activism . students act to avoid Iranian war

Students turn out to protest war in Iraq, enact changes

Vivian Ho

Issue date: 4/3/08 Section: News

- Boston University -

Media Credit: Andrew McFarland David Mynott II and Donnell Graves protested against the AIPAC on High Street.

Nichole Szembrot said she is trying to give the 21st century a very 1960s twist.

Szembrot, a College of Arts and Sciences junior, organized an anti-Iran war protest outside the American Israel Public Affairs Committee office in Boston yesterday in hopes of developing a "series of escalating actions," she said. Four other protesters held signs reading "Love the World Without Shame," "Love Iran" and "Stop the (Next) War" while distributing fliers describing their actions.

AIPAC is a pro-Israel lobby group that has been supporting sanctions against Iran, Szembrot said.

"They were encouraging the U.S. to impose sanctions on Iran despite the fact that there haven't been any illicit activities documented since 2003," Szembrot said. "They're still trying to spread this idea that Iran is a danger and it's not true. They're trying to stir up fear."

"We're generally just trying to raise awareness of what the administration is telling people," she said. "They're using very war-mongering-type language and trying to create conflict."

Szembrot said Iran is not an enemy, and while its government may be hostile to the United States, "the people are not."

She said her fervor for activism came after her Spring Break activism trip to Washington, D.C., where she and about 40 other participants from other schools sanctioned a "stop loss" against Congress.

"We went around to every Congressman delivering them stop loss orders, basically telling them that they couldn't go on their breaks until all the troops came home," she said.

The students went on to stop Congress from leaving by blocking entrances to parking garages and major intersections, she said.

Szembrot said about 30 students were arrested at this demonstration and said activism is not just important, but fun.

"Our government doesn't know what we want unless we tell them," she said. "People aren't making demands, so our government can't respond to them because they don't know what we want."

Protester Donnell Graves, a local artist, said because Congress is not "doing anything" about the Iraq war, activism is important.

"We can't get discouraged," he said. "People are afraid of doing things out of the ordinary. America is so selfish."

"A lot of people are making serious money off the war," he said. "That's why they don't want to leave. Israel is in bed with the United States."

David Mynott Jr., a protester from Cambridge, said the protest was necessary to "set the record straight."

"AIPAC is a very effective propaganda machine for both the Israeli and U.S. governments," he said. "They've been lying to the American people for years."

AIPAC representatives were not available for comment despite repeated phone calls and messages left yesterday.

Mynott said activism is "energizing," but is effective only in "combining our energy" and "gathering in groups."

"Sometimes it's like throwing paper airplanes at a bulldozer," Ashley Green, a Simmons College senior, said. "It's really difficult to penetrate this system we call a democracy."

After glancing at the small gathering around her, she said, "I guess this is what a democracy looks like."

Spirit Rising
by Michael Nagler

In the spiritual folklore of India, there is a recurring image of Mother Earth, unable to bear the sufferings caused by human beings, going to Lord Vishnu to beg for relief.

This image was invoked years ago by Ammachi, one of the most popular of India’s living spiritual teachers, when she warned that the abuse of the Earth by modern economies would soon lead to a backlash if we did not learn to live sensibly—that is, lightly—on the planet that bore us. Then came Katrina.

At every level—from the global warming that likely increased the severity of the hurricane, to the ecological devastation that caused the flooding, to the shocking abandonment of the city’s poor, to the severity of the deluge—this is a human-made disaster. And not the last.

Bill McKibben now warns that “New Orleans ... very much resembles the planet we will inhabit for the rest of our lives.”

You cannot fault him for this pessimism; people who seem to be intoxicated with their own reckless folly have unleashed a wrecking ball of greed and violence against the miraculous life-support system that is our Earth, already causing damage at every level, from our DNA to the weather.

Like most myths, the story of Mother Earth going to Vishnu for help contains wisdom that can be translated into modern terms: When things get this bad, the story is saying, only spiritual energy can save us. There is evidence that many of us feel that way.In July, 2005, Tikkun’s Rabbi Michael Lerner, along with myself and many others, convened a gathering of more than 1,200 participants for a Conference on Spiritual Activism.

The number would have been larger, but we had to close registration two weeks early because we filled the space. The enthusiasm is not hard to understand.

It was partly a pent-up reaction to the highjacking of Christianity by the Religious Right to support policies that are, in fact, condemned by the wisdom traditions of all cultures­—not the first time this has happened to that otherwise fine religion.

As Evangelical minister Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine and a featured speaker at the Conference on Spiritual Activism put it, “When they’re stealing your faith, you fight back.” But there’s a deeper and more positive reason, and that’s the growing hope that “spiritual activism” might just be the missing ingredient, the lightning rod, to galvanize the progressive movement and help it radically turn things around.

What is Spiritual Activism?Spiritual activism arises from awareness of the inter­connectedness—for some, the unity—of all life. This awareness may have little to do with your formal religious affiliation. A powerful example is Third Party Nonviolent Intervention (TPNI), in which volunteers go into conflicts to intervene among, and, if need be, interpose themselves between, conflicting parties. There you will find explicitly faith-based groups, like Christian Peacemaker Teams, Michigan Faith and Resistance, and the Muslim Peace Teams recently formed in Iraq, working alongside secular ones like the venerable Peace Brigades International. But they are all doing the same, very spiritual thing: risking their lives for “strangers.” People across a wide spectrum of political and religious belief have been moved by an experience of interconnectedness; a U.S. Marine who was handing out food to tsunami victims in Banda Aceh said, “I’ve been serving my country for 34 years, and never got anything out of it like I’m getting today.”

When the progressive movement learns how to harness the power of this vision, watch out.

Because spiritual activism tends, among other things, to unite where religious identities divide, thus offering a “way out of no way” in today’s often sterile debates between “Left” and “Right.”

A Hundred Flowers in Search of a Garden

In fact, most progressives are already acting out of a sense that life is an interconnected whole. Take economic justice projects, for example. People who work on microlending, fair trade, and such efforts work from, and make manifest a profound sense of solidarity with their fellow human beings. Further, those who are involved in simple-living experiments, intentional communities, local currencies and barter systems are not just redistributing wealth, but redefining it.

Instead of defining their personal wealth in terms of what they own, they are calculating their wealth by the quality of their relationships and their experiences of meaning. These are all spiritual activists in the sense just defined, and so are those working on progressive projects in many other areas. Why isn’t their collective energy prevailing? Because, I believe, we still lack a frame (á là my colleague George Lakoff) with which to embrace all these projects and give them meaning and coherence.

But I don’t think we are far from finding one. If you read Gandhi’s classic Satyagraha in South Africa, you will come across a deceptively simple remark from the very beginning of his politico-spiritual career in 1894: “The question of internal improvement was also taken up.” In other words, even as he was mobilizing his fellow Indians to resist exploitation by the European-based Natal government, he saw that there was constructive work to be done within his own community.

So was born the famed “Constructive Programme” that informed and empowered his 30-year struggle to make the British give back the jewel in the crown.

Imagine it Gets Real

A Network of Spiritual Progressives has grown out of the July conference, with chapters in two dozen cities and groups of youth, professionals, and members of the Democratic and Green parties forming caucuses. The Network is also developing a campaign to identify and label products that are healthy for people and the planet, produced in ethical ways. And a group is forming to counter “Consumption Frenzy,” especially around the holidays.

Now imagine if we were to take the next step.

Imagine if, instead of saying, “Get the troops and corporations out of Iraq now,” we were to say “Get the troops out of Iraq in X months or face massive civil disobedience.” In other words, imagine getting real.

