NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts

20 August 2010

After MoJo Story, Soldier Gets Home Back 19AUG10

BACK on 6 MAY 10 I posted a story first covered by Mother Jones, 'Soldier in Iraq Looses Home Over $800 Debt', the home was foreclosed on for an $800 HOA debt! Well, here is an update, and this soldier and his family are getting their home back. Check this out from Mother Jones, click the link to read the original story.

| Thu Aug. 19, 2010 11:42 AM PDT
A few folks have been asking me on Twitter, so I figured MoJo readers were owed an update on Michael Clauer, the Texas soldier who lost his $300,000 home over an $800 debt while he was serving in Iraq.
When I wrote about the Clauers' plight in May, it hadn't yet received any national attention. But reader response was swift. The article garnered over 650 comments on MotherJones.com, plus thousands more on Huffington Post and other sites that linked to our investigation. Fortunately, this story has a happy ending. [Read the original story here.]
I exchanged emails with the Clauers' lawyer, Barbara Hale, earlier this month, and she told me the case has been resolved. As of now, it looks like Michael, his wife May, and their two children will get their home back. The financial terms of the settlement are confidential.
The Clauers were saved by a law called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which essentially forbids foreclosing on active-duty troops. If Michael hadn't been on active duty, the Clauers might not have had any legal recourse. Of course, they really shouldn't have had to deal with lawyers in the first place. Whatever happened to being neighborly? Here's an excerpt from the original story:
Michael went on active duty in February 2008 and was sent to Iraq. After he shipped out, his wife May slipped into a deep depression, according to court documents. "A lot of people say that the deployment is more stressful on the spouse than the actual person who's being deployed," Michael, 37, says in an interview with Mother Jones. May Clauer had two kids to take care of—a ten-year-old and a one-year-old with a serious seizure-related disorder. In addition, she was worried sick about her husband. Michael's company was doing convoy security in Iraq—an extremely dangerous job. "It was a pretty tough year for the whole company," he says. "We had IEDs, rocket attacks and mortar attacks, and a few soldiers that were hurt pretty bad and had to be airlifted back to the States."
Seeking to avoid hearing about the situation in Iraq, May stopped watching the news. She rarely answered the door, and Michael says he couldn't tell her when he went "outside the wire"—off-base. May also stopped opening the mail. "I guess she was scared that she would hear bad news," says Michael. That was why she missed multiple notices from the Heritage Lakes Homeowners Association informing her that the family owed $800 in dues—and then subsequent notices stating that the HOA was preparing to foreclose on the debt and seize the home.... In May 2008, the HOA sold the Clauers' home for a pittance—$3,500—although its appraisal value was $300,000, according to court documents. The buyer then resold the house to a third person. (Select Management Co., the company that manages Heritage Lakes, declined to comment for this story.)
...At no point did anyone from the HOA—which is, after all, composed of the Clauers' neighbors—appear to have tried to visit May Clauer's house to talk to her about the problem. "The HOA board members...don't live very far from me at all," Michael Clauer says. There were "neighbors owing much more than us [who] were notified in person of pending foreclosures, but my wife only received a few letters." David Schechter of the Dallas/Fort Worth television station WFAA, which first reported this story, notes that the "Clauers' HOA says homeowners are free to call them, but they do not call or visit homeowners when there's a problem. They're only required to send a certified letter."
If folks from the homeowners association had bothered to knock on May Clauer's door, they might have avoided all this—the legal fees, the negative press attention, and the (surely large) settlement costs. But they didn't, and they paid the price. Fred Rogers would be ashamed.
Here's an interesting postscript: When I asked whether the homeowners association that foreclosed on Clauer admitted wrongdoing, Hale emailed back "Heck No!" Homeowners associations have enormous power. In 33 states, they can foreclose without a court order over a few hundred dollars in unpaid dues. The process in Texas is especially quick—just 27 days. Texas HOAs have been bedeviled by allegations that they are taking advantage of the law. Some have even been accused of specifically targeting people who own their homes free and clear—like the Clauers did—so that they can flip the house and make a profit. Until the laws are reformed so that it's harder to take people's homes over a few hundred bucks, you're going to keep seeing these sorts of stories. At least this one had a happy ending.
This post has been extended since it was first published.

06 August 2010

BRADLEY MANNING, AMERICAN HERO, (COLLATERAL MURDER) SUPPORT NETWORK FORMED from IVAW 6AUG10

BRADLEY MANNING, an American hero for exposing the murders committed in Iraq through the release of the video 'Collateral Murder' (video available on this blog) is being charged for exposing this war crime, but nobody in the military has been charged for these murders. Please consider donating to his legal fund and click the header for more on his story. AND PLEASE sign the petition for him at the bottom of this post.

Bradley Manning Support Network formed


IVAW has joined the Bradley Manning Support Network, an ad hoc, international grassroots effort working to support Army Private Bradley Manning, age 22, alleged to have blown the whistle on U.S. war crimes.  Manning is accused of leaking the "Collateral Murder" cockpit video released in April, depicting the killing of 11 civilians, including 2 Reuters journalists in Iraq.
While Manning has been unjustly arrested for exposing this war crime, no one in the military has been charged in the killings of these civilians.  The government also may be investigating his connection to the recent release of 92,000 war documents to Wikileaks which expose the brutality and futility of the Afghanistan occupation.
Your help is needed to raise funds for Bradley's legal defense.
As veterans and active duty service members who have been working since 2004 to expose the human costs of the occupations, we feel that Bradley Manning is a soldier of conscience and has demonstrated extreme courage.
Exposing war crimes is not a crime.
Since Bradley's arrest, he has issued no formal public statements, but in the on-line conversation that got him arrested, he stated that he felt it was in the public interest to expose what is happening in our theaters of war, and that he would be willing to face life in prison or even execution for exposing the truth.  Daniel Ellsberg, IVAW Advisory Board member and the famed whistleblower behind the Pentagon Papers, has heralded Manning as a hero.
Bradley faces up to 52 years in prison if convicted of the current charges against him (not to mention additional charges if it is found he is connected to the latest leak of documents).  His legal fees will be significant as he faces the weight of our entire government against him.  Supporters estimate that we will need to raise a bare minimum of $50,000 to get him the best legal defense.

This is where you come in.
Please consider supporting Bradley Manning's legal defense fund today.  Click here to make a donation.
You can also check out the website bradleymanning.org, where you can purchase cool shirts, buttons, and posters that will also support his legal defense.
If you live in the area of Quantico, VA, join us for a rally this Sunday, August 8 at noon.
WHERE: Quantico Municipal Park, located at 440 River Rd. (near Potomac Ave), Quantico, VA.
The park is located on the Potomac River. It can be reached by walking 5 minutes down Potomac Ave. (through the small two-block shopping district) from the Quantico Amtrak Station, our designated noon-time meeting spot. (See Google maps directions: Amtrak to park.)
IVAW members from the region will be in attendance. (If you plan to attend, you should expect counter-protesters who believe that Bradley Manning is "a traitor.")
If you can't make the rally, a donation today will make a big difference. 

An early show of financial support is critical.  It will give the Manning family confidence that they will not be burdened by the exorbitant legal costs of the up-coming trial, and can choose the best, most experienced legal team.  If we are able to support the most effective legal defense for Manning, we may not only be able to save his life, but we may also be able to put the war in Afghanistan on trial in the process.
Thank you for supporting Bradley Manning.
In Solidarity,
Iraq Veterans Against the War




Justice for Bradley Manning



 


View Current Signatures   -   Sign the Petition



To:  US Department of Defense; US Department of Justice We, the Undersigned, call for justice for US Army PFC Bradley Manning, incarcerated without charge (as of 18 June 2010) at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait.

