Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

Economic Draft

From the Tacoma News Tribune:

“When we first deployed (last fall), a lot of them didn’t want to re-enlist,” he said. “They’d tell me, ‘Oh, Sergeant Frazier, don’t come talk to me about that. Don’t even bring it up. I’m done with the Guard after this.’

“But a few months later, a lot of those same guys came back up to me and said they were worried about the economy, about paying the bills. They catch me going to my hooch, to chow, to the gym. They tell me they’re looking for more work because there’s not much back home.”

In the army, there is no recession, because the war machine keeps churning.

Iraq and Afghanistan are ...

Over the years people have come up with lots of analogies just for Iraq. For example, I have heard that Iraq is like... "a quagmire," "a deep hole," "a descent into hell," "an oil fire," "embers in the night," "a cancer patient," "Vietnam," "South Korea," "a teenage pregnancy," "a variable-rate mortgage," and the list goes on.

Guantanamo also have a variety of analogies too. People have said it's like a Soviet gulag, which actually originated with London Amnesty International, and plenty of people have chimed in on that. Turks call Guantanamo "Silivri," after the largest prison in Europe located in Turkey.

But what's the use comparing something to something else when the original is just as bad or worse? I'm not sure if any one thing can capture all aspects of the war on terror. But this weekend two of my friends and I decided the war on terror is like a game, a board game, the goal of which is total global domination. Like a game of Risk.

We used that concept to create a commercial for television to advertise a protest in Tacoma on March 21st. We used the concept of playing a game of Risk to frame the expanding war on terror under Obama's administration, so that it more closely resembles imperialism. As Obama announced on February 27th, the war in Iraq is as of now - "over" - but 30,000 to 50,000 troops will remain in order to "advise," "equip," "support," and "train" Iraqi security forces. He said "all" combat missions in Iraq will end in 2011, but there will still be American "counter-terrorism missions" which will most likely happen under the radar. So the occupation will not end, it's only getting bigger.

He also said there will be a combat troop surge in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the next few months, and according to budget research group, the National Priorities Project, Obama will actually spend more on military defense expenditures than George W. Bush. There are not a lot of details on how the new military budget will be spent, but he asked for a 75 billion dollar war "supplemental" budget, making 2009's military budget a new spending record.

John Stewart breaks down Obama's foreign policy here.

Our friend who works for a Tacoma-based cable provider, Click!, helped us get access to cheap ad space, so that our 15 second and 30 second ads can be seen on CNN, the Discovery Channel, MTV and USA. Here is the ad. Go to demonstrate253.org for more information about the march.

Linguistic condottieri

Companies that supply services to military contractors make up the third largest contributors of forces in Iraq, proof that mercenary work is highly profitable. A company like DynCorp will supply national armies with civilian police forces, drug eradication services, and linguists, for whatever cause and for the most pay. Its Global Linguists Solutions division works in Iraq with the US Army, but the company also works for the UAE, Australia, Nigeria, and anybody else it can please.

There are new rewards for ESL mercenaries working for US after recent modifications to US immigration rules. The Pentagon recently announced it will be recruiting from the ranks of immigrants with temporary visas, and "accelerating" mercenary routes to US citizenship. The immigrant recruits are valuable to the military if they speak any of 35 languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Igbo (a Nigerian language), Kurdish, Napalese, Pashto, Russian, and Tamil. Immigrant mercenaries can apply to become citizens on the first day of active service, will have all their naturalization fees waived, and they can take an oath of citizenship in as little as six months. But if they do not serve in the military, says the NY Times, citizenship is uncertain and "at best agonizingly long, often lasting more than a decade."

"The Army will gain in its strength in human capital," General Freakley said, "and the immigrants will gain their citizenship and get on a ramp to the American dream." ... If the immigrants do not complete their service honorably, they could lose their citizenship.

The message is, 'fight for us and then you might become citizens.' This is the new bargain. Rather than the CIA paying groups of armed rebels in remote places to fight against enemies of the West, the military instead will hire them from its own backyard, as its own soldiers, on its own payroll.

In Renaissance Italy, wars were fought by mercenary soldiers recruited by the condottieri, partly as a business venture, partly as a political speculation. City-states and principalities had to rely on these recruits because the political culture of the time did not allow for efficient coercion. There were no conscript armies. Essentially, the immigrant recruitment mechanism is efficiently coercive, and a politically acceptable form of conscription today.

It is the perfect political and military solution to US problems with 1) immigration, 2) imperial overstretch, and 3) human capital. New waves of immigrants to the US can be molded into pawns for the empire, easily, and asked to prove their allegiance by going above and beyond. The government does not have to rely on middle class whites to go to war for its own sake. Instead it draws from the poorest, and most vulnerable sections of its population: the most efficient type of coercion imaginable.