Envision spending those intervening months in intensive training for civil disobedience, including outreach to uncommitted—or even hostile—parties to explain our alternative. And now imagine that we actually realize that alternative, that we build sustainable lives with spiritual relationships among ourselves and the world, based on contact with our own deeper selves; economic justice; food security; restorative justice; a healthy tax base that draws on the resources of those who can afford it; “off the margins” experiments like non-money exchange; decentralized media and real communities; microlending and community banks; community supported agriculture; demilitarization; decommercialization—all the projects that are reported in the pages of this magazine.

We would be doing nothing more nor less than recreating Gandhi’s famous movement. We would combine Constructive Programme—for him, village uplift, cottage industry, women’s empowerment and the 15 other projects humming like his spinning wheel behind the threats and obstructive actions taken when the occasion demanded—with Satyagraha, or definite obstructive action.

Seen in this light, an environmentalist saving forests and an activist “crossing the line” at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning are already part of the same movement. The time has come to be more aware of this. The knowledge of the interconnectedness of our work has power.

But something else has to happen if we are to capture the spiritual energy we want and keep those two modes of action in balance. Those involved in both obstructive and constructive work need better links with the overtly spiritual practitioners among us. These include the people of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, who have been active in prison work and against the death penalty since the group was founded by Thich Nhat Hanh in 1978; the young people of the more recent “new monasticism”—evangelical suburbanites who, inspired by students from Eastern University who joined 40 homeless families being evicted from a Philadelphia church in 1996, have begun to form intentional communities to counter materialism, living with the poor, themselves; even the meditators in their closets—or their ashrams, or their sanghas, or their “prayer of silence” retreats out in the desert.

We should now understand that even when not engaged in outward action, these people are changing the world, if only by helping to keep our activism nonviolent and our constructive action relevant. We are, in some ways, close to this kind of movement already.

We only need to be more coordinated, even (dare we say it) organized, so that we can not only get over our mutual distrust, but also decide together when to take part in Constructive Programme, when to invoke civil disobedience, and when to engage both modes. In the kind of spiritual progressive movement we seem to be groping for, we would be “joined at the heart” not only by our sense of common purpose, not only by the overview that we would be able to articulate, but by our rootedness in a new spiritual vision (which we could also articulate) of what it means to be human and alive on this planet.

It is this movement which—in the words of Arundhati Roy—we can almost hear breathing in the spiritual activism trying to be born around us.

I believe we can make it work. It’s not like we can afford to fail.

Michael Nagler is the author of Search for a Nonviolent Future, Inner Ocean, and Our Spiritual Crisis (Open Court).

Yes, dear ones, whither activism? My snide remarks for the night

Each day I travel around Toronto.

I speak to people about corrupt police, the invasion of the surveillance society taking place throughout the city, the feeling of doom - and then watch as yuppies go about their myriad rounds of exercise and beer festivities.

Each day I wonder: what IS it going to "take" to get people motivated to fight back against what is increasing apparent; the fiscal crisis is about to hit HARD right here in Canucksville. The government/media DISSinfo continues. We read about the crash in Buffalo (the backyard) and forget about detainees, torture and WAR CRIMES. Many look away as the homeless sit out and beg on street corners in subzero temperatures, never stopping to ask WHY these people ended up on the street.

Yet something needs to be done, obviously.

"The "old model" of social activism hasn't proved effective,... Changing a light bulb is not an appropriate response" to the climate crisis."

People don't really know how to be effective.

Roger Fisher's: "Making Threats is Not Enough," (ch. 3 in Int'l Conflict 4 Beginners, http://www dot pon.harvard.edu/hnp/writing/books/internationalconflict.shtml) might be a place to begin.

Is an uprising necessary? Is online petitioning, phoning and the usual enough.

A definition of "uprising" would help, Fisher's good on that too. He tells how there were negotiations for arms control inspections but no definition of an inspection. Naturally they didn't get far, though each side had a quite different demand for number of inspections. They argued, but didn't know what over.

There are differences between movements of people who are actually the losers (low wage workers, oppressed groups), and movements of well meaning people who don't really have much to lose. In organizing we're taught to look for the former. They'll stick with you. So, given this, are there any such precedents for what these particular leaders are advocating?

Proactively: I hear nothing here of the key items of good organizing. The picture is of police, but they're irrelevanat to the decision making that makes any real difference. I hear of general attempts to influence, but no focus on the person who decides. I hear nothing of good preparation on that decider.

Tne definite problem is that those severely affected by what is happening are the already disenfranchised: children - who neither vote, pay taxes nor go to war. Or the "mentally ill", who are, afterall PEOPLE.

How do we "mobilize" without alienating those who we need to stand WITH US.

Get a copy of International Mediation (65 action for adjusting as you go). Write your own set of proposals as in the book Dear Israelis, Dear Arabs. All this from Roger Fisher, also much online. Get training in real organizing at NTIC, WORC, etc. and read Shel Trapp, online.

Here's my checklist, from my ZSpace blog (more there).

1. Are we targeting someone who actually makes the decision? Who is the person with the power to decide? (not public, not police)
2. Are we prepared to force them to communicate with us? (Often necessary. Civil disobedience for a purpose?)
3. Are we actually asking the person to do something specific?
4. Is it a winnable step? It doesn’t have to have a greater than 50% chance of being won, just a reasonable chance, suggests Roger Fisher in his books. (This changes if you really work those two chapters (2 & 3) in Beyond Machiavelli, and worksheets in Coping with International Conflict.)
5. Have we thoroughly prepared for this? Fisher’s book, Getting Ready to Negotiate: The Getting To Yes Workbook has a full packet of additional worksheets, including one right up front for assessing where you should start. ... (See worksheets listed at my blog.)
6. Do we know what to do after they “say no?” I find that the approach of wanting to be heard is sometimes followed by quitting after they say no. ...
7. Are we monitoring and documenting their responses and using them as teaching tools? ...
8. Are we running our own meetings with them? ...
9. Are we giving our members the chance to “be there” during negotiations? ...
10. Are we using methods that have been proven, that can win victory steps? ...

Do we need fear arrest? Do we need to back down and "chill" as is the Canadian way? Do we work alone as I do with grave risks attached?

Is it a matter of a quick blitz and then disperse?

Do we stay nonviolent, ala (sellout) Ghandi?

Do we advocate (as one voice) a TENT CITY approach, and that only or focus on only one activity such as calling for the prosecution of George W. BuZh?

Do we focus on ALL actitivites together: "climate change"; the need for a green economy; focus on the fiscal crisis; disgust at the last eight years of militarism, greed, superimperialism; poverty, homelessness, and social breakdown OR do we keep working away at each issue seperate as if stringing together the syllables of the language of dispair would make a coherant sentence in the end?

Will there be disperate groups emerging with anarchists on the extreme fringes, Nationalistic groups, feminists, peace activists and others - each doing there own thing? The SPP was a painful thing to watch - I DESPISED allying with active racists and there were many among that Ron Paul crowd "thang" - yet it produced many fine activities that caught the public eye.

Are we going for attentiong-getting activities, educating people, trying to stop the tyranny or getting together to propose solutions rather than just jawing about The Problem? How do we cut down The Weeds without destroying The Garden? Do we just go along and create more institutionalized protest?

What is happening if far, far worse than even the Vietnam War side effects, which were of course horrific. This is a Global Meltdown but I dont' see much international activism conferences occuring - YET.

All I personally know is that I miss the passion I saw in Andover desperately and that I would like to make some local change in my lifetime by seriously running for City Council to add a voice of dissent in my own locality and I am completely surprised how often I am told it's a Great Idea.

