Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 1. August 2006 / Timeline August 1, 2006
Version 3.505/01/2006
Det er nu 39 måneder siden, at USAs præsident Bush erklærede krigen
i Irak for vundet.
08/01/2006
DoD Identifies Marine Corps Casualties
The Department of Defense announced today the death of two Marines
who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Lance Cpl. Anthony E.
Butterfield, 19, of Clovis, Calif.
Sgt. Christian B. Williams, 27, of Winter Haven, Fla.
Both Marines died July 29 while conducting combat operations in Al
Anbar province, Iraq.They were assigned to 3rd Light Armored
Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine
Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, Calif.
08/01/2006
Stop the Domestic Spying Deal: Your Senator is Key
By: Friends Committee on National Legislation
Sen. Arlen Specter has struck a deal with the White House on a bill
to allow the president to proceed without limits on his warrantless
wiretapping program covering both telephone and electronic
communications.
Under the new version of Specter’s bill, S.2453, the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would no longer be the
“exclusive means” for governing domestic surveillance.
The bill would ratify the president’s self-described
“inherent authority” as the Commander in Chief,
exempting him from seeking FISA court approval, either for the
entire warrantless wiretapping program or for individual cases.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will take up this legislation on
Thursday, August 3. If they take a vote, the bill will probably
pass. But many senators, even supporters, have a number of
questions about this complicated deal.
Background
Some Senate supporters of Specter’s legislation argue that we
must find the “the proper balance between the enforcement
powers needed to keep our country safe and the civil liberties and
privacy rights we value.”
The problem is that the National Security Agency (NSA) wants to do
its surveillance in a way that is fundamentally contrary to the 4th
Amendment . The 4th Amendment says that a government agency has to
have a reason to invade the privacy of any individual person. It
was written to eliminate the “sweeps” that were
possible and were done in the last decades of the 18th century :
house to house searches, interfering with mail, examining reading
material, etc. Technology is different now; sweeps can be much
broader and much more invisible to the individual – but they
may still violate the 4th Amendment.
What the NSA wants to do is download information about all calls
made to/from the U.S. and survey the addressing and content of any
e-mail traffic that the agency “cannot reasonably
determine” is a communication exclusively among people within
the United States. The NSA then examines the data for patterns,
using very sophisticated computer programs. When it finds a pattern
of connections to and from suspected violent extremists orgroups ,
it hones in on the callers (or e-mailers) and then, perhaps, gets a
warrant to search their premises.
This kind of electronic sweep is invisible to the subject of the
search. If the individual whose privacy is violated doesn’t
see it happening and is not interrupted in communications by the
search, is it still an invasion of privacy? We believe it is, in
the same way it would be a problem for the FBI or other government
agency to keep track of the books everyone buys or takes out from
the library, looking for patterns. It’s a level of government
control that was rejected by the authors of the Bill of Rights.
What can the government do to “achieve the proper balance
between the enforcement powers needed to keep our country safe and
the civil liberties and privacy rights we value?” Just follow
current law. Don’t use sweeps to develop evidence. Instead,
follow up on the evidence gathered every day in legitimate ways.
When this evidence points to an individual as someone who should be
surveilled, get a FISA warrant and proceed to wiretap, search
premises, do all the other things permitted under the USA PATRIOT
Act and related legislation. The FISA court is available on a
24-hour basis, and FISA includes a procedure to quickly
processequests for emergency warrants. In addition, during
“time of war,” even this requirement can be suspended
for 15 days. And at any time, if the NSA needs to do a wiretap
without a warrant for an emergency situation, they can proceed with
a warrantless wiretap, and file the application within 3 days after
the fact.
Finally, the “9-11 Commission” report concluded that
the failure to predict and prevent the terrorist acts in NY and DC
were due, not to a lack of data, but to lack of coordinated
analysis and sharing of data within and among the various
intelligence agencies. Gathering more data is not the answer.
We at FCNL don’t see a need to change current law. The FISA
court already offers a compromise, requiring only that the NSA
consult with a secret court for approval of a warrant. The fact
that new technologies make broader sweeps possible does not change
the constitutional framework of the issue.
08/01/2006
Adlai Stevenson Had a Peace Proposal ... Shouldn't
Democrats Today?
By: Lawrence S.