But mercenary recruits who fight in wars against successful anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist armies usually get wasted by aftermath courts. This is the take-home message. Recall the Luanda trial of 13 British and American mercenaries towards the end of the successful Angolan war of independence from 1961 to 1974, which ended in death sentences. Americans put ads in papers like Soldier of Fortune - a magazine for mercenaries - declaring their willingness to fight for hire "anywhere in the world" against independence movements and rebels.

The US State Department denied that it had condoned the hiring of any mercenaries. Two US lawyers who attended the trial accused the Ford Administration of violating the Neutrality Act by allowing mercenaries to fight overseas. The prosecutor in that trial, Mr. Montiero, scorned the U.S. as "the home of the CIA and the mother of mercenaries" and Henry Kissinger as "the traveling salesman of the international crime syndicate."

Afghanistan Surge

The so-called "anti-war" President is going to escalate the number of American soldiers in Afghanistan and Pakistan by 23,000 in the coming months. The total number of soldiers from Western military powers in Afghanistan will then be around 100,000. Plans to increase the number of soldiers in stages are in the air, this being the second phase in a plan that already increased the number by 4,000 since Obama took office. 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq after the first 16 months according to the "pull out" time-table.

Have you noticed that Obama has never criticized the invasion of Iraq because it was illegal, immoral, unjust, or imperialist, or for any of the reasons you might expect from an anti-war President? Look at the criticism he does raise, and one perspective stands out. Obama's reasons for opposing Bush's policy in Iraq come from a decidedly chauvinist viewpoint of what's best for America - that is, the U.S. empire. He gives us the cost-benefit analysis, saying on television that the costs of excess U.S. presence in Iraq have outweighed the benefits for America.

America knows Iraq won't fit in her pocketbook. This is why the U.S. is moving further East: the central front in the War on Terror are small mountaintop villages nestled among rocky, sparse passages. The Kandahar province and the Southern provinces in Afghanistan, and on federally-administered tribal lands in Pakistan is where the Pentagon, Barack Obama and the New York Times, says the new global war on terror is located.

As Obama said in the Presidential debates, the reason why America should stay out of Iraq is not because it's wrong, not because it destroys peoples' lives, not because Iraq was only about oil. It's because America cannot control the people there.

"I warned that the invasion of a country posing no imminent threat would fan the flames of extremism, and distract us from the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban."

And in his own writing, he says the mistake the U.S. made was to stretch out its power and spend its money unwisely.

"More than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched."

"The situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted."

"Nearly every threat we face—from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran—has grown."

"Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been."

So Obama is talking realpolitik, and Obama right about one thing: his position on the war on terror has been consistent; his position has always proceeded from the interests of U.S. imperialism.

Post-Hussein Oil

Despite the recession and stock declines last September, Exxon Mobil has earned the highest profits in world history in 2008 - a record $45.2 billion. In assets, Exxon is worth around $375 billion which is more than General Electric, Bank of America and Google combined. It's the world's largest corporation.


The size and asset value of a corporation alone does not tell you very much about conduct, only performance and market structure. The real ambitions of the oil industry as a whole, however, are not very secret. With its political and business clout, Exxon has been urging the Oil Ministry of Iraq to issue it the first contracts for oil field service in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003. New York Times, June 2008:

"[The International Energy Agency] estimated that repair work on existing fields could bring Iraq’s output up to roughly four million barrels per day within several years. After new fields are tapped, Iraq is expected to reach a plateau of about six million barrels per day, Mr. Fyfe said, which could suppress current world oil prices."

These no-bid contracts were supposed to be awarded to Exxon, BP, Shell, Chevron and Total, as well as some smaller ones like Hunt Oil Company from Dallas. A total of 46 leading companies from China, India and Russia, had memorandums with the Oil Ministry, but were not awarded contracts. Continued:

“These are not actually service contracts,” Ms. Benali said. “They were designed to circumvent the legislative stalemate” and bring Western companies with experience managing large projects into Iraq before the passage of the oil law.

By legally increasing the oil production in Iraq, these contracts circumvented OPEC rulings on member-state oil output. In fact, the increase in oil output from Iraq in the contracts is by the same amount OPEC decided to decrease output: 2.9 million barrels a day.

By severing Iraq from OPEC, the oil industry can now increase output and earn more profits, while pleasing U.S. politicians with a lower price for oil.

The no-bid contracts were eventually canceled by the Iraq Oil Ministry since June. Instead they will be competitive bids, which Exxon and the others are surely to win, being the most eligible and capable of bidding on them. They will soon bid on long-term service contracts for 90 percent of the oil fields in Iraq. The United Press International says Shell has already won a contract to control most of the Shiite oil in Southern Iraq for 25 years.

All of these corporations have a history of manipulating politically unstable markets in order to gain control. For example, after a dispute with the Venezuelan government, during which Exxon persuaded a British court to briefly freeze $12 billion in government assets to fight what it considered an expropriation, the Venezuela's oil minister accused the company of "judicial terrorism."

