog
S. Russell on Obama and Civility

Obama and this matter of negative politics
By Steve Russell / May 7, 2008 / The Rag Blog
[Steve Russell wrote the following to introduce an article entitled “Outright Barbarism vs. The Civil Society” by Sara Robinson. It is a fascinating and revealing read and we highly recommend you check it out. It follows Steve’s comments.]
Last night in Rawleigh, North Carolina, Barack Obama looked forward to the general election:
“Yes, we know what’s coming. We’ve seen it already. The same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn’t agree with all their ideas. The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along. The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences to turn us against each other for pure political gain – to slice and dice this country into Red States and Blue States; blue-collar and white-collar; white and black, and brown.
“This is what they will do – no matter which one of us is the nominee. The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they’ll run, it’s what kind of campaign we will run. It’s what we will do to make this year different. I didn’t get into race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for President because this is the time to end it.”
Obama must be serious about this because he has in so many cases declined to answer attacks from Hillary Clinton that begged for references to her on the same level. His response to the original Wright “God damn America” rant was a speech that was one of the best political speeches of my lifetime. If he needs to do anything more, he should carry copies…but you have to realize that nobody with any sense would any longer be asking about that particular Wright rant and pretending otherwise would not be fruitful—but he could have turned that nonsense around and aimed it at Clinton.
He could have an ad using the video of Bill Clinton’s “spiritual guidance” session with the same Rev. Wright right after that stain on the blue dress.
The other obvious negative Obama could do would be a “daisy ad” using tape of Clinton’s remarks about wiping out Iran with nukes.
NO, he should not do it.
Anybody with an IQ over room temperature could conjure up half a dozen drag Clinton in the dirt ads without breaking a sweat…which is why he should not go there. You don’t elevate politics above gotcha by playing gotcha.
This style of politics is a habit we need to break and it’s hard to break because it has been a winner. Those of us of a certain age remember the original daisy ad against Barry Goldwater, the anti-labor ad against Ralph Yarborough that showed empty streets allegedly from Yarborough running business out of town but actually shot at the crack of dawn when nobody was around.
There there was Bush 41 v. Willie Horton. Bush 43 claiming that McCain’s time in a Vietnamese prison camp drove him nuts. Karl Rove’s attacks on the patriotism of Max Cleland–chicken hawk destroys disabled veteran!
We don’t stop this brand of politics by wishing it away. We stop it by not doing it. By recognizing that it poisons democratic government. By being–gasp!–polite to our adversaries.
Outright Barbarism vs. The Civil Society
By Sara Robinson / May 6, 2008
I live in a nice place.
I mean that literally. It took some getting used to. After 20 years in Silicon Valley, where people put a premium on being direct and to the point, have no time to waste on small talk or personal sharing, and will call a stupid idea stupid to your face, moving to Canada required a whole lot of gearing back on that brusque American aggressive-in-your-face thing. The humbling fact was: We had to learn to mind our manners.
Much of the adjustment work that first year involved re-learning the art of Being Nice. We had to get used to meetings that started with 10 or 15 minutes of personal chit-chat. We had to train ourselves to stop interrupting people, and to be more careful to say “please” and “thank you.” We had to discover (sometimes, the hard way) that losing your temper with Canadians means that you will invariably lose the conflict. The more terse and irritated you get, the more determinedly calm and polite Canadians become, until you’re standing there looking like a raving idiot and they’re still firmly in control (though they’re very sorry you’re having such a bad day).
We also learned the unofficial Canadian motto, which is “I’m sorry.” Canadians will say “I’m sorry” even if you were the one who bumped into them. (Americans, on the other hand, won’t say it at all: apologizing is admitting fault, which is an invitation to lawsuits.) We used to respond to this by pleading with them out of our own misguided sense of Niceness: “No. Please. Don’t be sorry. It was MY fault.” But after a while, we gave up, went with the flow, and started apologizing for everything, too. It was really…well, nice, once we got used to it.
The whole world makes fun of Canadians’ resolute civility — but once I’d read a little Canadian history, I realized that this Being Nice thing isn’t just a cute cultural quirk. In fact, up here, it’s is a deadly serious matter of national survival. Canada’s 13 provinces and territories are, effectively, three separate nations—each with its own culture, language, religion, and history. On top of that, the country is the world’s largest importer of new immigrants, a large fraction of whom are from cultures very different from Canada’s aboriginal and European bedrock. The federal constitution that binds all this together is very weak (it’s not unlike the U.S.’s original Articles of Confederation), and the overwhelming bulk of government power is still tightly concentrated in the hands of the provincial premiers (that’s Canadian for “state governors”). Secession is eminently possible, as the Quebecois so often like to remind us.