Media accounts state that Mr. Manning was arrested in late May for leaking the video of US Apache helicopter pilots killing innocent people and seriously wounding two children in Baghdad, including those who arrived to help the wounded, as well as potentially other material. The video was released by WikiLeaks under the name "Collateral Murder".

If these allegations are untrue, we call upon the US Department of Defense to release Mr. Manning immediately.

If these allegations ARE true, we ALSO call upon the US Department of Defense to release Mr. Manning immediately.

Simultaneously, we express our support for Mr. Manning in any case, and our admiration for his courage if he is, in fact, the person who disclosed the video. Like in the cases of Daniel Ellsberg, W. Mark Felt, Frank Serpico and countless other whistleblowers before, government demands for secrecy must yield to public knowledge and justice when government crime and corruption are being kept hidden.

Justice for Bradley Manning!


Sincerely,
The Undersigned

View Current Signatures






Thank You From IVAW Send This Newsletter to a Friend

Donate Today!

03 July 2010

ACLU ONLINE NEWSLETTER 25JUN10

ACLU Online

In This Issue

Ms. McMillen Goes to Washington!

Humanitarian Groups Criminalized Under "Material Support" Law

Nebraska Town Passes Discriminatory Arizona-like Measure

Death by Firing Squad Highlights Inhumanity of Death Penalty

Help Defend the Women Who Defend Us

Victory! Politicians Play Doctor, but ACLU Helps Secure Veto

Make Hawaii Proud, Gov. Lingle: Allow the Civil Unions Bill to Become Law



Help fund us with just a click. Vote now at CREDO

Victory! Politicians Play Doctor, but ACLU Helps Secure Veto

In an 11th-hour move during Florida's 2010 legislative session, legislators tagged two harmful amendments onto a health care bill (H.B. 1143) without opportunity for public comment, review by any committee of the legislature or expert testimony. The result of the legislation would have been devastating to women in Florida, drastically undermining access to reproductive health care and dictating what types of health insurance coverage private employers may offer their employees.

Had the bill passed, it would have required doctors—with only extremely limited exceptions for documented victims of certain crimes—to perform an ultrasound before providing an abortion in the first trimester. Additionally, it would have allowed government to dictate to businesses that receive tax credits what types of health insurance coverage they can provide to their employees. As a result, millions of Floridians would have lost the coverage that they currently have through the private market.

In a coordinated effort, the ACLU and 35 partner organizations sent Gov. Charlie Crist a letter urging him to veto H.B. 1143. The letter was part of a collaborative effort by a broad spectrum of organizations to alert Floridians about the realities of this anti-women's rights legislation.

ACLU supporters made over 10,000 calls and emails to Gov. Crist, encouraging him to veto the Florida Legislature's attempt to play doctor. Gov. Crist responded by vetoing H.B. 1143, a major victory for all Floridians. Along with our allies such as Planned Parenthood and Progress Florida, we sent a clear message to legislators: write good legislation, not prescriptions.

Your dedication and overwhelming response no doubt led to this success. Thank you for helping to stop this damaging legislation and commend Gov. Crist's resolve to veto the bill. This veto is a victory for women's rights, reproductive rights, health care, privacy and personal freedom.

back to top

Make Hawaii Proud, Gov. Lingle: Allow the Civil Unions Bill to Become Law

LGBT rights supporters in Hawaii have been waiting on pins and needles since April 29, 2010, when the Hawaii State House of Representatives passed House Bill 444, a civil unions bill, and sent it to Gov. Linda Lingle for her signature. The governor has until July 6, 2010, to either sign it into law, allow it to become law without her signature, or veto it.

H.B. 444 would allow both same-sex and different-sex couples to enter into a civil union, which will provide them with the same responsibilities and legal protections under state law as those provided to married couples. While civil unions will not confer those social and cultural benefits or federal legal protections that come with marriage, they will go a long way towards ensuring that same-sex couples are able to adequately take care of each other and their families.

H.B. 444's long and excruciating two year journey through the Hawaii State Legislature will surely go down in history as one of the most hard-fought battles for LGBT rights in Hawaii. In addition to endless community organizing, lobbying, and public education, supporters of the legislation have endured historically long public hearings, wavering legislators and vote after vote after vote. Even now, while waiting for Gov. Lingle's decision, supporters are lobbying the legislature to come back to the capitol to override her veto if necessary.

It has been reported that the governor, in deciding how to act on H.B. 444, has been reading about the legacy of former Hawaii Gov. John Burns, who allowed a bill legalizing abortion to become law without his signature despite his personal opposition. In his statement to the legislature, Burns noted that his decision was "the decision of the Governor of Hawaii, not the private and personal whim of John A. Burns. It reflects my best judgment as Governor, made after consultation with the best minds in the State, in regard to what is in the best interest of all the people of Hawaii." We hope that Gov. Lingle sees the wisdom and logic in Gov. Burns' position and follows his example.

>> Take action: Please contact Hawaii's Governor and ask her to allow the civil unions bill to become law.

back to top

Send to a friend
Do you know somebody who would be interested in getting news about the ACLU and what we're doing to protect civil liberties? Help us spread the word about ACLU Online — forward this newsletter to a friend.


June 25, 2010

Ms. McMillen Goes to Washington!



ACLU client Constance McMillen with Senator Al Franken (D-MN).

Join Constance in urging members of Congress to support the Student Non-Discrimination Act.
Earlier this week, ACLU client Constance McMillen joined President Obama at a White House ceremony recognizing the contributions of LGBT Americans.

President Obama closed his remarks at the reception by highlighting the struggles of LGBT young people like Constance who, through their courage and commitment, are helping to make change happen in America and opening hearts and minds in the process.

Constance made headlines this spring when her Mississippi high school took the extraordinary step of canceling the school prom rather than allow her to go with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo. Constance and her girlfriend were eventually sent to a "decoy" prom that was attended by only a few other students while the rest of her classmates attended a private prom 30 miles away.

Constance made the most of her time in D.C. by squeezing in a jam-packed day advocating for protections for other LGBT students across the country. She started the day with a CNN interview, in which she stated that the reason she has been so willing to speak out is so other LGBT youth will not have to endure the same struggles she and others like her have.

Next up was a personal sit-down meeting with Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.), lead sponsor of the Student Non-Discrimination Act. This legislation would bar discrimination based on "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity" in public elementary and secondary schools across the country, and would provide legal remedies to students whose civil rights were violated. There is simply no reason why these important protections should not be afforded to LGBT students, a particularly vulnerable population in many schools.

>> Take action: Join Constance in urging members of Congress to support the Student Non-Discrimination Act.

back to top

Humanitarian Groups Criminalized Under "Material Support" Law



Learn how U.S. terrorism finance laws hurt legitimate charities helping Muslims in need. Watch this short video.
This week, the United States Supreme Court upheld the broad application of a federal law that hinders the ability of human rights and humanitarian aid organizations to do their work by making it a crime to provide "material support" to designated "foreign terrorist organizations" (FTOs).

Under the law, individuals face up to 15 years in prison for providing "material support" to FTOs, even if their work is intended to promote peaceful, lawful objectives. "Material support" is defined to include any "service," "training," "expert advice or assistance" or "personnel."

The ruling thwarts the efforts of human rights organizations to persuade violent actors to renounce violence or cease their human rights abuses and jeopardizes the provision of aid and disaster relief in conflict zones controlled by designated groups. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, on behalf of the Carter Center and several other organizations known for their work to promote peace, further human rights and alleviate human suffering around the world.

"The 'material support law'—which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism—actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence," said former President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center. "The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom."

>> Learn how U.S. terrorism finance laws hurt legitimate charities helping Muslims in need. Watch this short video.

back to top

Nebraska Town Passes Discriminatory Arizona-like Measure

Arizona isn't the only jurisdiction passing laws that encourage discrimination and racial profiling.