The contracts are structured as "service" contracts, which means the companies will repair fields, drill, export oil and train Iraqis to work in the fields. This means, essentially, hiring Iraqi labor instead of bringing in workers from further East. These are "reconstruction" contracts. The companies will be paid for their work, rather than offered a license to the oil deposits. As such, they do not require the passage of an oil law setting out terms for competitive bidding. Since the summer this legislation has been stalled by disputes among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties over revenue.

Warrior ethos

Robert Fisk, British correspondent for the UK newspaper The Independent and credited by the phrase 'fisking', has in his new book "The Age of the Warrior" brought attention to two separate and very distinct US Armed Forces creeds. The first was originally created after the My Lai massacre in Vietnam to encourage 'professional' conduct in war. The original was scrapped in 2003 and replaced with what the military calls The Warrior Ethos to encourage an abject obedience to the mission of the armed forces.

The original text can be found in the older versions of the Soldier's Handbook and also this Field Artillery NCO Study Guide.

I am an American soldier.

I am a member of the United States Army - a protector of the greatest nation on earth.

Because I am proud of the uniform I wear, I will always act in ways creditable to the military service and the nation that it is sworn to guard.

I am proud of my own organization.

I will do all I can to make it the finest unit of the Army.

I will be loyal to those under whom I serve.

I will do my full part to carry out orders and instructions given me or my unit.

As a soldier I realize that I am a member of a time-honored Profession, that I am doing my share to keep alive the principles of freedom for which my country stands.

No matter what situation I am in, I will never do anything for pleasure, profit or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform, my unit or my country.

I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my Army comrades from actions, disgraceful to themselves and the uniform.

I am proud of my country and it's flag.

I will try to make the people of this nation proud of the service I represent for I am an American soldier.

This is the version that Donald Rumsfeld created to be the new 'Warrior Ethos', via The Independent:

I am an American soldier.

I am a warrior and a member of a team.

I serve the people of the Unites States and live the Army values.

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.

I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.

I am an expert and I am a professional.

I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.

I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.

I am an American soldier.

The differences are obvious. The second version says nothing about disgraceful conduct. It says nothing about ethical standards. It emphasizes total obedience to the military chain of command. It lent itself to Abu Ghraib, to Guantanamo, and Bagram. It lent itself to war crimes.

The older version has problems too - the same problems are in the second version. In the My Lai version, for example, "greatest nation on earth" already shows signs of extreme nationalism. Both creeds reinforce subservience, domination, and unquestionable submission to hierarchy. Both appeal to professionalism, and easily give rise to the same problems that Hannah Arendt pointed out when it came to Nazi professionalism.

The second version certainly goes further than the first; Robert Fisk considers the first one acceptable, and the second one deplorable. But there is another creed that the Army has on hand, for civilians, called the Civilian Corps Creed. This creed is worse than the others in my opinion, because the civilian creed extends "Army values" onto civilian populations, and encourages the same hierarchical obedience to non-warriors. Perhaps in the wake of 9/11, everyone became an "Army civilian" and a member of the "Army team".

I am an Army Civilian - a member of the Army Team.

I am dedicated to the Army, its Soldiers and Civilians.

I will always support the mission.

I provide stability and continuity during war and peace.

I support and defend the Constitution of the United States and consider it an honor to serve the Nation and its Army.

I live the Army values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Professional Courage.

I am an Army Civilian.

Recorded speech - Robert Fisk in Seattle, September 2008.

Total Cost of the Iraq War

An old saying in economics: there is no "free lunch". Last week it was Joseph Stiglitz point, speaking at Seattle U about his new book Three Trillion Dollar War, that there is no such thing as a "free war".

I thought Stiglitz, whose Nobel Prize work is related to information asymmetry and market failure, would be out of his league when discussing the accounting costs of the Iraq War. But as he described it - it's not very difficult to add up these costs, it just takes a bit of investigation.

Bad accounting procedures, attempts to deceive US citizens about the costs of the war, hidden costs in terms of health and opportunity costs, diminish the official costs of the Iraq War. The number, $3 trillion, is an enormous number. But it is still the conservative accounting estimate; Stiglitz claims the range of costs is somewhere between $3 and $5 trillion.

In 2003, Chief Economic Adviser Lawrence Lindsey said the Iraq War might cost, $100 to $200 billion dollars. He rewarded by being fired. Secretary of Defense D. Rumsfeld said the War would cost $50 billion. This is the amount we actually spend every 3 to 4 months in the "official" Iraq War budget. But the up-front budgetary costs are much smaller than the hidden costs.