In the face of all that, there’s the constant possibility—which does not exist in the U.S.—that one cranky politician having one bad day could stand up and say one idiot thing that would cause one faction or another to decamp en masse, thus precipitating the instant demise of Canada-as-we-know-it. The threat is real. It could happen. And the only thing that keeps it from happening is that resolute collective determination to stay calm, keep the peace, and Be Nice.
Civility is, in a very real sense, the glue that holds this big, diverse nation together. Name-calling, othering, and losing one’s temper is, quite simply, un-Canadian and unpatriotic. Failure to be civil in public is the fastest way (perhaps the only way) to get Canadians genuinely peeved at you. In the land where “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is supplanted by “peace, order, and good government” as the organizing values, there is simply no excuse at all for that kind of behavior, ever.
Our essential reliance on civil discourse—and the big trouble that awaits us when we try to function without it—is the same idea that Jeffrey Feldman explores, far more pointedly, in his new book, Outright Barbarous: How the Violent Language of the Right Poisons American Democracy. Feldman, whose indispensable Frameshop blog has done a lot of the heavy lifting in deconstructing the way the American right uses and abuses language, briskly and thoughtfully deconstructs seven specific ways 30 years of us-versus-them rhetoric has polarized the country, forced us into unnecessary conflicts against each other and everyone else, and virtually destroyed our ability to govern ourselves.
Dave Neiwert, who coined the term “eliminationist rhetoric” to describe the language Americans have so often used to justify violence against each other, has carefully outlined the process by which ugly talk can easily devolve into horrific action. Call it holocaust, lynching, or apartheid — whatever the atrocity, it always begins with language that privileges us, dehumanizes them, and somehow justifies their removal from our midst. Feldman’s book breaks out another side to this conversation, by showing that the right wing has scored some very specific and tangible (and otherwise politically untenable) benefits by the simple act of grinding our discourse down the point where it’s now mostly conduced in the coarsest of us-versus-them terms.
Read all of it here. / Blog for Our Future
The Rag Blog
Posted in Rag Bloggers
Tagged American Society, Hillary, Obama, Politics, Presidential Campaign
Leave a comment
T. Hayden on Obama, Limbaugh and What’s Ahead
TURNING POINT FOR OBAMA,
LIMBAUGH WINNING INDIANA FOR HILLARY
By Tom Hayden / May 7, 2008
Barack got his game back. Hillary needs a reality check.
Barack had the voters at his back against all the forces trying to bring him down. He held his lead in North Carolina, and only the Rush Limbaugh Republican vote stands between Barack and victory in Indiana. [Clinton took Indiana by two percentage points.]
Hillary needed two wins. She failed utterly. But she will not stop, not on her own.
The super-delegates should intervene tomorrow to send Hillary a message. Out now.
If they don’t, the supporters of Obama should step up their persuasion on those still-undeclared superdelegates to recognize the inevitable and bring this campaign to an end.
Supporters of John Edwards should push their former candidate to release his pledged delegates now, a move that might make the difference as early as this week.
Progressives should intensify the counter-attack against Clinton’s smear campaign against Barack’s character and bogus arguments for recognizing Michigan and Florida, sending the message that her campaign tactics risk a massive defection of the disillusioned in November.
It must be understood that the Clintons are beyond persuasion or capable of thinking beyond their own interests, at least not on their own. Left to their own repetitive patterns, they will step up the attempt to damage Barack Obama so that he is rendered unelectable in the minds of the superdelegates. At the very least, beginning this week, this may mean an assault on Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground, and a twisted depiction of Obama’s history of statements on the Palestinians. [On this latter point, they can run commercials of Clinton kissing Yasser Arafat’s wife, perhaps coupled with footage of the landing under “sniper fire” in Bosnia. Bloggers may have to carry these messages, since Obama won’t].
The Obama forces cannot [and will not] coast to victory. In terms of issues, they should intensify the focus on the Clinton proposal for “massive retaliation” and “obliteration” against Iran on behalf of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. That was front-page news in Toronto yesterday while receiving zero attention in the New York Times and CNN. Barack should take up Robert Kennedy’s 1968 anti-poverty mission in West Virginia. Finally, his campaign needs to build firewalls in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota to maintain his lead.
TomHayden.com.
Progressives for Obama.
Also see Obama Victorious, Clinton On The Ropes / The Huffington Post
And Wesley Clark reportedly urges Clinton to drop out.
/ AmericaBlog
The Rag Blog

