Fremont, Nebraska voted this week to banish undocumented immigrants from rental homes or jobs in the 25,000-person town. The law requires town officials to evaluate the citizenship status of any person renting property, while employers must check the status of would-be hires using a flawed federal database.

The vote could make Fremont the latest battleground in a national fight against discriminatory laws like the one recently passed in Arizona requiring police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S.

"If this law goes into effect, it will cause discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign born, including U.S. citizens," ACLU Nebraska Executive Director Laurel Marsh said about the Fremont law. "The ACLU of Nebraska has no option but to turn to the courts to stop this un-American and unconstitutional ordinance before the law goes into effect. Not only do local ordinances such as this violate federal law, they are also completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality. We will be working with concerned citizens in Fremont who want to stop Arizona-like laws from getting on the books in their city."

The ACLU has successfully challenged local anti-immigrant laws across the country. Similar laws have been struck down by courts in California, Pennsylvania and Texas.

>> Learn more about this challenge.

back to top

Death by Firing Squad Highlights Inhumanity of Death Penalty

When Ronnie Lee Gardner was strapped into a chair last week, a hood placed over his head and a small white target pinned over his heart, the citizens of Utah—and indeed the entire country—were reminded in the most graphic of fashions of the nation's ongoing adherence to the barbaric, arbitrary and bankrupting practice of capital punishment.

Five anonymous men, each carrying identical .30-caliber rifles, carried just the third execution by firing squad in Utah—or anywhere else in the U.S.—since 1976, and the first since 1996. It is a practice so brutal that even Utah's state legislature outlawed the practice in 2004, though it left the option available to prisoners who were condemned prior to the legislative action.

While executions in the United States are generally carried out largely under the radar and absent much fanfare or media attention, most Americans might be surprised to learn that a death sentence is carried out almost every week. But the brutal nature of Gardner's planned killing by firing squad has resulted in it being unavoidably high-profile.

As savage and inhumane as Gardner's execution was, we cannot let it shroud the systemic injustices and inequities that plague every other execution that takes place in this country, and which delegitimizes the death penalty system in Utah and across the nation.

Like taxpayers in other death penalty states, Utah's taxpayers are wasting millions of dollars every year to prop up a system in which a few randomly selected individuals receive the death penalty. Instead, we can condemn the worst offenders to permanent life imprisonment, a severe, swift, certain and much more cost-effective punishment that serves our shared priorities of punishing offenders and protecting society.

In the past three years, the systemic injustices of the system have compelled New York, New Jersey and, most recently, New Mexico, to replace the death penalty with permanent imprisonment. In fact, New Mexico is the 15th state without the death penalty and the first in the continental western U.S. Utah should join them.

>> Learn more about the ACLU's work to end capital punishment.

back to top

Help Defend the Women Who Defend Us

Tell your members of Congress to protect the reproductive rights of women serving our country.
It's totally unacceptable. More than 100,000 women serving overseas in our nation's armed services can't exercise the rights they defend with their lives.

But that's what's happening: women in the armed services are prevented from getting abortions—even if they pay for them themselves.

The Senate Armed Services Committee recently voted to lift the military facilities abortion ban and allow privately financed abortions in U.S. military hospitals. But anti-choice members of Congress are trying to keep the senseless ban in place.

This is one of the many ways in which anti-choice extremists are trying to chip away at the rights of women. And each time, ACLU supporters have stood up to defend reproductive rights.

From proposed state initiatives that define the fetus as a person to attempts to drastically undermine access to reproductive health care and dictate what types of health insurance coverage private employers may offer their employees, we're fighting extremist forces that want to impose their values on the rest of us.

>> Take action: Tell your members of Congress to protect the reproductive rights of women serving our country.

back to top

Join us on...
facebook twitter YouTube
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004-2400
Geraldine Engel and Lisa Sock,
Editors


Privacy Statement
This mail is never sent unsolicited. You, or someone on your behalf, has subscribed to receive this information from the American Civil Liberties Union. At the ACLU Web site, the ACLU gathers anonymous summary statistics on the responses to our email newsletters in order to better serve list subscribes and ACLU members. To review our Privacy Statement, click here.

Click here to forward this message.

30 June 2010

Barnett Praises Obama's Leadership, Calls for Renewed Cooperation in Afghanistan 28JUN10 & The race is on: Barnett versus Wolf for Congress 23JUN10


I hope you will check out Jeff Barnett's campaign website (click the header or the link on this blog) and you can contribute to his campaign at his website or by clicking this link to his fundraising page 0n ActBlue
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/entity/23752

We deserve better than Frank Wolf and Jeff Barnett is the right person to represent ALL the citizens of Virginia's 10th district.
From his website 


“The conduct of our wars concerns me not just as a citizen and a veteran, but as a father,” Barnett said. “Both of my children are active duty military officers. My youngest returned from her first tour of duty in Afghanistan in April, and she redeploys on 18 July. My family – like so many other families around the country – is directly affected by this war. I will never allow our children’s lives to become political calculations.”

“Civilian control of the military is among the foremost bulwarks of Democracy,” Barnett continued. “The most troubling aspect of the information in last week’s article about General McChrystal is that it revealed dissent within the highest ranks of command in Afghanistan. As a retired Colonel with 26 years of military experience, I know that clarity of objective and unity of effort are fundamental principles of war. We cannot plan successful offensives in the absence of clear objectives. We cannot accomplish those objectives when our field commander undermines and disagrees with his civilian leadership. Replacing General McChrystal with General Petraeus makes sound strategic sense.”

Last week’s events should remind us of the challenges presented by modern counterinsurgency warfare. “In Afghanistan, our generals manage multinational forces and work to win the support of a troubled population. In that climate, it’s not enough for our officers to be excellent soldiers, they must also be diplomatic leaders,” Barnett warned. “Modern warfare demands modern generalship. It requires leadership in all elements of American power: diplomatic, information, military and economic. To succeed, General Petraeus and Ambassador Eikenberry must strengthen the ties of civil-military collaboration. Only then will we achieve our goals in Afghanistan: kill Al-Qaeda and ensure that the government in Kabul has the strength to prevent its return.