But I would like to see something more than to be undertaken than resort to the same old, same old - go to the ballot box solutions as they just don't seem to cut it, although changing things at the local level is where to start, obviously since it's harder to move things up on the Provincial, Federal or international levels. Been years since the WTO activism and it's going to prove difficult to bring back that fervor as the fear is that much heavier due to the increase in HARDENED cops and police technology.

Whither activism?

Who knows?

Acivism: Feast or Famine: Meat Production and World Hunger

by Mark Hawthorne

Hanging in the Newseum in Washington, DC, is a photo that is about as heart-rending an image as you’re likely to find anywhere. Taken by Kevin Carter for The New York Times in 1993, the photo depicts a starving Sudanese toddler crumpled on the ground, as if her stick-like legs could no longer bear the weight of her large head and swollen stomach, bloated from the malnourishment disease called kwashiorkor. While that alone is disturbing, what makes the tableau truly haunting is the vulture patiently waiting just a few feet behind the emaciated child. This photograph earned Carter a Pulitzer Prize and epitomized the toll famine is taking on developing countries around the world.

Tragically, of course, hunger has only become an even graver issue in the last 15 years -- a point made clear in a report released July 29 from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Recommending urgent action for long-term relief, the CSIS report calls for “a strategic U.S. approach to the global food crisis.”

“Food crisis,” however, implies some recent, short-term cause and effect, when in fact the “perfect storm” of rising energy costs, grain hoarding, government subsidies, drought and the demand for biofuels diverts attention from an entrenched industry and a remedy neither the CSIS nor many social activists want to contemplate: eliminating meat production.

“Whoa!” you say. “Don’t take away my steaks and cheeseburgers.” Meat-eating is such an ingrained aspect of Western culture that proposing its demise, even to save the world, deserves some discussion. Fair enough.

The United Nations estimates that 854 million people -- nearly 13 percent of the world’s human population -- go hungry every day. And the problem is only getting worse. Josette Sheeran, executive director of the UN’s World Food Program, says, “The world’s misery index is rising.”

So is our hunger for meat. As Gene Baur observes in Farm Sanctuary: Changing Hearts and Minds About Animals and Food, in 1950, 50,000 farms produced 630 million “meat” chickens in the United States. By 2005, the U.S. had 20,000 fewer farms -- but they were producing 8.7 billion chickens for meat. That’s a lot of chicken feed. In fact, every year industrial animal factories in the U.S. feed 157 million metric tons of legumes, cereal and vegetable protein to livestock, resulting in 28 million metric tons of animal protein for human consumption. Nutritious plant-based food that could feed humans instead goes to feed animals in a very inefficient use of resources.

Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, DC, states it succinctly:

“People go hungry because much of arable land is used to grow feed grain for animals rather than people.” He offers as one example the Ethiopian famine of 1984, which was fueled by the meat industry. “While people starved, Ethiopia was growing linseed cake, cottonseed cake and rapeseed meal for European livestock,”

he says.

“Millions of acres of land in the developing world are used for this purpose. Tragically, 80 percent of the world’s hungry children live in countries with food surpluses which are fed to animals for consumption by the affluent.”

The demand for meat has been especially dramatic in developing countries. “China’s meat consumption is increasing rapidly with income growth and urbanization, and it has more than doubled in the past generation,” says Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. As a result, land once used to provide grains for humans now provides feed for chickens and pigs.

The USDA and the United Nations state that using an acre of land to raise cattle yields 20 pounds of usable protein. If soybeans were grown instead, that same acre would yield 356 pounds of protein. Animal agriculture also wastes valuable water resources. Population biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich note that a pound of wheat can be grown with 60 gallons of water, whereas a pound of meat requires 2,500 to 6,000 gallons.

Here’s another way to look at it. According to the aid group Vegfam, a ten-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, ten people growing corn and only two people producing cattle. Reducing meat production by just ten percent in the U.S. would free enough grain to feed 60 million people, estimates Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer. Sixty million people -- that’s the population of Great Britain, which, by the way, could support 250 million people on an all-vegetable diet.

Not surprisingly, the meat industry has a beef with these statistics. They say, for example, that the grains and soybeans fed to farmed animals are not of the high quality that humans would expect to eat (tell that to a starving child). Yet it’s difficult to dispute the fact that animal agribusiness uses land and water that could be used to grow plant foods for human consumption.

As Rifkin observes, it is ironic that millions of consumers in developed countries are dying from diseases of affluence such as heart attacks, diabetes and cancer, brought on by eating animal products, while the poor in the Third World are dying of diseases of poverty caused by being denied access to land to grow food grain for their families.

“We are long overdue for a global discussion on how to promote a diversified, high-protein, vegetarian diet for the human race,” says Rifkin, whose book Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture addresses the moral paradoxes of eating meat.

Are those steaks and cheeseburgers really worth all the lives they take -- human and non-human? It would be naïve to think the world will go vegetarian overnight, or even in a few decades. But looking at Carter’s powerful photograph, I can’t help but believe we have been woefully mistaken in how we treat those with whom we share this planet. If we hope to bequeath a sustainable world to future generations, we’ll have to shake loose this meat-produced disaster and embrace a kinder way of living.

Mark Hawthorne is the author of Striking at the Roots: A Practical Guide to Animal Activism (www.strikingattheroots.com).



Mark Hawthorne is the author of "Striking at the Roots: A Practical Guide to Animal Activism" (O Books). Mark adopted a vegetarian lifestyle soon after an encounter with one of India's many cows in 1992 and went vegan a decade later. He was a contributing writer for Satya from 2004 until the magazine ceased publishing in June of 2007, and his articles, book reviews, essays and opinion pieces have also appeared in Herbivore, VegNews, Vegan Voice, Hinduism Today, Utne.com and many daily newspapers across the United States. Among his current animal activism efforts, he is campaigning for the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act (Prop 2), an historic ballot initiative that will ban the use of battery cages, gestation crates and veal crates in California (see www.YesOnProp2.org for more information). Mark is a volunteer for Animal Place, a vegan education center and sanctuary for farmed animals in northern California, where he serves on the outreach advisory council. He is also involved in rabbit rescue and shares his vegetable crisper with five rescued rabbits. He writes a blog on activism at http://strikingattheroots.wordpress.com/

ACTIVISM: Why we must march tomorrow ..

"Courage, my friends, we can still make a better world"

Friends of the Ottawa Peace Assembly (aka: Ottawa's local peace activists),

The above quotation comes from Tommy Douglas, former CCF/NDP leader and longtime peace activist.

It reminds us why we must march, rally, and educate ourselves about Canada's mission impossible in Afghanistan.

It reminds us why this Saturday marks an important moment in stopping this war, and truly helping the people of Afghanistan.

We need courage to challenge the bluster of Canada's warmongers, and the politicians who support them.

Let's face it: Canada's war in Afghanistan is already over. This war will end in 2009, but not due to any wisdom from the federal government. It is already a failure and a majority of Canadians know it.

Western reconstruction operations in Afghanistan are a farce. Following a time-honoured pattern, most of this money leaves in the briefcases of foreign contractors.

As an aide to Hamid Karzai recently told a Quebec reporter, "the international community has injected $19 billion into Afghanistan. About 95% of that leaves the country... non-governmental organizations employ 540 foreigners who earn from $5000 ton $35,000 per month. The last elections cost $395 million. It was the foreigners who organized them, and the kept the money for themselves."

The balance of "reconstruction" money goes to drug-running warlords who call the shots in the current Afghan government. These thugs -- many of whom terrorized Afghans in the early 1990s -- build mansions for themselves and their friends, and get NATO to guard their compounds.

Poverty in Aghanistan is at record levels. As foreign contractors clinked beers in Kabul, a thousand people froze to death this winter.