For example, war contractors must have disability insurance and death benefits by law. But the insurance premiums are not surprisingly so high that the Department of Labor pays for it out of taxes. It is not counted in the Iraq budget. And while taxes pay for the insurance premiums, a lot of the money has gone to AIG, the company which has recently gained notoriety from the financial crisis. Stiglitz says the company was essentially stealing tax-payer money to pay for disabilities and death benefits, but it included a cynical little clause stating that AIG would not pay for disabilities or deaths arising from "hostile action". So taxpayers pay these insurance premiums, in fact, twice.

Cost like this that increase the real cost and decrease the budgetary cost are abundant. At this point, the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are two of the four longest notorious hot wars in US history.

• Vietnam War .................. 8 years, 5 months
• Afghanistan ..................... 7 years, 1 month
• Revolutionary War ............ 6 years, 9 months
• Iraq .............................. 5 years, 8 months
• First Barbary War..............5 years
  
• Civil War ....................... 4 years
• Philippine Insurrection........4 years
  
• WWII ............................ 3 years, 8 months
• Korean Hot War............... 3 years, 1 month
• Kosovo...........................3 years
• Somali Civil War...............3 years
  
• War of 1812 ................... 2 years, 6 months
• Bosnia............................2 years
  
• U.S.-Mexico War .............. 1 year, 10 months
• WWI ........................... 1 year, 7 months
• Invasion of Grenada..........1 year
• Second Barbary War..........1 year
  
• Spanish American War....... 8 months
• Persian Gulf War ............ 1.5 months

The Gulf War was only a 1.5 month hot war, costing $200 billion in disability and health benefits. Of the 1.1 million US soldiers in the first Gulf War, 300,000 were granted disability compensation, many of which is long-term. By comparison, one-third of soldiers coming back from Iraq have been diagnosed with deep depression, PTSD, and traumatic brain injuries. Many will not be able to work full-time and will have other problems associated with mental health and their quality of living. A disproportionate number of homeless in the US are Vietnam Veterans; we are creating the new generation of homeless and disabled by, even with the exorbitant military spending levels, lack of adequate VA funding.

The DOD website says the number of wounded American soldiers in Iraq is 30,000. This number only counts those wounded in hostile actions. But non-combat wounds Stiglitz discovered through a FOIA request was more than double the official number. That is over 60,000 soldiers that are not included to make the war appear less volatile to the US public.

The costs I outlined here are actually more overt than others Stiglitz covers: there are hidden costs from borrowing foreign money to finance the war, deficit-spending (an all time high), the opportunity costs from occupying Iraq versus managing crises in the U.S., like Hurricane Katrina or the Iowan tornadoes; increases in oil prices and the effect on futures markets; the lost investment in young people who are dead or disabled from the war who would have lived productive lives otherwise; the cost of Iraq versus funding research in medicine and mental health, and so on.

A Coup Has Taken Place...

As of October First, we are living in what can only be called the closing society.


A series of decisions has made it possible for this to happen. President George Bush struck down posse comitatus, which now allows the military to patrol the U.S. The legally-established "War on Terror" states the U.S. is at war around the globe and that the U.S. is also a battlefield.

In light of more recent events on October 1, 2008, Democracy Now! interviews NorthCom Col., Michael Boatner and writer for The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild:

Presidential Directive 51 - May 9th, 2007:

"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.

Considering how these changes in policy - and not only the language but the practice - were allowed to happen, author Naomi Wolf has come forward declaring that the coup has already taken place.

In a conversation Naomi published on AlterNet, she asks retired Air Force Colonel what would prevent the President from sending the First Brigade to arrest the editor of the Washington Post.

Col: "Nothing. He could do what he did in Iraq -- send a tank down a street in Washington and fire a shell into the Washington Post as they did into Al Jazeera, and claim they were firing at something else."

NW: "What happens to members of the First Brigade who refuse to take up arms against U.S. citizens?"

Col: "They'd probably be treated as deserters as in Iraq: arrested, detained and facing five years in prison. In Iraq a study by Ann Wright shows that deserters -- reservists who refused to go back to Iraq -- got longer sentences than war criminals."

But given that the jurisdiction over the First Brigade lies with the President, and what the President orders is de facto a lawful order, if the troops disobey the Commander in Chief, what would happen to the military system? Naomi asks.

Col: "Perhaps they would be arrested and prosecuted as those who refuse to participate in the current illegal war. That's what would be considered a coup."

NW: "But it's a coup already."

Col: "Yes."

Naomi Wolf's strong resistance narrative and her ability to convey this grave concern to the rest of American society is something I value in her work. All of us who were involved in resistance politics at the DNC and RNC can follow the discomfort and frustration behind her rhetoric, because we witnessed first-hand what she describes as a taste of things to come.

As I listened to Naomi speaking on KUOW - Seattle's NPR - I thought about the "kafkaesque" strategies the FBI, military, and police used at the DNC and RNC to very effectively intimidate. I thought about fascist societies in the past which were transformed from know-nothing democracies to globalistic empires.