The race is on: Barnett versus Wolf for Congress
At last, the die has been cast for the 10th Congressional district race now that both Democrat and Republican primaries have taken place.
In one corner: senior incumbent Republican Congressman Frank Wolf.
In the opposite corner: upstart Democrat challenger Jeff Barnett.
While it’s not, on the face of it, the race of our times – like others in Virginia are pumped to be in November – it is a race that came about rather unexpectedly, because in the end it came so easily.
It appeared just months ago Wolf would have a tea-infused, intra-party challenger to his right. It looked just as likely that the Democrats would have a trove of challengers jostling to take on the 15-term incumbent.
Over the course of a month this spring, Wolf’s Republican challenger ‘suspended’ his campaign, and the Democrats quietly settled on a single nominee – making the primaries of June 8 superfluous.
So now what? Will 2010 be different?
After Wolf made short shrift of Democratic challenger Judy Feder in the 2006 and 2008 elections (heavily Democratic years, it should be noted,) many are ready to call this year’s race a yawner for Wolf because of what political observers have deemed to be an anti-Democratic mid-term election year.
To which we say, “Now hold on just a sec.”
As some primaries have shown this year, no incumbent can be called ‘safe.’ As much as there may be an “anti-Democratic” tilt – taking into account mid-term election history, mind you—there is just as strong an “anti-incumbent” veneer across the political boxing ring. Just ask amiable incumbent GOP Sen. Bob Bennett, who was unceremoniously turfed out by fellow Utah Republicans last month, or several Democratic incumbents who were given the boot by fellow Democrats in their own primaries.
These are skittish and volatile times. No one is immune. More broadly, what we mean is, no one should take this race – or any other – for granted.
But we think Wolf gets that. His message in the past few months has been reconciled to acknowledge an edgy constituent base searching for solutions instead of partisanship.
It is also our belief that Wolf’s opponent, Barnett, should be given a fair chance to prove his mettle. He has managed to raise a fair amount of money, and Barnett did efficiently dispatch his primary challengers.
He also is well-versed on a subject many people care about deeply. As a former Air Force lieutenant colonel, he can speak with authority on military issues – to wit, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are some things we’d like to see in this race.
The first is more of Wolf and, especially, Barnett.
We know Wolf – elected in 1980. We need to know, and to see more, of Barnett. As a challenger, it’s incumbent upon him to make the case as to why this should be Frank Wolf’s final term in office.
We’d also like to see a solid discussion of the issues – those that matter most to us in Loudoun, in an economy that is as volatile and unsteady as the electorate. Issues such as job creation, small-business growth, economic development, transportation, taming our embarrassingly escalating debt and deficit. More about Middleburg, less so about the Middle East.
If this race turns into a middling, junior-varsity spitball fracas of slogans cheaply demonizing “Barack, bailouts, and BP,” it would be a true disservice to political discourse and the expectations of an apprehensive electorate.
Then, there are the debates.
We vigorously support a busy schedule of joint appearances for both candidates where the audience can ask unscreened questions of each, and candidates can ask each other pointed questions without the useless structural chaperoning of Byzantine debate rules that give voters nothing of value.
Another request: decorum. This is something we believe Wolf understands. Agree with him or not, he’s a gentleman and not a rabid polemicist (note to Tea Partiers.)
So far we’ve seen the same from Barnett. We hope that continues. A year such as this will surely tempt each to go negative. Resist, we say, at all costs. People are turned off enough as it is about politics today.
As we kick off this general election race, we leave this final thought with our readers: Register to vote. Pay attention. Get involved. Demand answers. Attend forums. Force accountability.

23 June 2010

The Right's Latest Faux Obama Outrage 18JUN10

These tea-baggers and their neo-nazi fascist pig supporters in the gop are pathetic. They spread their lies through "fox news" and gullible Americans suck it all in because they are too stupid and too lazy to try to find out the facts. I really detest voluntary ignorance and stupidity, and too many Americans, especially in the gop and the tea-bagger movement, are guilty of both. This is from Mother Jones, click the header to go to the article on the magazine blog.
Is Obama's support for an arcane maritime law really preventing other countries from assisting in the Gulf?
Fri Jun. 18, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Usually Dick Armey gets worked up over things like taxes and the deficit. But at a June 16 symposium about the Tea Party movement, the former House majority leader and current chair of FreedomWorks was jumping out of his chair over something even more arcane: the Jones Act—a 1920s-era maritime law that bars foreign-flagged vessels from shuttling goods between American ports.
To hear Armey talk, the act—and President Obama's support for it—are all that's keeping eager Norwegian skimmers from mopping up the oil destined for Florida's pristine sands. "How do you explain a president who does not waive the Jones Act on day one?" he fumed. "No press is even asking the questions." His explanation: It's a "silly little labor sop."
During the past week, the Jones Act has become a big GOP talking point, with the likes of Oliver North, Dick Morris, and congressional GOP freshmen stepping up to bash Obama for his alleged shortsightedness. Obama, his critics insist, needs to follow the lead of—yes—his predecessor. "In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Bush administration didn't hesitate to waive the law completely in an emergency," John Fund wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week.
Just one problem with these arguments: They are almost entirely false.
Let's start with this Bush business: It is true that Bush issued a Jones Act waiver post-Katrina. But he did so not to help relief efforts, but rather as a gift to the oil industry. The waiver allowed firms to use unregulated foreign vessels to ship oil and gas from local refineries that were damaged in the hurricane.
In fact, Bush waived the Jones Act at the same time he suspended anti-pollution laws for gasoline—hardly a humanitarian gesture. Whether the Jones waiver helped relief efforts at all is unclear—and was disputed even back then.
"You cannot find a person in Bush's administration who can explain why that was a good idea, or how it helped," says Mark Ruge, counsel to the Maritime Cabotage Task Force, a coalition of labor unions, shipbuilders and operators, and "pro-defense" organizations. Ruge says that the waiver may have enabled some foreign cruise ships to house displaced residents, but that didn't require the sort of blanket waiver the GOP is now demanding from Obama. (His organization supports case-by-case waivers, as needed, to assist with the oil spill.)
Bush's move also prompted Jones Act waiver requests from a host of unrelated companies who also wanted to utilize cheaper foreign shippers. In the same vein, freshman Hawaii Rep. Charles Djou—the GOP's pit bull for this latest Obama attack—had actually campaigned on promises that he would introduce legislation to exempt his state from the Jones Act. The act was an issue for Djou and his fellow Hawaii Republicans long before the spill, since the state depends on ships for supplies, and critics of the act say it makes things more expensive for Hawaiians.
So, has the Jones Act really prevented the US from enlisting foreign help in the Gulf cleanup? Doesn't seem so. On June 15, Adm. Thad Allen, the Coast Guard's point man on the disaster, issued a press release noting that there are already 15 foreign-flagged ships working the spill—the act only applies to ships operating within three miles of shore, and there's plenty of work to be done outside that boundary.
"While we have not seen any need to waive the Jones Act as part of this historic response, we continue to prepare for all possible scenarios," Allen said. "Should any waivers be needed, we are prepared to process them as quickly as possible to allow vital spill response activities being undertaken by foreign-flagged vessels to continue without delay." He added that no foreign entities have even requested a waiver—which can be granted if no suitable American vessels are available.
His statement has done little to quiet conservatives' claims—particularly the notion that Obama won't waive the act because he's in bed with labor. On June 10, Heritage Foundation fellow Joseph Carafano set the tone for this accusation on Fox News, noting that foreign ships are being sidelined because "this is a big thing for unions. The unions see it as…protecting jobs. They hate when the Jones Act gets waived, and they pound on politicians when they do that."
There's a nugget of truth to the labor critique. Maritime unions did back Obama in 2008, and they are generally supportive of the Jones Act. But they take issue with suggestions that labor is putting politics over the Gulf cleanup. "To say the unions are standing in the way is completely unfounded," says a spokesperson for the Seafarers International Union.
This wouldn't be the first time the Jones Act has come under fire as a union-protection measure. Shipping companies that rely on foreign vessels have long hoped to amend the act so that they can compete domestically without paying US taxes or complying with domestic labor, environmental, or safety regulations. (Many of these, such as the Virginia-based Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry, are American companies.) Firms that would prefer to save money by using foreign-registered ships have also griped about the Jones Act. In the mid-1990s, a group of such interests calling itself the "Jones Act Reform Coalition" tried—without success—to weaken the law.
There's one big reason the Jones Act, this union-friendly protectionist measure, has managed to survive a frontal assault by big corporations: national security. The act's requirements that domestic vessels be owned, registered, and built in America—and largely operated by US crews—ensures that there are sufficient working shipyards and skilled labor to supply the military's needs. The Navy, for its part, relies heavily on commercial vessels to supply the fleet in war zones; in the Iraq fighting, merchant mariners moved 90 percent of the American combat cargo. That's hardly a job the Pentagon wants to turn over to a bunch of leaky Liberian-flagged boats staffed with Somali teenagers earning slave wages.
In fact, given the GOP's concerns about terrorism and the party's historic love of all things military, it's hard to imagine folks like Armey and members of Congress really wanting to open domestic shipping to foreign ships. Yet, in effect, that's what they're arguing for. Of course, had Obama waived the Jones Act on day one, as Armey suggests he should have, the same crowd likely would have accused him of sacrificing national security for the environment and a chance to export jobs to his European socialist friends.
Nope, Obama really can't win on this one.
Read all of our BP coverage here.