A million pounds in bombs were dropped on Afghanistan in 2007, and 40,000 Afghans have died since 2001. Not surpringly, Afghan resistance to the occupation is growing. Hamid Karzai, in reality, is the Mayor of East Kabul. No doctored poll by US-government funded agencies can honestly say otherwise.

Still, after today's vote on the Afghan mission, Stephen Harper will likely crow about "staying the course". He'll go to NATO with a fistful of political nerve, claiming widespread support for Canada's so-called "war on terror".

No doubt, some will throw up their hands, and insist that protest doesn't matter. Polls indicate 61% of Canadians are opposed to extending Canada's war in Afghanistan, but that wasn't reflected in today's House of Commons vote.

But a funny thing happened yesterday in Harper's pre-fabricated democracy. Regular people, like you and me, showed up to serve notice that we will stop this war. We demonstrated an ounce of bottom-up activism can challenge the mightiest of bullies.

The Commons galleries erupted in anti-war chanting. Soon after the Tories voted, "End it, Don't Extend it!" was heard throughout the building. Our chanting could even be heard even as we were shepherded into the halls.

Dion and Harper were stunned. They didn't expect this intrusion of democracy. They didn't think us plebes would storm into their "palace", and point out that the Emperor has no clothes.

My friends, this Emperor's been naked for years, and their "palace" belongs to all of us. Let's get on with the task of telling others. This Saturday, we'll rally, we'll march, and we'll educate ourselves. We'll build the support and capacity needed for our message of peace.

As veterans from the Vietnam war will attest, peace activism is about persistence, and appealing to the hearts and minds of Canadians.

Courage my friends: we can, and we will, stop this war.

See you on the streets tomorrow!

In peace,

Joel Harden

Musharraf and Lincoln

3 articles from Informed Comment blog on PAKISTAN

Using Bush's analysis to JUSTIFY what is happening

Musharraf and Lincoln

Since many folks are noting the reference to Lincoln in the General's speech (translated below) ... I just wanted to point out that he has been making this reference since 2002 ... here he is talking to Ikram Sehgal, Managing Editor of Defense Journal of Pakistan (January 22, 2002):

When US President Abraham Lincoln’s name cropped up, he brought out an extract from Richard Nixon from his book "Leaders". He read, "Lincoln’s consuming passion during the time of crisis (the American Civil War 1861-65) was to preserve the Union. "Towards that end he trampled individual liberties. His justification was necessity. Explaining his sweeping violation of constitutional limits, Abraham Lincoln wrote in a letter in 1864: My oath to preserve the Constitution imposed on me the duty of preserving by every indispensable means that government, that nation, of which the Constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the Constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected, yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life, but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground and now avow it" unquote. Pervez Musharraf laughingly hoped that this would not be misconstrued, "The period after Oct 12, 2002 is of great concern to me, not only to maintain the momentum of reforms enacted but to sustain continuity. I want to strike the right balance so that the system can not be manipulated by any individual’s discretion for his own selfish, personal motives. I am confident about taking bold decisions, "because I have no skeletons in my cupboard, I can look you in the eye!", unquote.

So, just to be crystal clear. It is Lincoln through Nixon.

From this undated interview on the General's website:
Q. Which book have you read recently and really enjoyed?
A. Leaders by Richard Nixon

Posted by Manan Ahmed

Musharraf Adopts Bush-Cheney Doctrine of "Lawfare"

Islamabad -- One of the curious aspects of General Musharraf's speech last night (by the way, it is General, not President, as he first annulled the constitution and then invoked one of its provisions to declare an Emergency, acting not as president but as Chief of Army Staff), at least to this observer, was the general's thoroughly un-self-conscious invocation of two major threats to the security and integrity of Pakistan: terrorism and "judicial activism." It did not seem to occur to the general that, to some observers, even flawed or over-reaching attempts by duly constituted bodies to uphold the law might not be equivalent to mass murder. Judging by the General's actions, judicial activism is a much more sinister and immediate threat than terrorism, as all of his actions since yesterday have targeted the former rather than the latter. Indeed Musharraf's agents managed to pirate the codes to prevent Geo TV from uploading its programs to satellite, while Maulana Fazlullah's FM station in Swat continues to broadcast calls for jihad without impediment.

Opposing "judicial activism" is one of the rallying cries of the American right. Initially this was simply a cover for racism, as the most salient examples of "judicial activism" were Brown vs. Board of Education and other decisions by the Warren Supreme Court overturning American apartheid. Over time, however, the term began to cover a larger protest against attempts to extend the rule of law to the disadvantage of the powerful.

Not until the Bush administration, however, was this political code word integrated into the National Security Doctrine of the United States. Scott Horton of Harper's, writing on "Bush's War on the Rule of Law" describes how the attack on judicial activism entered national security doctrine through the concept of "lawfare":

According to Major General Charles J. Dunlap Jr., now the Air Force’s deputy judge advocate general, lawfare is the “strategy of using or misusing law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve an operational objective.” As the neoconservative lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey have put it, lawfare aims to “gain a moral advantage over your enemy in the court of world opinion, and potentially a legal advantage in national and international tribunals.” The concept, which has been discussed in the Federalist Society and at National Review Online, became doctrine in the March 2005 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: “Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.” Note the equation of “international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.” In other words, turning to courts for the enforcement of legal rights, appeals to international tribunals, and terrorism are seen as the elements of a single consistent enemy strategy. In the strange reasoning of the lawfare theorists, lawyers who defend their clients, or who present their claims to domestic or international courts, might as well be terrorists themselves.

This could serve as a cogent summary of the doctrine presented by President Musharraf. Unlike Bush, Musharraf at least had the decency to announce to the whole world that he was placing the constitution "in abeyance" and arrogating all power to his sole person. The Bush administration prefers to promulgate shadowy memoranda, signing statements, and Humpty-Dumpty like amendments to the meaning of common words. Since the courts are instruments of terrorists (and can even be used to demoralize the security forces!) counter-terrorism logically requires the abolition of the rule of law.

Comparing England and India in the 19th century, Karl Marx wrote, "The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.” But the 20th century refuted Marxism through praxis, giving birth to new laws of history. In the 21st century, the country that is less developed institutionally only shows to the more developed the image of its own future.

Update: Uncanny echoes from the Borowitz Report:

In what he described as “an emergency mission to help a key ally in the war on terror,” President George W. Bush flew to Islamabad today to give General Pervez Musharraf tips on how to eliminate democracy.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Mr. Bush said that while he commended General Musharraf’s impulse to eliminate democratic institutions, he felt that the military strongman was going about it the wrong way: “When you’re getting rid of democracy, the last thing you want to do is tell people you’re doing it.”

Worth a quick read.

The General Speaks

The printed text is a bit off from what he actually said. Below is my hasty translation. I have tried to stick as close to his formulations as possible. It is a surprising speech (in many respects). Reading between the lines - ie, the english and urdu lines, I venture an opinion that this was not done with the approval of the US/State. Perhaps even done in defiance of them. The other observation is that when I called him a megalomaniac earlier, I was being circumspect. The state of Pakistan, at times, seems an extension of his very personality. Note the references. The third observation, my how the times have changed ... there is no mention at all of India. This is a testament to how drastic is the shift in South Asian geopolitics since the invasion of Afghanistan. China's role in the economic growth of Pakistan - from their investment in mobile and transportation infrastructure to their investments in Baluchistan emerge out at the top while American concerns are barely mentioned - and are actually completely absent in the English portion of his remarks.

President Musharraf speaking on national TV, 03-Nov-07, 23:00 hr::

My dear brothers and sisters, Assalam o Alaikum.

Today, I am speaking to you as Pakistan stands at a dangerous crossroads. It is in inner turmoil, everything that is happening, it is due to internal reasons.