I have to ask myself whether Americans who accuse this country of imperialism are serious about this or not. And if so, how serious are we? Will we be able to disable the empire when it comes time? And when it happens, will we be ready to build a just and sustainable society in its place?

How far are we willing to take this consideration? To the internet? To the classroom? To the arms dealer?

The 10 Steps to Fascism

Naomi Wolf, author of "End of America" and blogger at My America Project, has outlined ten easy steps to fascism. Allow me to summarize.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
   
2. Create a gulag.
   
3. Develop a thug caste.
   
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
   
5. Harass citizens' groups.
   
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
   
7. Target key individuals.
   
8. Control the press.
   
9. Dissent equals treason.
   
10. Suspend the rule of law.
    

A Day of Mournful Overcast 10/02/08

Over the past few days I've seen a number of articles talking about surges of troops in Iraq and military forces on U.S. streets.


Brigade Homeland Tour Starts Oct. 1. Gina Cavallaro. Army Times: September 30th, 2008.

The US Army is going to go "on tour" in the Homeland looking for terrorists (this means protesters). Their new weaponry is designed to "subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them," the Army says. "They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and package fielded". "They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack" The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic, shields and batons, beanbag bullets, etc. Notice how the article only briefly mentions "crowd control" and drowns this out with threats of "chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear...." and other mushroom-cloud type words.

Invasion of the Sea Smurfs. Amy Goodman. Truth Dig: October 1st, 2008.

Referring to the previous article, Amy Goodman begins investigating because no one else seems to notice. The Army's Consequence Management Response Force - nicknamed "sea smurf" - have patrolled the hard streets of Iraq, but will now be called upon to patrol U.S. streets for disasters and protests. Goodman writes, "The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 ... included a section that allowed the president to deploy the armed forces to 'restore public order' or to suppress 'any insurrection.'" Amy Goodman relates the surge in domestic security to the perceived threat of protests due to the crisis on Wall Street. But there may be other uses, as the next article explains.

Nearly 10,000 headed from Fort Lewis to Iraq, Pentagon announce plan to deploy total of 26,000. Scott Fontaine. Olympian: October 1st, 2008.

"All told, the U.S. military is planning deployments of about 26,000 troops and would maintain 14 combat brigades in Iraq from about February to early fall 2009... Nearly 10,000 troops from Fort Lewis will head to Iraq next year, when the post's commanding general and the rest of I Corps take over daily operations in the country and two Stryker brigades fall under its command."

10 Days That Shook Olympia. Peter Bohmer. Counter Punch: November 17th, 2007.

This article outlines the sequence of events and the fervor of the Port Militarization Resistance movement in the Pacific Northwest. In Olympia, WA ten days of non-stop protesting prevented military munitions and Stryker vehicle to be transported through the Port of Olympia. At one point in the week, the protest held the port out of police or military control for 18 straight hours, blocking roads and access to the port. Their goal was to contain the military equipment inside holding stalls and send a message to the rest of the country that this war should have been stopped already. I was there early that week and created this propaganda video about it.

Army Stong? No, Coffee Strong!

Here is another interview on NPR's SoundFocus about the GI Coffeehouse project, this time with community organizer Molly Gibbs. The coffeehouse has a new name: "Coffee Strong" instead of, as it was in my video from July, the "O'Give Plunger".

"We Must Win the War on Terror"

Join forces with the Republican National Committee and together defeat al Qaeda!


Years later (doubtfully) Americans will look back on this era and shrug their shoulders, maybe even laugh. Fuck, I am laughing right now. This propaganda is so hard to believe, personally, given that anti-Republican protesters are actually being charged with "conspiracy to riot in the furtherance of terrorism" under the Minnesota version of the Patriot Act.

"Definitely the gloves have come off," a Bush aid said, referring to the recent wave of raids against suspected terrorists in Pakistan, without asking permission from Pakistan. Under the Bush dictum that America will wage war on "the terrorists and countries that harbor them", I suppose this means Washington is now at war with Pakistan. It's all part of President Bush's "11th hour effort" to hammer al Qaeda, the protesters, and sneak in crafty bits of legislation and other surprises to be unveiled at a later time.

For future reference, click here.

Protester Beaten and Gagged Like Guantanamo Inmate

I would like to tell a story about someone I met in the Ramsey County Jail this week, whom later I found out was tortured by police in the Ramsey County Jail.

Myself, along with eleven others detained at the RNC were sitting in a holding cell, waiting to be dressed in orange jumpsuits and sent to the 'general population' of inmates. The police outside were well prepared to control crowds with the weapons they were afforded by the US Federal Government. But inside the jail the resources were fairly low. We had to share blankets, we were not allowed showers, and many of us had to wait until the pepperspray and effects of other weapons wore off (or we were released from the jail) before feeling better.