Wittner
Fifty years ago, Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic presidential
candidate, injected a peace proposal into his hard-fought political
campaign. Speaking before the American Society of Newspaper Editors
on April 21, 1956, Stevenson suggested halting H-bomb tests and
challenging other nations to do the same. According to the Illinois
Democrat, such actions would “reflect our determination never
to plunge the world into nuclear holocaust” and “would
reaffirm our purpose to act with humility and a decent concern for
world opinion.”
Although sharp criticism in the press and from President Dwight
Eisenhower led Stevenson to shelve the issue temporarily, he
revived it on September 5. Addressing the American Legion, he
warned that “there is not peace—real peace—while
more than half of our federal budget goes into an armaments race .
. . and the earth’s atmosphere is contaminated from week to
week by exploding hydrogen bombs.” Thereafter, his proposal
to halt the nuclear arms race by ending nuclear testing became a
key component of his campaign. On October 15, in a nationwide TV
broadcast focused entirely on the nuclear testing issue, he pledged
that, as president of the United States, he would make a nuclear
test ban his “first order of business.”
Why did this proposal become a central issue in Stevenson’s
campaign? There is little doubt that Stevenson, a humane individual
with a genuine concern for human survival, sincerely believed in
it.
In addition, however, making a peace proposal could be useful
politically. Having lost the 1952 presidential race to Eisenhower,
Stevenson recognized that his 1956 presidential campaign provided
his last practicable chance to reach the White House. In the early
1950s, millions of Americans longed for peace, and Eisenhower had
won the 1952 race in large part thanks to the fact that he had
promised to end the Korean War, a bloody, unpopular conflict for
which the Democrats received most of the blame. After his election,
Eisenhower had ended the war, and now the Republicans, gearing up
for his 1956 re-election campaign, were trumpeting “Peace,
Progress, and Prosperity” as their campaign themes.
Stevenson and his campaign strategists were well aware of these
facts. In 1955, responding to Stevenson’s question about
“how to seize the peace initiative” from the
Republicans, Thomas Finletter, a top aide, suggested that he attack
the Eisenhower administration for bringing the nation twice
“to the brink of total atomic war” and that he strongly
make “the case for disarmament.” Stevenson’s
willingness to adopt this approach was reinforced by a growing
number of pleas for nuclear disarmament from religious groups and
leaders, distinguished scientists, and the one Democratic holdover
on the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Although some campaign
staffers feared that a critique of nuclear testing would damage
Stevenson’s 1956 campaign, others were enthusiastic about it,
in part because it generated enthusiastic applause at his campaign
rallies.
In addition, there was growing criticism of nuclear testing by
peace and disarmament activists. One of the most prominent of
them—Norman Cousins, the editor of the Saturday Review of
Literature—had warned of the dangers of nuclear weapons since
their public debut in 1945, brought the “Hiroshima
Maidens” to the United States for plastic and reconstructive
surgery, and had recently taken up the nuclear testing issue as the
key to halting the nuclear arms race. Stevenson had a close
relationship with Cousins, and repeatedly drew on him for political
advice and campaign speeches. According to Stevenson, Cousins was
his “constant counselor and conscience.”
Not surprisingly, the Republicans—as keen proponents of
nuclear weapons for their new national security policy of
“massive retaliation”--lashed back furiously at
Stevenson’s nuclear test ban proposal. Vice President Richard
Nixon denounced it as “catastrophic nonsense.”
Publicly, Eisenhower assailed Stevenson for his antinuclear stand,
while privately he dismissed him contemptuously as “that
monkey.” Determined to “nail” Stevenson, AEC
chair Lewis Strauss lined up prominent scientists to condemn the
Democratic candidate and to endorse the president’s nuclear
weapons policy.
The attack on Stevenson gained momentum after October 18, 1956,
when Soviet premier Nikolai Bulganin sent a letter to Eisenhower
criticizing the administration’s position on nuclear testing.
Strauss viewed this as “a windfall in view of the headway
which Stevenson had made with the issue during the campaign,”
and suggested that “if carefully handled, the note could be
turned to considerable advantage.” Working with Dulles and,
later, with Eisenhower and other officials, Strauss helped produce
a withering public response. Delivered by Eisenhower, it attacked
the Soviet Union for interfering in U.S. politics. Together with
Bulganin’s letter, it certainly helped to undermine
Stevenson’s campaign momentum. Meanwhile, Eisenhower
continued to attack Stevenson’s nuclear arms control
proposal, arguing that it was vital for the United States to
maintain “the most advanced military weapons.”