This moment ... in the history of many nations there are moments of painful decisions ... this is such a moment for Pakistan when important and difficult decisions have to be made. And, I fear, that if we don't act immediately, then God forbid, the very union of Pakistan is in danger.

Before I say anything else, I just want to make one promise to this nation. That whatever I do, whatever decision I have made, it is, before all, on the basis of Pakistan ... and that is my guiding principle. Before all, Pakistan. Beyond personal benefit, beyond personal consideration, Pakistan first. And I hope that the nation will also feel the same way.

My brothers and sisters, in the past months, the circumstances have changed rapidly in Pakistan. I want to speak with you about that - frankly. One thing I have been saying all along - terrorism and extremism has reached extreme levels. Right now, suicide attacks are happening across Pakistan. That which happened in Karachi, and then in Rawalpindi, and then in Sargogha, in all of Pakistan, it is intensifying. Extremists are roaming across the country without fear and without hindrance. In fact, they are not even scared of the law enforcement agencies. They are confident. Things were happening in the frontier provinces and we were dealing with that. Some of it spread to the settled areas. You know what is happening in Swat and in southern districts as well. We have faced that challenge. But, the tragedy is that in Islamabad, the heart of Pakistan, the capital of Pakistan ... even here, extremism has spread and people are uncertain. These extremists are taking the writ of government in their own hands. They want to establish a state within our state. And the worst bit is that their corrupt ideas about Islam, they want to forcibly enforce them upon the peace and justice seeking people of Pakistan. And in my view this is a direct challenge to the union of Pakistan.

Let us move forward. How is the government functioning? In my view, it is in semi-paralysis, stricken. All of the senior representatives of the government are constantly going to the courts - especially to the Supreme Court. They are being giving sentences. They are being shamed publicly in the courts. Hence, they don't want to take any more decisions. At least 100 suo moto cases are currently running in the Supreme Court. And I am being told that thousands of applications are pending. And all of these suo moto cases are concerning the executive branch of the government. Functioning of the government is paralyzed at the moment.

Let us look at law enforcement agencies. In my view, they are demoralized - especially in Islamabad. They have given up hope. Why? Because their officers are being punished - same trips to the Supreme Court. Ten officers - including two Inspector Generals - are suspended or convicted. And so, we have a demoralized force with low morale, afraid to take any action. They don't want to do anything except sit with their arms crossed.

Next, let us look at the democratic systems - the practice of democracy. In that, hurdles have been placed. In 1999, when our government came, I put together a plan of action - with three stages - a transition to take the country towards democracy. Because in 1999, we had a failed, defaulted state; the systems of democracy were broken; no government had finished its tenure; there was only nominal democracy. That is why, in Stage One, from 1999-2002, we acted according to my plan. I was in total control. I ran the government. Then came Stage Two - from 2002 to 2007. A democratic system with elected governments, national assemblies, provincial assemblies, local government and a full democratic system of elected officials which I oversaw. I watched over it, sure, but the state functioned on its own. I was President and Chief of Army Staff. That was the second stage - which we passed in good stead. There were problems but we set a record that for the first time the assemblies and the government fulfilled their electoral term.

Now, we are in the final stage of this transition. Stage Three. I mean, I had hoped that in 2007, when the assemblies finish their tenure on November 15, we can have, with decorum, Presidential elections, with all the candidates for Presidency. And then General elections. And an elected government - whoever wins - can go forth in a new age of political reconciliation and full democracy. I had hoped that. As I said, for the first time, we tried to do a transition with a well thought out plan.

But, in my view, with great sorrow, I must say that certain powers are interfering in this democratic plan, putting hindrances and trying to stop it. Just as all the time had already passed and only a few months remained, this third stage is being sabotaged. In my opinion, this is being done deliberately for personal and political gain, and for the detriment of Pakistan.

All this that I have told you - the terrorism, extremism, the judicial cases, the demoralizing of the law enforcement, has caused, and I say this with great sorrow, a decline in our economic upswing. Though it can still be reversed. I am observing that Capital and Business that was flowing into the country is now stopped - they are now questioning whether to invest here or not Pakistan will remain stable. Our economy, the livelihood of our nation which improved over the last 7 years - in economy, in livelihood, in infrastructure, roads, ports, airports, railways, telecommunication, mobile telephone, landlines, rural telephone, information technology, building and construction, the entrepreneurs across the land, the rapid development across Pakistan, the thousands of industries launched, water irrigation, dams, canals, canals with brick linings, water courses, and then the social sector, education, health on the primary and secondary level, and education at every level - on all these Pakistan was moving forward, all this. I am very saddened, God Forbid, that 7 years of hard work may be washed away. And I am very sad, because I was personally involved in these development scheme. I cannot watch them get destroyed.

Under great duress, based on all these reasons, the whole nation is depressed and uncertain. I am getting phone calls from everywhere ... my own acquaintances, private, from outside the country, from inside the country, asking, "What is going on?" I am being taunted, "What are you doing?" They are taunting me that I was the decision maker, "What happened to you now? Why can't you decide now?" I have listened to these taunts in silence, and watched in disbelief what has been happening to Pakistan, in Pakistan. I had hoped that the judiciary and the government establishment will deal with these challenges ... and in that hope I sat silently and watched ... for improvements. But in my opinion this didn't happen. And the situation was getting worse by the day. And Pakistan was going rapidly into a negative direction.

And I also want to say, as I am sitting in front of television cameras, I want to say that the media - certain channels, and certain programs on certain channels - has also contributed to this downslide, this negative thinking, this negative projection. And I am saddened by this too. Saddened because this is the same media, in 1999, that there was only PTV in Pakistan and independent media did not exist. I gave that independence. Because I believed that media should be independent - that is the only path to progress for a civilized society. That is why I am saddened and I have said many times that negativism should be curtailed and positivism encouraged. That doesn't mean that we hinder the media. It should be independent, of course. But with responsibility towards the State and for the sake of the nation. And so, I am saddened by the situation in some channels.

I would like to ask the whole nation. Why? Why this state of affairs? In my opinion, it is the judicial activism - which is a pillar of states in clash with the other two pillars, the executive and the legislative. The judiciary has interfered with the other two. And now every one is suffering and is paralyzed in every manner and in every department.

Thats the basic issue.

In my view, this began from March 9th of this year when I filed a reference on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, against the Chief Justice to the Supreme Judicial Council. This was completely in accordance with constitutional and legal requirements. I was not personally motivated in this. I thought there were grave and serious accusations in the reference and I took a completely constitutional step - and nothing else. We can leave that aside but the situation that emerged after that was very bad. There was a complete breakdown of law and order to a tragic extent. And political opportunists entered into the matter and made it worse. I don't want to go into details here but will just state that if any member of the law enforcement community did anything wrong, then it doesn't mean that whole country should be destabilized. And secondly, this reference which contained grave complaints, which I sent to the Supreme Judicial Council ... all that happened and the judgement came. And whether I agree or disagree with the judgement, it did not even address the grave complaints contained within the reference. I accepted the judgement fully, with good grace and good intentions. Because, it was the decision of the Supreme Court. I accepted it. With a conciliatory attitude, to stop the conflict - for the benefit of Pakistan, I rose above the personal to work for the stability of the institution. Unfortunately, the matter was not solved. Even though, I tried my best, gave full cooperation with good intentions, but still the matter was not settled.

That was the reference and the judicial and legal issue.