The protester, Elliot Hughes, was brought into our holding cell and sat on the floor like the rest of us. We exchanged stories and he told us he was being charged with assaulting an officer. I witnessed his arrest, and like many others, the story behind it was fabricated. One police officers ran his bicycle into a curb, with no protesters around, and he fell onto the ground. The other police used this as a pretext to arrest and spray the people in the area.

Since the jail was filling up, and many sections on "lockdown", including my own, Elliot was removed from a solitary confinement cell and placed with us. He wasn't allowed to interact with other people up until then because he was considered a violent anarchist. When Elliot came to our cell his cheerfulness and humor made us all feel better about the situation. Apparently he is only 19 years old. As we continued to play ad hoc games and entertain ourselves with other ideas, I would have to say personally that Elliot cheered more people in that cell than any other person.

Around noon Elliot was pulled from our cell and brought somewhere else. Of course, we couldn't see and didn't know where, and we did not think to ask since people were constantly coming and going.

After I was released I learned that he was beaten, tasered, and left in a pool of blood.

According to Kirk James Murphy, M.D., reported by other inmates, "Elliot was making noises to protest not receiving any food for more than twelve hours. Twelve officers entered his cell. Screams were heard for over five minutes. He was tasered three times, maced, and beaten, then removed and the men were told he was being taken to a restraint chair."

He appears on Wednesday's Submedia dispatch, speaking about the incident (although Elliot was not an RNC Welcoming Committee member as it says in the video). According to Kirk James Murphy, inside the jail, the correctional officers have been doing the following to inmates there:

• torture with electroshock weapons (Tasers)
• torture with chemical weapons
• stomp on a young man's chest
• cruelly (perhaps fatally) deny medical care to a victim spitting up blood (the fancy medical name is hemoptysis) from thoracic trauma
• respond to calls for food with torture by beating, Taser, and chemical weapons: the same chemical weapons known to cause respiratory arrest and death in victims with pulmonary disease. "Spitting up blood" is a symptom of pulmonary disease so severe as to require emergency medical evaluation.
• then tie up the victim in "restraint chairs" known to exacerbate pre-existing breathing difficulties in some victims of thoracic trauma.

Inmates at this jail, who more than likely were picked up on false accusations and misinformation, are being treated just as this government treats those who are deemed terrorists and domestic enemies of the United States. It is very clear that the Ramsey County Jail is our Gauntanamo Bay, Cuba.

To many of you this may be shocking. But perhaps it shouldn't be. Are we really surprised that our government and those acting on its behalf would do such a thing to a cheerful nineteen year-old who disagrees with this governments' policies and wanted to assemble with others who felt the same way?

I can write more about these conventions when I am back at home. But I leave St. Paul, MN for Tacoma, WA today even more disgusted with what I have seen here than before I came.

B. Obama's Fateful Triangle

Like the majority of his colleagues in the Democratic Party, Barack Obama has done very little to change the face of American politics. He has voted for war spending and appropriations, and appeased the pro-Israel lobby. He helped build the erroneous case against Iran, saying nothing about Israel's plentiful arsenal of nuclear warheads and instead proclaimed that “the US will always side with Israel if Israel is threatened with destruction.” In short, Obama stands in solidarity with Israel against the “terrorists” in the territories illegally occupied by Israel.

"I want you to know that today I'll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel," Obama announced to a crowd of pro-Israel lobbyists after he sealed up his party's nomination. "[W]hen I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends, Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever." One of Obama's major platform points, curiously, is that he will reduce the influence of lobbyists in the White House.

Sadly, one of the least-reported (though most crucial) backdrops to the Global War on Terror is that the US support for the Israeli military machine is a driving force behind it. A close look at any of Al Qaeda's propaganda videos, such as the pre-9/11 State of the Ummah recruitment video, reveals that one of the primary concerns of pan-Arab socialists and fundamentalists is the US support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, in which Israel is known as a profoundly inhuman, cynical, and deliberately cruel regime to the Palestinian people.

The historically unique US-Israeli alliance has been based on the perception that Israel is a “strategic asset” to the US, according the President Eisenhower, which fulfills US goals in the region through tacit alliance with the Arab facade in the Gulf and other regional protectors like the family dictatorships, while performing services to other allies elsewhere.

Though effectively an extension of the US military and economic interests, Israel is not entirely under the control of the US. That is why with each headline in the reading “Another Migrant Shot in the Head”, the United States feigns non-complicity. Israel's long train of human rights abuses, made available by Amnesty International here and here, and combined with heavy US military and economic support, is a no doubt a destructive partnership in which the United States is overwhelmingly complicit.

The ambiguity of the War on Terror and the US's far-reaching support for Israel's actions, combined with the ambiguity of the Obama campaign altogether, is also destructive. While Obama's mainstream supporters are fascinated with the “change” message, concerns raised abut why his policies are really any different from the other parties or other candidates is glossed over with that very same message of change and hope. In response, supporters in his campaign point to his “likeable enough” persona, which is aided by language co-opted from popular movements and struggles, to reassure us of its success and legitimacy.