06 June 2010

Soldier in Iraq Loses Home Over $800 Debt

This is so wrong in so many ways. At the least those of us not in the military need to make sure this doesn't happen to family, friends and neighbors, to anyone in our community who is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. There is a link in the article to support Capt Michael Clauer's family in their legal battle to get their home back.


Capt. Michael Clauer's homeowners' association foreclosed on his family's $300,000 house and sold it for $3,500
Fri May. 28, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Michael Clauer is a captain in the Army Reserve who commanded over 100 soldiers in Iraq. But while he was fighting for his country, a different kind of battle was brewing on the home front. Last September, Michael returned to Frisco, Texas, to find that his homeowners' association had foreclosed on his $300,000 house—and sold it for $3,500. This story illustrates the type of legal quagmire that can get out of hand while soldiers are serving abroad and their families are dealing with the stress of their deployment. And fixing the mess isn't easy.
Michael went on active duty in February 2008 and was sent to Iraq. After he shipped out, his wife May slipped into a deep depression, according to court documents. "A lot of people say that the deployment is more stressful on the spouse than the actual person who's being deployed," Michael, 37, says in an interview with Mother Jones. May Clauer had two kids to take care of—a ten-year-old and a one-year-old with a serious seizure-related disorder. In addition, she was worried sick about her husband. Michael's company was doing convoy security in Iraq—an extremely dangerous job. "It was a pretty tough year for the whole company," he says. "We had IEDs, rocket attacks and mortar attacks, and a few soldiers that were hurt pretty bad and had to be airlifted back to the States."
Seeking to avoid hearing about the situation in Iraq, May stopped watching the news. She rarely answered the door, and Michael says he couldn't tell her when he went "outside the wire"—off-base. May also stopped opening the mail. "I guess she was scared that she would hear bad news," says Michael. That was why she missed multiple notices from the Heritage Lakes Homeowners Association informing her that the family owed $800 in dues—and then subsequent notices stating that the HOA was preparing to foreclose on the debt and seize the home.
In Texas, homeowners' associations can foreclose on homes without a court order, no matter the size of the debt. In May 2008, the HOA sold the Clauers' home for a pittance—$3,500—although its appraisal value was $300,000, according to court documents. The buyer then resold the house to a third person. (Select Management Co., the company that manages Heritage Lakes, declined to comment for this story.)

It wasn't until June 2009 that May realized what had happened. Around that time, the new owner started demanding rent from the Clauers. She told Michael, who was still in Iraq. "At first I didn't believe it," he says. "I didn't understand how someone can take your house and not give you anything for it." When Texas Gov. Rick Perry visited Iraq in July, Michael says he told him about the problem. According to Michael, Perry called May and put lawyers in touch with the Clauers' attorney, but couldn't do much to alleviate the situation. (Perry's office didn't respond to calls seeking comment.) In August 2009, the new owner sent the couple an eviction notice, according to court records filed in the case. In Iraq, "the stress level was finally starting to come down," says Michael, and he was "starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel." He adds, "Then all of a sudden I get hit with this, and I'm trying to get out of there and get home and see what I can do to fight this."

At no point did anyone from the HOA—which is, after all, composed of the Clauers' neighbors—appear to have tried to visit May Clauer's house to talk to her about the problem. "The HOA board members...don't live very far from me at all," Michael Clauer says. There were "neighbors owing much more than us [who] were notified in person of pending foreclosures, but my wife only received a few letters." David Schechter of the Dallas/Fort Worth television station WFAA, which first reported this story, notes that the "Clauers' HOA says homeowners are free to call them, but they do not call or visit homeowners when there's a problem. They're only required to send a certified letter."
There are a bevy of laws that are supposed to protect servicemembers from losing their homes or jobs while they're on active duty, including the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The homeowners' association's lawyer filed an affidavit wrongly claiming that neither of the Clauers was on active duty, says Barbara Hale, the couple's lawyer. Hale is seeking to have the court reverse the foreclosure and declare it "null and void," she says.
In the meantime, the Clauers have obtained an agreement allowing the family to stay in the home, Hale says. She's "confident that the courts will sort this out and do the right thing," but notes that the drawn-out legal process must be stressful for the Clauers.
The one good thing for the Clauers about Michael's deployment to Iraq was that it gave them a chance to get their finances in order. Michael got a bonus and expenses at home were lower. Now all of that money is gone, says Michael, who is currently working as a production supervisor at a roofing company. "It's ridiculous how much this is costing us," he says. "I'll be taking out a mortgage on my house that was free and clear just to try to get my house back."
Lauren Bean, a spokeswoman for Clauers' congressman, GOP Rep. Michael Burgess, says that Burgess is "aware of Capt. Clauer's issue," but says it is "office policy to not comment on constituent casework." 
Even if he can't get his family's home back, Michael hopes that the public will pay attention to his story and push for changes to the laws that give Texas HOAs so much power. "We don't want to see this happen to other people," he says.
UPDATE: Several people have emailed asking how they can help. The Clauers have set up a legal defense fund to help pay for their court battle. You can send checks (made out to Clauer Legal Defense Fund) here:

Clauer Legal Defense Fund
 c/o Plains Capital Bank
1629 Hebron Parkway West
Carrollton, TX 75010

Michael Clauer's wife's name is May, not Mae, as this story and other news reports originally stated. Clauer got back from Iraq in September, not October (his active duty period ended in October.) This story has been corrected to reflect those changes. The story has also been edited since it was originally posted.

28 May 2010

Study explores how nonviolence is more effective than violence 18MAI10 & Obama's New Security Goals Prize Nonmilitary Moves 26MAI10

This is a fascinating article and it's publication was followed by the Obama administration's emphasis on nonmilitary methods to achieve our security goals. We can only hope and pray this is just a start of the dismantling of the military-industrial complex. Won't happen overnight,, but it is a start.

A fascinating paper has been published by Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth (HT to Rose Marie Berger writing for Sojourners in the US) on how nonviolence seems more successful than violent strategies in challenging regimes.
We have long suggested that we need greater investment in, and exploration of, these kinds of strategies. Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2002 suggested on Radio 4 and elsewhere that such possibilities were worth considering.
The findings of the new study challenge the conventional wisdom that violent resistance against conventionally superior adversaries is the most effective way for resistance groups to achieve policy goals.
The authors assert that nonviolent resistance is a forceful alternative to political violence that can pose effective challenges to democratic and nondemocratic opponents, and at times can do so more effectively than violent resistance.
They point out that from 2000 to 2006, organised civilian populations successfully employed nonviolent methods including boycotts, strikes, protests, and organised noncooperation to challenge entrenched power and exact political concessions in Serbia (2000), Madagascar (2002), Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004–05), Lebanon (2005), and Nepal (2006).
This is what the authors say:
"Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 per cent of the time, compared with 26 per cent for violent resistance campaigns.
"There are two reasons for this success. First, a campaign’s commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target. Recognition of the challenge group’s grievances can translate into greater internal and external support for that group and alienation of the target regime, undermining the regime’s main sources of political, economic, and even military power.
"Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime. Potentially sympathetic publics perceive violent militants as having maximalist or extremist goals beyond accommodation, but they perceive nonviolent resistance groups as less extreme, thereby enhancing their appeal and facilitating the extraction of concessions through bargaining."