Now. We saw the event of Lal Masjid in Islamabad where extremists took law into their own hands. In the heart of Pakistan - capital city - and to the great embarrassment of the nation around the world. Only I know how much shame that brought on us. We, who are such a great power, cannot control our own capital - where people are able to form a state within a state. Our image suffered tremendously. Our stature. Our standing was affected. These people - what didn't they do? - these extremists. They martyred police. They took police hostage. They burned shops. The Chinese, who are such great friends of ours - they took the Chinese hostage and tortured them. Because of this, I was personally embarrassed. I had to go apologize to the Chinese leaders, "I am ashamed that you are such great friends and this happened to you". And then they burned down the ministry's building and torched their cars. What are we to do in this condition? We were publicly humiliated for months and people kept saying we were not taking action. But I was not taking action because I wanted to save lives not take lives. So then, as a last resort, when we did take action, I commend all of the law enforcement agencies that they acted against this humiliation, this embarrassment against us and finished it. Many of our were martyred. I pray for their salvation. May Allah bless them all Paradise. They acted for this nation and this country, not themselves, and sacrificed their lives.

After that, unfortunately, came the decision of the Supreme Court. The trials kept going. Now the situation is that, the 61 terrorists which had been declared "Black" by the Intelligence agencies, which means "confirmed terrorists" were released by the Court. They are roaming free. No one knows whether the Rawalpindi bomb blasts or the Karachi ones or the Sargodha ones were done by one of those 61. They are at-large. Who knows what they will do next? And how much harm will come to us.

Then, the madrasas which were engaged in extremism were ordered re-opened by the Court. We want to build madrasas. The government has a plan to construct 'Model' madrasas where the poorest children can go study, live with the finest standards. It is not the case that government is against madrasas. We want them in finest locations, with great education and living quarters. That is our plan being set in motion. But those madrasas where extremists are operating - those were reopened by the Court. And now the security situation in Lal Masjid is back to the same people who were in charge earlier. A mosque does not need security. And who knows, if those guarding Lal Masjid will take the rifles back inside and we return to the same place where we started. The same elements who were challenging the state before - their relatives - are now challenging the state. Whatever actions are taken by law enforcement agencies in Swat, is declared wrong by these elements and their relationships with terrorists across Pakistan is affirmed publicly from Islamabad.

So that is the other situation before us.

Then came the Presidential elections a month ago. The procedure was adopted according to the Constitution and the Law. The Election Commissioner gave the schedule within the constitutionally mandated time frame. Chief Election Commissioner examined all the nomination papers from all candidates - including myself - and accepted them. But some references were filed, especially against myself, in the Supreme Court. That is no problem. It is fine. A matter of Law. But then a 7 member bench was formed. Then after a while it was turned into a 9 member bench and then it was turned into a 11 member bench and the case keeps on dragging interminably without a decision. Then the Presidential elections happened in which I was fortunate enough that the assemblies gave me 57% of the vote. I am thankful to all from Provincial assemblies, Senate and National assemblies who voted for me. But the case is still dangling. The vote was counted. The unofficial result was announced but we cannot notify because the case is there. Now the case is going. No decision is forthcoming. It inches along. Now one gentleman wants to go to his daughter's wedding. So lets delay it even more. As if the entire nation, stuck in a strange state of hopelessness and uncertainty, can just keep hanging on indefinitely.

Even the Prime Minister examined this grave situation and sent me a written analysis that there is a great deal of difficulty for the government to function in this situation.

My brothers and sisters, what is happening in Pakistan? What is happening to us? What is happening to this country? In which direction are we headed? Which way? This country lives in my heart. This country lives in my blood. And it lives in my soul. I cannot watch it decline.

So the time has come to take action. What are we going to do? I have analyzed everything - the whole situation. How will we stop this decline. In my view, these three pillars of state - the judiciary, the executive and the legislative - must be harmonious. We will bring harmony to them , and then we will have good governance and we will be able to fight terrorism and extremism with our full capabilities. That is the only way to get the government back on track. Before we completely fall apart.

After examining this situation, I consulted with the military, bureaucratic, political and private leaders, friends, overseas Pakistanis - and after taking in their council, I made my decision. And this decision is to get back to that Third Stage of democratic transition that I discussed earlier and finish it - God Willing. The hurdles on the path to democracy must be removed. And my original intentions, my current intentions, are to complete Stage Three. God Willing, I will do so.

To do it, I have declared Emergency. I have issued a Provisional Constitutional Order which was being televised earlier - you must have seen it. I must state that there will be no changes in the government. The Prime Minister, the Governors, the Chief Ministers all remain on their posts. All the assemblies will continue - Senate, National Assembly, Provincial Assembly will all function as before. This is my decision. In my view, this is the easiest way to get Pakistan back on track and protect the economic development and finish the final transition to democracy.

Now to take advantage of this opportunity, I want to say something in English.

(In English)
I have just spoken to the people of Pakistan in Urdu and I want to speak now to you in general, particularly to our friends in United States, European Union and the Commonwealth. I would ask you to kindly understand the criticality of the environment inside Pakistan and around Pakistan. Pakistan is on the verge of destabilization, if not arrested in time. Now without losing any further time or delaying the issue. The saddest part of everything which saddens me the most ... that after all we have achieved in the past 7 years I see in front of my eyes, Pakistan's upsurge taking a downward trend.

I personally, with all my conviction and with all the facts available to me, consider that inaction at this moment is suicide for Pakistan. I cannot allow this country to commit suicide.

Therefore, I had to take this action in order to preserve the democratic transition which I initiated 8 years back. I would like to repeat that - I said it in Urdu - I started with a three stage transition. The first stage from 1999 to 2002 where I remained in control. The second stage from 2002 to 2007 - 5 years of democratic rule, all assemblies functioning, local governments functioning - I oversaw it as the Chief of Army Staff and President combined and now I am launching the third phase which was to be completed in only a few months where complete democracy, return to civilian rule, myself being only a civilian President - if elected. It is this third stage that is being subverted today. And it is this third stage which I want to complete with all my conviction and if we don't take action, I don't think we are going to this third stage. I don't know what chaos and confusion will follow.

So therefore, I request you all to bear with us. To the critics and idealists against this action, I say please do not accept or demand your level of democracy which you learned over a number of centuries. We are also trying to learn, and we are doing well. Please give us time. Please also do not demand and expect your level of civil rights, human rights, civil liberties which you learned over the centuries. We are trying to learn. And we are doing well also. Please give us time.

I would, at this time, venture to read out an excerpt of President Abraham Lincoln, specially to all my listeners in United States. As an idealist, Abraham Lincoln had one consuming passion during that time of supreme crisis and that was to preserve the Union - because the Union was in danger. Towards that end, he broke laws, he violated the Constitution, he usurped arbitrary powers, he trampled individual liberties, his justification was necessity. Explaining his sweeping violations of Constitutional limits, he wrote in a letter in 1864, and I quote,
"My oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensabale means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it."

End quote. We are also learning democracy. We are going through a difficult stage. It is the nation which is important. And for me, for every Pakistani, Pakistan comes first. And everyone else's consideration after that. I look at it from this point of view. So whatever I do, is for Pakistan. And whatever anyone else thinks, comes after Pakistan. With all my sincerity, whatever I am doing is in the interest of Pakistan. And therefore I am doing it with full conviction and my full heart and soul and mind in it.

--In Urdu

My brothers and sisters, I hope that all of you will recognize the seriousness of this situation. In my view, everything that I have done now, there was no alternative. If I have to sacrifice my life for the country, then it is available. I will not surrender to circumstances. I fight circumstances. I never surrender. I fight. And now I will fight. Not for myself. For this nation. For this country. For the life of my country men, for their progress. If I have your companionship, I have no doubt, God Willing, Pakistan will be back to the forefront and this derailed train will be, God Willing, back on track. I have no doubts that the nation wants progress, it wants to go forward. The common people are concerned with prices, concerned with unemployment and poverty. They are tired of this uncertainty in the name of democracy. The people are tired of these terrorists who in the name of Islam kill Muslims. The people are tired of this.