At least one message is clear. Obama is simply not critical of the underlying paradigm which led the US into an ambiguous Global War on Terror. In his naiveté, he has accepted the basic and flawed assumptions passed down to him from administration hawks. If you do not support the War on Iraq, the Occupation on Palestine, wars of ambiguity & attrition, or the big hand of American global interventionism and coercion, then you do not support Barack Obama's foreign policy platform.

Also, Obama supports the death penalty, supports nuclear energy, supports coal energy, supports the Cuban embargo, and will not end the vast array of federal subsidies to corporations, including those to the oil and gas cartel. His talk of "change we can believe in" has struck a chord with many American people, this is true. This is actually a powerful testament to the increasing illegitimacy of the US political system, not the legitimacy of the Obama campaign. The campaign is an attempt to round off popular fervor and bring it back into the mythical “participation” of electoral politics.

What Went Wrong in '68?

Tom Hayden, shown narrating this video provided by Rocky Mountain News in Denver, CO, is a well-known activist from the 1960s student movement. Once a founding member of Students For a Democratic Society, Hayden is now a writer, journalist, former politician, and adjunct professor. But in 1968 he and hundreds of other activists participated in the protests around the '68 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. He was arrested there as part of the Chicago Seven, a group of seven 'ring-leaders' charged with conspiracy to incite the riots.

As Hayden explains, what happened in Chicago in 1968 was not a violent protest, but rather a “police riot,” the term used by the Walker Commission, a body appointed by the Nixon administration to investigate the events surrounding the Chicago convention. That violence was made all the more shocking by the fact that it was often inflicted upon persons who had broken no law, disobeyed no order, made no threat. These included peaceful demonstrators, onlookers, and large numbers of residents who were simply passing through, or happened to live in the areas where confrontations were occurring. Reporters and photographers were singled out for assault, and their equipment deliberately damaged.

This year's Democratic National Convention, fifty years after 1968, shares several similarities with the '68 convention. A large number of what the mainstream press considers "would-be" Democratic voters, are fed-up with the politics of the Democratic Party. Just as during the Vietnam War, when a Democrat-controlled government continued to wage war on a country which posed little threat to the 'American way of life', so too the Democratic-controlled Congress today has done little to stop the occupation of a country which (at least in hindsight) posed little threat to America's national security. This is perhaps the biggest similarity. But there are others.

The Denver Police are preparing for major street confrontations with protesters, just as in 1968, stockpiling various crowd control weapons, such as a sound-emitter which incapacitates demonstrators. A half-dozen military helicopters were recently spotted flying low over the Denver skyline. The Army is conducting exercises in accordance with their training for the Global War on Terror, said an Army spokesperson. And the City of Denver was recently granted $50 million in Federal grant money for security alone at the convention.

Scholars and writers this year are particularly interested in the parallels between 2008 and 1968. A Time Magazine special edition was recently dedicated entirely to the events reported by Time Magazine during 1968. Nineteen Sixty Eight is the year on everyone's mind. But the notion that this year's Democratic National Convention will be just like or very similar to the 1968 convention is misleading. Those parallels can only be carried so far.

Iraq: Much Larger Problems

"There's no veil of legitimacy over there," says Iraq vet Seth Manzel, referring to the ubiquitous corporate-style occupation of Iraq. Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), for those who might not know, is a former subsidiary of Halliburton and is contracted for most of the reconstruction in Iraq. It is a very profitable organization, consistently winning contracts with the US Federal Government to rebuild states since WWII. It is also the largest non-unionized construction company based in the US.

General Dynamics one of the largest military contractors for the Pentagon and also many foreign governments. It is also the contractor which builds the Stryker armored combat vehicles. Since many of its acquisitions were already unionized, some for a very long time, most of its labor to this day is still unionized.

The problem Seth points out is that, while America is trying to muster an image of strength and justice in the Iraq region, it can't do this with hired mercenaries and it can't do this with the long train of abuses against the people of that region. The outrageous military spending that fuels the occupation of Iraq is "just a symptom of a much larger problem," Seth says.

This footage was spliced together from what I had left over from the coffeehouse video. Seth served in Iraq with a Stryker Combat Team (SCT) two years ago. Afterward he joined the Seattle chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). Seth and the other vets are currently working to bring a GI Coffeehouse to the Fort Lewis region.

The New G.I. Coffeehouse

A social movement doesn't have a specific place or a location. It lives in the actions, the minds, and the relationships between people. But there are places where the ideas of a movement develop, places where the movement's ideas go more mainstream.