The full paper: 'Why civil resistance works' can be found here: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.7



Obama's New Security Goals Prize Nonmilitary Moves

26MAI10

The Obama administration's new outline of national security goals says the U.S. must galvanize support abroad to tackle global troubles, a contrast to former President George W. Bush's emphasis on going it alone and striking preemptively if necessary.
A summary of the national security document, obtained by The Associated Press, says the United States should maintain its military advantage over the rest of the world while prizing other kinds of power.
The National Security Strategy will be the first produced under President Barack Obama, laying out his goals. The document, like those from other presidents, is purposely vague.
The AP obtained the summary ahead of document's planned release by the White House this week.
The strategy was expected to walk away from a position held by Bush that the United States could or should undertake pre-emptive wars. Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy posited that doctrine, and the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq made good on it.
The document says the highest priority for national security is the safety of Americans, and that strategies for a more peaceful world begin at home.
The strategy points to diplomacy, development and other methods of influence, while making clear the United States intends to maintain its military strength. The U.S. has the world's most powerful military, with unsurpassed reach and resources currently stretched by two wars and other challenges.
The new security document describes goals of national renewal and global leadership. U.S. security goals should reflect universal values held by the United States since its founding, the document says.
The Obama document reflects his views that U.S. influence should be used in partnership with allies and others, a repudiation of what was often described as Bush's go-it-alone philosophy.
Obama touched on that theme during a commencement address Saturday that was a partial preview of the security document.
The U.S. must shape a world order as reliant on the force of diplomacy as on the might of its military to lead, Obama said then.
Addressing nearly 1,000 graduating cadets at the U.S. Military Academy, many of whom will likely head to war in Iraq and Afghanistan under his command, Obama said all hands are required to solve the world's newest threats: terrorism, the spread of nuclear weapons, climate change and feeding and caring for a growing population.
Obama said the men and women who wear America's uniform cannot bear that responsibility by themselves. "The rest of us must do our part," he said.
"The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone. It also cannot fall on American shoulders alone."

21 May 2010

Hamid Karzai: Escape from DC 17MAI10 from MOJO

I expected more from the Obama administration, not more of the failed george w bush policies in Afghanistan, but a demand from this administration on the issues of drugs, corruption and transparency in the Afghan nation and government, with it linked to a continued American and NATO presence in the country. It didn't have to be a public scolding, but we, the people who are sending tens of thousands of our troops, sacrificing hundreds of them, and having spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this war effort, we deserved to see our government demand a willing and able partner in the Afghan government, something Karzai was able to escape from D.C. without providing. Shame on the Obama administration for allowing this to happen.

Brodner's Cartoon du Jour: At the Karzai Inauguration . . .


 

Thu Nov. 19, 2009 11:01 AM PST
...the oath was reportedly administered by good friend Rod Blagojevich. In a lighthearted moment the two exchanged the hair for the hat. Also in attendance (and up for high-level Cabinet posts): Alberto Fujimori, Robert Mugabe, and 17 Madoffs.



— White House photo/Pete Souza (Government Work).

While in Washington, the leader of the corrupt and inept Afghan government avoids the tough questions, and Obama deftly pulls off a pivot.

— By David Corn


Mon May. 17, 2010 3:00 AM PDT

Afghan President Hamid Karzai made it out of Washington last week alive—that is, without having to answer in public the allegations that his government is profoundly corrupt and fundamentally inept. Nor did he have to explain the bizarre remarks he made earlier this spring, when he claimed that the extensive fraud in last year's presidential race was engineered by foreigners and when he threatened to join the Taliban. At the same time, it appears that the Obama White House orchestrated a successful pivot, patching up—or papering over—the tensions between the US administration and the Karzai government and finally settling on a communications strategy for talking about its relationship with Karzai. It was a week in which both sides escaped the dilemmas of the Afghanistan war.

Following Obama and Karzai's Oval Office tete-a-tete on Wednesday, the two leaders held what the White House calls a "press availability." In the East Room of the White House, they spoke before the White House press corps and a handful of Afghan reporters, but they only took four questions—two from American journalists, two from the Afghan media. Karzai could have been pressed about graft and incompetence—or about the serious problems his country has had building up its own security forces, which is the cornerstone of US policy in Afghanistan. But Mark Knoller of CBS News asked if the two leaders had been able to "put aside the tensions and frictions" that had erupted after Karzai's curious comments. Both men essentially said, sure. CNN's Suzanne Malveaux asked if the United States was on track to start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July 2011. Both presidents predictably replied with upbeat talking points. Karzai was not forced to contend with a single uncomfortable query.

The next day, during a public discussion at the US Institute of Peace, Karzai, accompanied by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, again was not placed on the griddle. Most of the questions from the moderator, former Ambassador William Taylor, were policy-oriented and easy to field. ("What are your priorities? What specific steps will you take when you go back to Kabul?") At the end, an audience member asked if Obama or any other administration official had asked Karzai to "sideline or fire" his brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, who rules Kandahar, the strategically important city, where the next major operation of the war is expected to occur. (In April, New Yorker contributor Steve Coll wrote that Ahmed Wali Karzai "is the most visible, most intractable symbol of the corruption and the corporate self-interest of the Karzai government in southern Afghanistan.") Karzai replied that he had mentioned his brother to Obama, that he would not disclose any details, that he cannot fire his brother, and that the "issue is resolved as it stands now." Clinton didn't say anything. Anyone concerned with transparency and corruption (which could be the fatal flaw in the Obama administration's policy of building up the Afghanistan government and military) would not be encouraged by these responses.

Last October, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs declared that the administration could only succeed in Afghanistan if it had "a willing partner…that is free of corruption and transparent." That set a high bar—which obviously has not been met since then. And there were meetings this past week between Afghan ministers and their US administration counterparts, during which anti-corruption and governance matters were discussed. (The Obama administration, according to an adviser to the Afghan delegation, is seeking to work directly with Afghan ministers it considers honest and competent and, in a gentle way, nudge Karzai away from certain government functions.) But the pervasive corruption and previous electoral fraud—which undermines the legitimacy of the Karzai government and fuels popular resentment toward Kabul and the war effort—were never fully addressed in public while Karzai was in town. During the press availability, Obama claimed that anti-corruption efforts in Afghanistan have been strengthened, but he offered no specifics. Obama said nothing so bold as demanding that Karzai's government be "free of corruption and transparent."

The administration also gingerly—and perhaps deftly—navigated other Karzai-related shoals. Five weeks ago, Gibbs, at a press briefing, pointedly declined to call Karzai an "ally" or "credible partner." He would only refer to him as "the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan" (an arguable proposition). But during Karzai's DC trip, the president and administration officials repeatedly hailed the US-Afghanistan "partnership." They generally did not refer to Karzai as a partner, but they used the p-word to describe the overall relationship between the two nations. This seemed a deliberate effort to keep from fully embracing Karzai personally—without dissing him.

It was a fine line to walk. At a White House briefing last week, US ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, whose skepticism regarding Karzai has been widely reported, was asked if the Afghan president is "an adequate strategic partner." He didn't say yes. Instead, he replied, "President Obama has expressed his confidence in President Karzai and our work together." Pressed on whether his previous concerns about Karzai have been addressed, Eikenberry said,

President Karzai is the—he’s the elected president of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a close friend and ally, and of course I highly respect President Karzai in that capacity.

As he spoke those words, Eikenberry didn't look too comfortable.The reporter pushed further: "So your concerns have not been allayed?" Gibbs intervened: "I think he answered it."

He hadn't, of course. And a lot of critical questions about Karzai and the $100 billion-a-year war had gone unanswered (and unasked) throughout the week. Which made the visit a success for Karzai and his partners in the White House.

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter.