I want to tell my brothers and sisters, lets fight this together and take Pakistan forward. May God be by your, and by Pakistan's, side. Pakistan Hamisha Paindabad.

Posted by Manan Ahmed

WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: War Profiteers articles

 Dogs of War: Inherently governmental?

by David Isenberg, United Press International
May 9th, 2008
Amid all the polemics over the use of private military and security contractors by the U.S. government there are two words one rarely sees, but they lie at the very heart of the debate: "inherently governmental."

 KBR puts more emphasis on construction
by John Porretto, Associated Press
May 7th, 2008
KBR Inc.'s proposed $550 million acquisition of an Alabama engineering and construction company is further evidence of its drive to expand its presence in industrial construction, the top executive of the military and engineering contractor said Tuesday.

CorpWatch’s Pratap Chatterjee and Ex-Titan Translator Marwan Mawiri on Corporate Cronyism and Intelligence Outsourcing in Iraq

by Juan Gonzalez, Democracy Now!

April 30th, 2008
A Senate Democratic committee heard testimony Monday alleging fraud and waste by the Pentagon’s largest contractor in Iraq, Kellogg Brown and Root, or KBR. KBR denied all the allegations. It used to be a subsidiary of Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

5th Circuit to Weigh Jurisdiction Over Contractors in Iraq 

by Daphne Eviatar, The American Lawyer

January 29th, 2008
CorpWatch's Pratap Chatterjee is referenced regarding the Iraq War outsourcing of military functions to KBR

 The Great Iraq Swindle
by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
August 23rd, 2007
Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi chronicles how the U.S. government botched the reconstruction of Iraq, drawing on examples from CorpWatch's new book: Baghdad Bonanza (City Lights Books, 2008) 

 Houston Chronicle: Though CEO leaving for Mideast, he says city is still key
by Brett Clanton, Houston Chronicle
May 17th, 2007
Halliburton CEO David Lesar distances himself from problems with former subsidiary in Iraq, in reply to CorpWatch questions at the company annual meeting.

 Democracy Now! Iraq's Missing Oil and Halliburton's Houston Send-Off
by Amy Goodman
May 15th, 2007
Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman interviews CorpWatch about the new "Goodbye, Houston" alternative annual Halliburton report on the eve of CEO David Lesar's departure for Dubai

 Independent: Halliburton: From Bush's favourite to a national disgrace

by Andrew Buncombe, Independent (UK)

March 14th, 2007

CorpWatch's Pratap Chatterjee is prominently featured in this article about Halliburton's move to Dubai.

 Sunday Times (UK): How the West short-changed Afghanistan
by Fariba Nawa, Sunday Times (London)
October 29th, 2006
CorpWatch's Fariba Nawa reports on the troubles of her homeland, Afghanistan, in the Sunday Morning Times.

 CNN International: Hurricane Katrina One Year Later

by Jonathan Mann, CNN International

August 29th, 2006

CNN International interview about CorpWatch's new report on disaster profiteering after Hurricane Katrina

 Independent: Katrina: disaster profiteers pocket millions in deals
by Andrew Buncombe, The Independent (UK)
August 20th, 2006
The Independent examines CorpWatch's report on the reconstruction following Hurricane Katrina.

 New Orleans Times Picayune: FEMA contracts reignite protests 

by James Varney, New Orleans Times Picayune

August 18th, 2006
The Times Picayune references CorpWatch's report on Hurricane Katrina in this article discussing how travel trailer contracts were awarded to a Californian and Texan firm that were supposed to benefit small local firms.

 Marketplace (National Public Radio): Katrina Profiteering
by Kai Ryssdal , Marketplace Radio
August 17th, 2006
Marketplace host Kai Ryssdal speaks to CorpWatch's Pratap Chatterjee about the parallels between Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, where reconstruction has been marred by profiteering.

 Financial Times: Weapons and dice, and all things vice

Financial Times

June 1st, 2006
Financial Times Money Management feature cites CorpWatch as a source in review of 'corporate social responsibility' 

 Bergen Record: Watchdog group accuses contractor of shoddy Afghan work

by Hugh R. Morley, Bergen Record

May 21st, 2006

New Jersey newspaper reports on CorpWatch criticism of a local multinational, the Louis Berger group, in our new report, "Afghanistan, Inc." 

 Morning Edition: Report Takes Dim View of Afghan Rebuilding Work 
by Renee Montagne, Morning Edition (NPR)
May 5th, 2006
Writing for the non-profit group CorpWatch, journalist Fariba Nawa tells Renee Montagne she found evidence of flawed work on schools, health clinics, roads and other public projects financed by the United States and other countries.

 Denver Post: Lewis: Dubai deal business as usual

by Al Lewis, The Denver Post

February 25th, 2006

CorpWatch's Pratap Chatterjee is quoted in a Denver Post article about the Dubai Ports World acquisition.

 East Bay Express: Far From Home 
by Chris Thompson, East Bay Express
February 8th, 2006
CorpWatch's Afghan investigative correspondent, Fariba Nawa, gets featured in this cover article for our local weekly newspaper. 

 MSNBC: The Abrams Report
MSNBC
February 2nd, 2006
MSNBC's Abram Report interviews CorpWatch's Pratap Chatterjee about fraud involving Defense Department contractors.

 New York Newsday: Christian right exhorts consumer crusades
by Carol Eisenberg, Newsday
December 14th, 2005
CorpWatch is quoted in an article about the consumer activism of the religious right.

 Boston Globe: Raytheon to employ retired officers 
by Robert Weisman, The Boston Globe
December 10th, 2005
CorpWatch's Pratap Chatterjee comments on the hiring of retired high-ranking Army, Navy, and Air Force officers for a new line of executive jobs.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Workers from poor countries serve the 48th
by Moni Basu, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
November 6th, 2005
CorpWatch's research cited in this article about third country nationals (TCNs) from Asia who work for low pay to support the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

 CNN International: Investment Activism
by Jonathon Mann, CNN
August 24th, 2005
CNN interviews Pratap Chatterjee of CorpWatch about shareholder activism on the left and on the right.

 Washington Post: Halliburton's Higher Bill
by Griff Witte, Washington Post
July 6th, 2005
Washington Post quotes our research as source for new secret $5 billion contract with Halliburton. Our military correspondent provided the Post with military contracts that the Pentagon refused to release.

 New York Newsday: Working in a war zone
by Patricia Kitchen, Newsday
February 13th, 2005
In an article about job recruiting and conditions for military contractors in Iraq, CorpWatch explains how people will often contact CorpWatch, looking to get hired by these firms.

Activism: Hey, give Ralph some money !!

July 15, 2008 www.votenader.org www.officialnaderstore.com

Donate $100 now. And we'll send you an autographed copy of the DVD - An Unreasonable Man. Autographed by Ralph Nader - the subject of this historic documentary. All around us are people who don't want Ralph to run this year. This movie is the perfect remedy. (Watch trailer here.) Buy this DVD. Show it to them, loan it to them, or just give it to them - but just make sure they see it. Young people will learn and older people will remember what it means to stand for something, to fight for something, and to believe that your efforts will make a difference. An Unreasonable Man is the movie that turns heads. Show it to people who like Ralph. Show it to people who don't like Ralph. Show it people who think Ralph should run. Show it to people who think Ralph should not run. But get your own autographed copy now. So you can show it to them all. (Or if you already have a copy, get one as a gift.) This limited offer is part of our ten day fundraiser. Our goal - raise $60,000 by July 20. To put Ralph on the ballot on 15 states by July 20. Over the last five days, we've raised over $30,000. So, we're halfway there. Now, let's push it past the finish line. Donate $100 or more by 12 midnight Sunday July 20, and we'll send you an autographed copy of this explosive documentary of Ralph's public life of citizen activism. (Only one DVD per donation of $100 or more. If you would like two copies, please donate twice. Three copies, donate three times. Remember - only one DVD per donation of $100 or more.) Don't miss out. Hit the button now. Thank you. Together, we will make a difference. Onward The Nader Team PS: We invite your comments to the blog. Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.