The upshot seems to have been that, although Stevenson’s call
for a ban on nuclear testing added new interest and energy to his
campaign, it did not deliver any substantial bloc of votes to him,
either. Given Eisenhower’s immense personal popularity, plus
his ability to point to “Peace, Progress, and
Prosperity,” the Republican president won the 1956 election
handily and went on to serve another four years in the White
House.
Even so, in the following years, Stevenson and the Democrats could
take some satisfaction in their test ban proposal. Public
opposition to nuclear testing continued to grow. In 1957, Cousins
organized the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, an
organization that, with Cousins at its helm, spurred popular
demands for nuclear arms control and disarmament. In 1958, faced
with massive public pressure, at home and abroad, the Eisenhower
administration accepted a Soviet-initiated moratorium on nuclear
testing and began negotiations for a test ban treaty. By 1960,
every major candidate for the presidency publicly supported a
nuclear test ban, including Nixon. Although Stevenson was edged out
for the Democratic presidential nod that year, he was appointed by
the victorious Democrat, John F. Kennedy, as U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations. In 1963, with the help of Stevenson and Cousins,
the Kennedy administration negotiated and secured the ratification
of the Partial Test Ban Treaty—one of its most popular
measures.
This brief story provides a lesson for contemporary Democrats, now
going into the 2006 midterm congressional elections. If the Soviet
government had not undermined Stevenson’s call for a test ban
with its clumsy behavior and if Eisenhower had not enjoyed immense
personal popularity and been able to point to his own record as a
“Peace” leader, Stevenson might well have profited
politically from his 1956 peace proposal. Furthermore, in the
following years the test ban issue grew increasingly popular, with
the Democrats using it to help them win office, continue in power,
and secure a more peaceful world. Perhaps the time has come for
contemporary Democrats to stake out a peace proposal of their own
and to use it just as effectively.
08/01/2006
Die In at South Station
Young Jews Denounce Israeli Attacks on Civilians!
Wikimedia - Aug 1, 2006
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Youth_Die_In_2006
Boston, MA -- August 1, 2006 --A group of young American Jews
staged a "Die In" this morning at South Station, and on the corner
of Atlantic Avenue and Summer Street in downtown Boston to
demonstrate their opposition to recent actions by the Israeli
government in Lebanon and Gaza.
"We want to break the false consensus of unequivocal support for
Israel and make it known that many American Jews disagree with our
government's support of Israeli aggression. We also want to call
attention to the human rights crisis occurring in Gaza and
Lebanon," commented group member Matt Soycher, of Jamaica Plain.
"As young American Jews, we are outraged and frightened. Recent
rallies called by Jewish organizations in support of Israel's
attacks on Lebanon and Gaza have not spoken for us. Now, we are
speaking for ourselves."
Participants wore black clothing with stickers that read "Not all
U.S. Jews support Israel's actions!" They fell to the ground in
dead-like positions among the morning commuters to re-create the
devastating effects of violent attacks on civilian populations.
Distinguishing themselves from other recent protests led by Jewish
groups in the Greater Boston region, these American Jews take the
position that Israel's attacks on civilians, UN observers,
infrastructure, and refugees is unethical, counterproductive, and
contrary to the Jewish tradition of respect for human rights. Since
Israeli bombing began on July 12, more than 750 Lebanese and 51
Israelis have died in the violence. Over one third of the Lebanese
casualties have been children.
Liz Jackson, of Cambridge, explained her motivation to initiate the
action, "We mourn the Israeli dead, and our thoughts are with the
people of northern Israel, Lebanon, and Gaza alike. Our concern for
all people of the region moves us to question the utility of
Israel's horrific aggression towards its own neighbors. If Israel
is willing to kill UN observers, civilians, and especially
children, how will the violence end?"
Participants began the action at 8:00 am, on Tuesday August 1st,
inside the South Station commuter station, and ended on the corner
of Atlantic Avenue and Summer Street.
08/01/2006
How much longer?