If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/hamid-karzai-brother-mahmood

http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/11/brodners-cartoon-du-jour-karzai-inauguration

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/afghanistan-karzai-cabinet

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/dazed-and-confused-karzai

14 May 2010

Why Counterinsurgency Is Like Communism 14MAI10

Great article from MOJO on the mess we are in in Afghanistan.....thanks a lot Bush!
Last week I was talking to a friend whose son is currently stationed in Afghanistan. He was pretty scathing about what's going on over there. We're supposed to be engaged in a counterinsurgency campaign there, he told me, which means getting soldiers out from their camps and into the towns and cities. They should be patrolling continuously, making their presence felt, and engaging with local leaders. But his son reported that none of that was happening.
That's only one unit, of course, and enlisted men are rarely privy to the bigger picture. Maybe there's a reason this particular unit is twiddling its thumbs for the moment. Unfortunately, there's reason to suspect that the problem runs deeper and wider than that. And even more disturbingly, there's pretty good reason to think that even if the Army steps up its game, it won't do any good. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is currently planning a make-or-break offensive in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, but a source there who's a firm believer in counterinsurgency doctrine has recently become profoundly disillusioned. In "A Counterproductive Counterinsurgency," a memo currently wending its way through official channels in Afghanistan, he says:
The idea of "counterinsurgency" appears to be a viable way for success on paper. Military units, along with NGO's [non-governmental organizations], the Department of State, GIRoA [the Afghanistan government], and other government agencies work together to emplace the clear, hold, build strategy in key areas of the battlefield. Like communism, however, counterinsurgency methods are not proving to be effective in practice.
The history of foreign powers mounting successful counterinsurgencies is bleak. Too little force and you can't protect the local population. Too much force and you risk enough civilian damage to push them into the hands of the insurgents. It is, in T.E. Lawrence's famous phrase, like eating soup with a knife, and most practitioners can point to only one significant success in the modern era: the Malayan Emergency of the late '40s and '50s. Plus, of course, Gen. David Petraeus' famous victory in Iraq in 2007. But even that should give pause for thought. For starters, it's not clear yet that counterinsurgency has actually worked in Iraq: The government is less stable now than ever, and violence is again on the rise. Beyond that, though, the success in Iraq was due not just to Petraeus's surge, but to what I call the Four S's. The Surge was one of them, but it wouldn't have worked without the other three: the Sunni Awakening that turned tribal leaders against Al Qaeda in Iraq; the sectarian cleansing that displaced millions of Iraqis and purged mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad; and Moqtada al-Sadr, who declared a cease-fire long before Petraeus arrived and, against all odds, stuck to it.
None of those things is present in Afghanistan, and so far the evidence suggests that without them we have little chance of replicating even the contingent success we had in Iraq. This is something that the Pentagon seems to be belatedly recognizing as it tries to downsize future operations. Counterinsurgency, says Andrew Exum, a fellow with the Center for a New American Security, "is a good way to get out of a situation gone bad," but it's not the best way to use combat forces. Afghanistan, unfortunately, is starting to look like the graveyard of empires once again.

DON'T WAIT, DON'T DELAY 14MAI10

Add your name and demand President Obama end DADT this yearWhoa. Your response has been nothing short of incredible.

Last week, Governor Howard Dean challenged President Obama to honor his pledge to repeal the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for Americans serving in the United States Military -- and he asked you to join him by adding your name to his open letter.

Over 75,000 members of Democracy for America and Courage Campaign have signed on to the campaign and the number is growing every day, so we extended the deadline and have expanded our goal.

We'll have a huge impact when we deliver your signatures to Senators next week, just days before they decided if the repeal should be included in the Defense Authorization bill this year.

We can reach 100,000 signature by Monday at 9am if we work together to make it happen.


ADD YOUR NAME -- THEN ASK OTHERS TO JOIN YOU

Already, your actions backed up the more than 300 military veterans who converged on Capitol Hill to lobby Congress in an event led by Servicemembers United, the Human Rights Campaign and the Courage Campaign.

Next week, when we deliver the open letter with over 100,000 signers backing up the Governor's message, we'll be sending a message the White House can't miss.

It's not a moment too soon for those of us considered second-class citizens impacted by this horrible policy of discrimination. But don't just take it from me. Hear it from other DFA members who have already added their name.

Bob a DFA member from Texas:
"If they are good enough to put their lives on the line because they love their country, they are surely good enough to be recognized for who they are."
JOIN BOB -- ADD YOUR NAME
Laura a DFA member from Oklahoma:
"Gays and lesbians have served and died honorably for our country for probably before the U.S. was a country. Please let them serve openly, President Obama, so that they can feel proud of serving a country that treats no one as a second-class citizen."
JOIN LAURA -- ADD YOUR NAME

Bonnie a DFA member from Indiana:
"Please, Mr. President, hold to your values, to what you know is right."
JOIN BONNIE AND ADD YOUR NAME NOW

Senators are scheduled to start marking up the Defense Authorization bill as soon as next week. Our best chance to pass the repeal this year is for Senators to include it in the bill.

The time to act is now. That's true for the President and Congress -- and it's true for us too.


We must make sure at least 100,000 Americans add their names by Monday morning to Governor Dean's open letter calling on President Obama to keep his promise and do the right thing.

www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/DontWaitDontDelay


Thank you for everything you do,

-Arshad

Arshad Hasan, Executive Director
Democracy for America

P.S. If you haven't read Governor Dean's open letter yet, you'll read the full text here before you add your name.

23 April 2010

Putting ‘Collateral Murder’ in Full Context: Rotten Fruit and the Tree From Which It Fell 19APR10 from SOJO

This is a moving and personal article about the now famous video known worldwide as "COLLATERAL MURDER" showing the wanton carnage and violence of war in Iraq in July 2007. It is an expression of remorse, and questions the Christian church's endorsement of war by a member of the American forces directly involved in this event. Following this article is a letter, 'Letter To Iraq', open to the public to sign (copy and paste the link to go to the letter) from the author of this article and a fellow soldier who was also involved in that days events. Last is the video for those who have not seen it.
by Josh Stieber 04-19-2010
Recently, Wikileaks, an online whistleblower site, released a video which was dubbed “Collateral Murder.” I write as a former member of the Infantry company shown on the ground in this video, but also as a Christian who, following my experiences in Iraq, has left the military as a conscientious objector. More recently, a fellow veteran of the same company and I have written a letter to the people of Iraq that we would be grateful if others would read and sign if they agreed with our words of responsibility and reconciliation. But this is not about washing my hands of the blood that was spilled; this is an opportunity to critically but constructively examine what this video means to us as Christians.

Since the release of “Collateral Murder,” passionate responses of all types have filled newspapers, chat rooms, television programs, and personal conversations. The video graphically shows a combat scene from Iraq where children were injured and adults were killed, accompanied by audio of soldiers on the radio during the event speaking callously about the lives lost on that summer day in 2007.

The callousness toward killing as heard in Collateral Murder, though taken somewhat out of context, vividly shows the strong need for the love of Christ that we are called to embody. However, if we only say that the soldiers shown in this video are morally depraved and shouldn’t joke about killing, then we’re being short-sighted and missing an important opportunity. One of the most telling aspects in the aftermath of this video’s release is that the Secretary of Defense and other top leaders have said that the actions shown were militarily justified. They’ve put their stamp of approval on it. On this point, I actually agree: given the full context which this video fails to show, these soldiers were responding exactly as we all had been trained. The challenge then is not only to see the rotten fruit but also the tree from which it fell.

Not only is the dehumanization that was illustrated in the video systematically instilled throughout military training, but its roots run throughout our society as a whole, the church included. In my history class at a Christian high school, I was taught — as are most students, religious or not — that decisions like the dropping of the atomic bomb weren’t necessarily morally wrong nor did they stand in opposition to Jesus’ priorities. At best, I was told that the bombings were strategically debatable. This is the very same mindset shown in Collateral Murder; it says that sometimes the taking of innocent lives and the hardening of our consciences is needed in the process of achieving our national goals of security. The atomic bomb crew was even blessed by a chaplain who later repented of his choices and became an active peacemaker; so the answer to the troubling problems shown in Collateral Murder run far deeper than saying that the gunner should have prayed as he sprayed instead of laughed.