A group of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) are planning to start up a G.I. coffeehouse near the entrance of the Fort Lewis military base in Washington State. Though the project is still in its planning stages, the idea is that it will be a center for supporting GI rights and war resistance in the region, as well as a place for G.I.s to get coffee right off the base.

On a street littered with barber shops and abandoned dry cleaning businesses in Tillicum, WA, the veterans have found several possible locations for this project. Seth Manzel served in Iraq with a Stryker Combat Team before joining his local chapter of IVAW, and is shown in the video talking about these locations. Most of the places he and the other vets have been checking out are abandoned dry cleaners, oddly enough, because with fewer Army requirements for cleaning their attire these places have virtually disappeared from the communities around military bases.

A coffeehouse like this would not be the first of its kind in the nation since the 1970s. One known as the Different Drummer Cafe has begun operating since 2006 in Watertown, NY near Fort Drum, and near Fort Hood, TX a coffeehouse known as Under The Hood will begin operating soon. During the Vietnam-era dozens of coffeehouses popped around the nation. Near Fort Hood, TX one was called the Oleo Strut, which was named after a part that made sure helicopters landed smoothly. In October of 1968 coffeehouse known as the Shelter Half was established Tacoma not far from Fort Lewis. It took its name from a makeshift military tent structure. Aside from continual harassment from the police force, however, the Shelter Half's shortfall was that its location was still a twenty minute drive from the base. Still, it was in its later years deemed "off-limits" by the U.S. Army. Jane Fonda, the popular anti-war actress, was also banned from Fort Lewis around this time. IVAW believes that one of the closer, newer locations will be more effective.

When the Shelter Half opened its doors, the same month saw the first issue of Counterpoint, a G.I. resistance publication, followed by the Lewis-McChord Free Press, B Troop News, and Fed Up!, which were all published off-base near Fort Lewis. This all happened within a short period of time. The Seattle Chapter of IVAW last year started publishing the G.I. Voice, a publication that makes its way onto Fort Lewis, and has also begun a G.I. Radio project, available on GIRadio.org. Though G.I.Radio currently broadcasts from Seth's garage, playing re-runs of Winter Soldier—IVAW's testimonies about Iraq and war crimes recorded in Washington D.C.—the vets plan to move the show to the coffeehouse once its setup.

"We're promoting GI resistance," Seth says, "something that hasn't been done a whole lot." Civilians are realizing they can actually do something about this war, he tells me, whereas active-duty G.I.s are not so much in that position. A number of individuals and groups have already started donating equipment to the coffeehouse, such as a cash register. IVAW says the next step in organizing is to raise enough money to pay for the lease they need to start operating and selling coffee. They are several thousand dollars short at this point.

As far as a name goes for the coffeehouse, the vets are tossing around "Ogive Plunger" which is the name for a part on a Mk19, a gun that can be mounted to a Stryker vehicle. Seth told me he thinks that's a silly name though. IVAW and volunteers will vote on a name as the project unfolds.


See Also:

Different Drummer Cafe, Fort Drum, NY.

Under the Hood, Fort Hood, TX.

"Sir! No Sir!" - a documentary about the Vietnam GI movement.

This video uses images from sirnosir.com, as well as footage from Seattle "Oct. 27", 2007, Olympia Port Militarization Resistance, 2007, and the Lt. Ehren Watada court martial rally, 2006.

A Reason I Don't Keep an RPG in House.

They call these "Globemasters" not because of fuel efficiency, but because at the time the original was created in 1942 it was the largest landplane to enter production. It was able to carry 125 soldiers, or 21, 840 kg over a range of 5,500 km. Today the Globemaster can carry 77,519 kg of cargo over the same range. They can also drop 102 paratroppers or two attack Stryker vehicles from the air.

On March 26th, 2003, fifteen USAF Globemasters participated in the biggest combat airdrop since the US invasion of Panama in December of 1989. The night-time airdrop of 1,000 paratroopers from the occurred over Bashur in Iraq. It opened the northern front to combat operations and constituted the largest formation airdrop carried out by the United States since World War II.


Each morning I wake up to the sound of empire. Cargo jets and fighter jets. Cargo jets and fighter jets. It's like counting sheep.

Two at a time, the sleek ones screech through the sky making a tie-fighter sound directly over my apartment several times a day.

Then, drudging along, come the bulky cargo planes, spewing petrol across the sky, each one costing millions of dollars upon take off. Eleven per hour. While the USAF's total fleet of Globemasters is 190, it seems as though one third of them fly around my house each day.

The Bruce Williams Show....

Why is Iraq still considered in the eyes of most Americans an 'axis of evil'? It is April 2008 - not March 2003. Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death over a year ago.

Arguably, the cultural and political intelligence of American society has dramatically declined since the invention of the imperialist talk radio show host. Imperialists and the like have controlled the air waves from as far back as 1975, with the development of the nationally-syndicated Bruce Williams Show. Still airing, each day the show ends with the "God Bless America" theme.