By: EDUARDO GALEANO
The Progressive, September 2006
One country bombed two countries. Such impunity might astound were
it not business as usual. In response to the few timid protests
from the international community, Israel said mistakes were
made.
How much longer will horrors be called mistakes?
This slaughter of civilians began with the kidnapping of a
soldier.
How much longer will the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier be
allowed to justify the kidnapping of Palestinian sovereignty?
How much longer will the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers be
allowed to justify the kidnapping of the entire nation of
Lebanon?
For centuries the slaughter of Jews was the favorite sport of
Europeans. Auschwitz was the natural culmination of an ancient
river of terror, which had flowed across all of Europe.
How much longer will Palestinians and other Arabs be made to pay
for crimes they didn't commit?
Hezbollah didn't exist when Israel razed Lebanon in earlier
invasions.
How much longer will we continue to believe the story of this
attacked attacker, which practices terrorism because it has the
right to defend itself from terrorism?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon: How much longer will Israel
and the United States be allowed to exterminate countries with
impunity?
The tortures of Abu Ghraib, which triggered a certain universal
sickness, are nothing new to us in Latin America. Our militaries
learned their interrogation techniques from the School of the
Americas, which may no longer exist in name but lives on in
effect.
How much longer will we continue to accept that torture can be
legitimized?
Israel has ignored forty-six resolutions of the General Assembly
and other U.N. bodies.
How much longer will Israel enjoy the privilege of selective
deafness?
The United Nations makes recommendations but never decisions. When
it does decide, the United States makes sure the decision is
blocked. In the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. has vetoed forty
resolutions condemning actions of Israel.
How much longer will the United Nations act as if it were just
another name for the United States?
Since the Palestinians had their homes confiscated and their land
taken from them, much blood has flowed.
How much longer will blood flow so that force can justify what law
denies?
History is repeated day after day, year after year, and ten Arabs
die for every one Israeli. How much longer will an Israeli life be
measured as worth ten Arab lives?
In proportion to the overall population, the 50,000 civilians
killed in Iraq - the majority of them women and children - are the
equivalent of 800,000 Americans.
How much longer will we continue to accept, as if customary, the
killing of Iraqis in a blind war that has forgotten all of its
justifications?
Iran is developing nuclear energy, but the so-called international
community is not concerned in the least by the fact that Israel
already has 250 atomic bombs, despite the fact that the country
lives permanently on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
Who calibrates the universal dangerometer? Was Iran the country
that dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
In the age of globalization, the right to express is less powerful
than the right to apply pressure. To justify the illegal occupation
of Palestinian territory, war is called peace. The Israelis are
patriots, and the Palestinians are terrorists, and terrorists sow
universal alarm.
How much longer will the media broadcast fear instead of news?
The slaughter happening today, which is not the first and I fear
will not be the last, is happening in silence. Has the world gone
deaf?
How much longer will the outcry of the outraged be sounded on a
bell of straw?
The bombing is killing children, more than a third of the
victims.
Those who dare denounce this murder are called anti-Semites.
How much longer will the critics of state terrorism be considered
anti-Semites?
How much longer will we accept this grotesque form of
extortion?
Are the Jews who are horrified by what is being done in their name
anti-Semites? Are there not Arab voices that defend a Palestinian
homeland but condemn fundamentalist insanity?
Terrorists resemble one another: state terrorists, respectable
members of government, and private terrorists, madmen acting alone
or in those organized in groups hard at work since the Cold War
battling communist totalitarianism. All act in the name of various
gods, whether God, Allah, or Jehovah.
How much longer will we ignore that fact that all terrorists scorn
human life and feed off of one another?
Isn't it clear that in the war between Israel and Hezbollah, it is
the civilians, Lebanese, Palestinian, and Israeli, who are
dying?
And isn't it clear that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the
invasion of Gaza and Lebanon are the incubators of hatred,
producing fanatic after fanatic after fanatic?
We are the only species of animal that specializes in mutual
extermination.
We devote $2.5 billion per day to military spending. Misery and war
are children of the same father.
How much longer will we accept that this world so in love with
death is the only world possible?
EDUARDO GALEANO, Uruguayan writer and journalist, is author of Open
Veins of Latin America and Memory of Fire. This article is
published with permission of IPS Columnist Service.
 |
 |