This is where we need to look at how we may have contributed to the tree that produced this revolting fruit. Going back to my religious upbringing, my pastors diligently taught me that listening to non-Christian music and following the world’s standards on dating would slowly rot my soul. But what about the world’s standards on treating one’s enemies? Clearly much of Christianity understands the connection between day-to-day decisions and the state of our souls when it comes to responding to the popular culture. But there was never any teaching that playing violent video games, shooting guns at church camp, or glorifying military practice in history classes at religious school or even at church — that these things would slowly influence our souls as much as listening to sinful music would. Not only was this concern not raised, but the opposite is taught.

The wife and daughters of the founder of the popular mega-church chain that I grew up attending have a blog, widely read by those seeking to understand God’s design for genders. According to this widely-read blog:

It’s never too early to begin teaching our children about God’s design for men and women. We’re constantly telling Jack, “That’s what boys do!” Boys hold the door for the girls. Boys play with army men. Boys are tough.

Again, if we can understand that listening to secular music may lead a young person down a road of sex, drugs, and alcohol, should there be any surprise that when children are taught to be tough and to simulate war as young as possible that they will grow up embracing the callous mindset which the Wikileaks video only begins to expose? This video no longer lets us use ignorance as an excuse; we need to ask if this video which represents what the military is supposed to look like, which has been justified by prominent government leaders, is the harvest we have sown while claiming to follow God.

I take responsibility for not questioning my religious leader’s strong approval of warfare and for wholeheartedly believing, as did many of my army friends, that as I signed my enlistment papers, I was serving God and country. I was taught this would be an honorable example of laying down my life for my brothers; nobody I knew warned me that I might be asked to fire on children, intentionally or incidentally. Perhaps in my short-sightedness I missed the prevailing mindset that the ends justify the means.

When aspects of military training did trouble me and I felt my conscience hardening, I wrote home to leaders at my church and other Christian friends, asking how I could be following God while I was commanded to repeat war cries like “Kill them all, let God sort them out,” or singing songs with lines like, “When I get to hell, Satan’s gunna say ‘how’d you earn your living boy, how’d you earn your pay?’ And I’ll reply with a boot to his chest, ‘I earned my living laying Hajis down to rest.’” The answer these Christian leaders gave was simply that I needed to practice faith and patience because God is in control even though we can’t see him.

Through all of this, my leaders did show me enough of Jesus’ love that I eventually knew that how I was living and what I was being asked to do and think were poor representations of that divine gift. One night, I was on guard duty with a friend that I had attended church with before we were sent to Iraq. My friend started making threats toward a man we were holding prisoner. At first I told my friend that he was being un-American by not considering this man innocent until proven guilty. Echoing the racism we were trained with, my friend told me that there was no way that this man could be completely innocent: he was Iraqi. Then I asked him about all the things we had learned in church — loving our enemies, returning evil with good, blessed are the peacemakers, turn the other cheek — and my friend looked me in the eyes, saying with the utmost sincerity, “I think Jesus would have turned his cheek once or twice, but he wouldn’t have let anybody punk him around.”

It seemed so obvious to me at that point that Jesus’ mission was never to “not get punked”– in fact he said that if we really followed him then we would get punked (though he used less hip terms). He lived and died and rose with a love that overcomes the worse “punking” that the world can offer. I came to the conclusion that even if I was legitimately threatened, that following Jesus had nothing to do with self-defense and it could no longer be an excuse to stop loving as Jesus loved me. Safety is an understandable priority, but one that Jesus never preached.

With the Wikileaks video now shown worldwide, we have the responsibility to stop twisting things like Paul’s teaching that “we need to submit to the governing authorities.” But by this standard, we have already violated that by removing Saddam Hussein, a governing authority. Paul kept preaching the love of God despite the governing authority’s arrests, eventually leading to his death. Jesus, his apostles, and the early church never taught violent revolution, but lived out the example that we are most importantly citizens of God’s kingdom and that may put us at odds with the kingdoms of this world.

The scene shown in the Collateral Murder video is not out of the ordinary and has been claimed as acceptable by the governing authority. Though the actions that harmed children may be justifiable in military terms, I find nothing in Jesus’ teaching that advocates these policies, even if it means keeping our own children safer. The time has come where we must choose to which kingdom we pledge allegiance. I hope that part of this reexamined identity we seek means reaching out to the soldiers who have been asked to do our dirty work; restoring the love that they were taught to suppress.

As I have chosen to speak publicly and provide context to the video to help others understand my friends in the military, I likewise will not judge those who declare safety as their priority. I simply ask that you not attach the precious name of Jesus to this earthly cause, nor teach children that God blesses this. Please consider the strong warnings of Jesus as you wrestle with how to train the next generation: “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matt 18:6)

If you trust in guns and bombs to protect you — that sometimes hit the enemy and sometimes unarmed civilians — and in the dehumanizing training that prepares soldiers to pull the triggers, please just say so. Our glory is in a man who was punked around and crucified as he showed us the transforming love that marks his kingdom.

Stieber is a veteran of B. Co 2/16 Infantry and co-author of contagiousloveexperiment.wordpress.com.


AN OPEN LETTER OF RECONCILIATION & RESPONSIBILITY TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE

A newly released Wikileaks “Collateral Murder” video has made international headlines showing a July 2007 shooting incident outside of Baghdad in which U.S. forces wounded two children and killed over a dozen people, including the father of those children and two Reuters employees. Two soldiers from Bravo Company 2-16, the company depicted in the video, have written an open letter of apology to the Iraqis who were injured or lost loved ones during the attack that, these former soldiers say, is a regular occurrence in this war.

AN OPEN LETTER OF RECONCILIATION & RESPONSIBILITY TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE
From Current and Former Members of the U.S. Military

Sign your name to their letter here http://www.lettertoiraq.com

Peace be with you.

To all of those who were injured or lost loved ones during the July 2007 Baghdad shootings depicted in the “Collateral Murder” Wikileaks video:

We write to you, your family, and your community with awareness that our words and actions can never restore your losses.

We are both soldiers who occupied your neighborhood for 14 months. Ethan McCord pulled your daughter and son from the van, and when doing so, saw the faces of his own children back home. Josh Stieber was in the same company but was not there that day, though he contributed to the your pain, and the pain of your community on many other occasions.

There is no bringing back all that was lost. What we seek is to learn from our mistakes and do everything we can to tell others of our experiences and how the people of the United States need to realize we have done and are doing to you and the people of your country. We humbly ask you what we can do to begin to repair the damage we caused.

We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region.

We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carried out in the name of "god and country". The soldier in the video said that your husband shouldn't have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us.

More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny.

Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long overdue that we say that the value of our nation's leaders no longer represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won't lose its reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation's importance pales in comparison to our common humanity.

We have asked our fellow veterans and service-members, as well as civilians both in the United States and abroad, to sign in support of this letter, and to offer their names as a testimony to our common humanity, to distance ourselves from the destructive policies of our nation's leaders, and to extend our hands to you.

With such pain, friendship might be too much to ask. Please accept our apology, our sorrow, our care, and our dedication to change from the inside out. We are doing what we can to speak out against the wars and military policies responsible for what happened to you and your loved ones. Our hearts are open to hearing how we can take any steps to support you through the pain that we have caused.

Solemnly and Sincerely,
Josh Stieber, former specialist, U.S. Army
Ethan McCord, former specialist, U.S. Army