ACTIVISM ALERT: In Defense of Free Speech Rights on the National Mall

[pls sign!] We the undersigned are supporting the emergency mobilization of the people demanding that there be no new restrictions on free speech or protest related activities on the National Mall in Washington D.C. This is the real objective of the Bush Administration’s plans for the National Mall.My buddy sez: Free speech zones are one of the most ridiculous infringements on the freedom of speech imaginable. How is speech that is subversive, to be considered truly free, when it is restricted to zones in which no one will see or hear it? How can our government seek to restrict the places where we gather in dissent and protest, to make one voice out of thousands, and still call it a government of the free? How can they possibly seek to restrict places in Washington DC where historic gatherings and demonstrations have taken place? This cannot happen. We cannot allow this to happen.This administration uses fear of terror as a provocation to silence its critics and opposition. They say that the protests and coverage thereof threatens our national security, by showing our country as "weak to the enemy". Our country IS weak, and we MUST have a voice, or there will be nothing left of this country to fight for, if our freedom to fight, vocalize, or organize is diminished.Please join other notable figures of activism and compassion, of truth and justice, and help spread the word, that we must be allowed to have freedom of speech. It must not be suppressed, and it must not be restricted to the laughable concept of "free speech zones".Please go to the link, and sign the petition, to join in with solidarity.

read more | digg story

Begin Change NOW with Cheney Impeachment Hearings!!

By an overwhelming 79%-12% margin, Americans want to change the disastrous direction George Bush and Dick Cheney have taken us. But there's no need to wait until January 2009 - we can begin change now with impeachment.

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) is organizing his colleagues to ask House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to begin Cheney impeachment hearings, and he needs our help.

We're asking other Judiciary Committee Members to co-sign Wexler's letter to Conyers, and we're asking the rest of Congress to send their own letters to Conyers. Please email your Congressmember here:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/125

On Wednesday, please call your Congressmember through the Capitol Hill Switchboard (202) 224-3121, toll-free at 1-800-828-0498, or directly (http://www.democrats.com/congress). Tell your Congressmember to urge Chairman Conyers to begin impeachment hearings for Dick Cheney. Then tell your friends and call and email the media.

______________

Tell the Candidates: Change Begins NOW

If Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, he wouldn't be sniping over the Voting Rights Act of 1964 or Iraq War speeches in 2002.

He'd be leading the largest protests our nation has ever seen to end to the occupation of Iraq, restore the Constitution, massively shift funds from the military to humanity, and impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for their war crimes and lies.

If the Democratic candidates for President want to compete on who is a better agent of change, it's time for them - all of them - to stop talking and start acting. Email Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Barack Obama to

1. Oppose any more Iraq War funds
2. Support Sen. Chris Dodd's filibuster of telco immunity for warrantless wiretapping
3. Support Rep. Robert Wexler's call for Cheney impeachment hearings
4. Support Rep. John Conyers' single-payer non-profit health care plan

http://www.democrats.com/change-now-petition

______________

Grassroots Impeachment Activists Are Making a Difference

Impeachment activism is exploding from coast to coast.

* John Nirenberg, a retired college professor, has completed a 40-day march from Boston to Washington D.C., where he will ask Speaker Nancy Pelosi to begin impeachment hearings. He's garnered a great deal of media attention along the way and has planned a press conference for noon on January 16th on the Cannon House Office Building Terrace. Watch the end of the march: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/30080

* Citizens with "Impeach" on their shirts were ordered not to view the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/30068

* Subcommittee on the Constitution Chairman Jerrold Nadler's constituents protested repeatedly at his office and went to jail asking for impeachment hearings: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/29969 http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/29809

* Viggo Mortensen, John Kaminski, Dennis Kucinich, John Nichols, and David Swanson spoke at New Hampshire forum for impeachment. Video: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/29968

* A New Hampshire Democratic Party event exploded when Kucinich said the word "Impeach" - http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/30065

* Maine impeachment activism led conservative Democratic congress member Mike Michaud to ask Conyers to begin Cheney impeachment hearings: http://afterdowningstreet.org/me

* A big name impeachment debate shakes up North Carolina: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/30058

* Veterans for Peace brought impeachment to Rep. Pete Visclosky's (D-IN) Town Hall Meetings: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/30051

* Lois Capp's constituents baked her an impeachment pie: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/30079

* Yet another ACLU chapter backs impeachment: http://afterdowningstreet.org/aclu

* Cindy Sheehan to deliver huge stack of pro-impeachment letters to Speaker Nancy Pelosi: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/29986

* First newspaper editorialized for Cheney impeachment: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/29955

* The Washington and New Hampshire state legislatures are taking up impeachment resolutions this month. The first hearing in Olympia is scheduled for January 17th. Here are details on Washington and New Hampshire, plus the list of resolutions already passed around the country:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/wa

and http://afterdowningstreet.org/nh

and http://impeachpac.org/resolutions-list

Want to support RAND, here's yer chance

Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy

Edited by: John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt

Netwar-like cyberwar-describes a new spectrum of conflict that is emerging in the wake of the information revolution. Netwar includes conflicts waged, on the one hand, by terrorists, criminals, gangs, and ethnic extremists; and by civil-society activists (such as cyber activists or WTO protestors) on the other. What distinguishes netwar is the networked organizational structure of its practitioners-with many groups actually being leaderless-and their quickness in coming together in swarming attacks. To confront this new type of conflict, it is crucial for governments, military, and law enforcement to begin networking themselves.

See Also:

News ReleaseBook Review

Support RAND Research — Buy This Product!

Paperback Cover Price: $25.00

Discounted Web Price: $22.50

Pages: 380

ISBN/EAN: 0-8330-3030-2

Contents

Preface PDF

Summary PDF

Acknowledgments PDF

Chapter One:
The Advent of Netwar (Revisited) PDF

Part I: Violence-Prone Netwars

Chapter Two:
The Networking of Terror in the Information Age PDF

Chapter Three:
Transnational Criminal Networks PDF

Chapter Four:
Gangs, Hooligans, and Anarchists - the Vanguard of Netwar in the Streets PDF

Part II: Social Netwars

Chapter Five:
Networking Dissent: Cyber Activists Use the Internet to Promote Democracy in Burma PDF

Chapter Six:
Emergence and Influence of the Zapatista Social Netwar PDF

Chapter Seven:
Netwar in the Emerald City: WTO Protest Strategy and Tactics PDF

Part III: Once and Future Netwars

Chapter Eight:
Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism: the Internet As a Tool for Influencing Foreign Policy PDF

Chapter Nine:
The Structure of Social Movements: Environmental Activism and Its Opponents PDF

Chapter Ten:
What Next for Networks and Netwars? PDF

Afterword (September 2001): The Sharpening Fight for the Future PDF

Contributors PDF

About the Authors PDF

The research described in this report was performed under the auspices of RAND's National Security Research Division.

The monograph/report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1993 to 2003. RAND monograph/reports presented major research findings that addressed the challenges facing the public and private sectors. They included executive summaries, technical documentation, and synthesis pieces.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

* RAND research is conducted across divisions, centers, and projects; these organizational components are represented in the "Related RAND Divisions" section above.