war on terror – RI Future

November 16, 2015

Jack Reed avoids peace activists at Brown

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Rhode Island Antiwar Committee protested Senator Jack Reed at Brown University Sunday afternoon. The senator was speaking as part of the Watson Institute‘s Distinguished Lecture Series on “The Challenges of a Turbulent World.”

According to the Antiwar Committee, “Senator Reed has championed the continued presence of a large military force in Afghanistan and essentially supports and promotes the endless ‘war on terror.’ Also, Reed’s position as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee would allow him, if he so chose, to guarantee a legitimate investigation of the bombing of the hospital in Kunduz and call for an independent one.”

The protesters initially set up outside the John Carter Brown Library on the Brown campus, but were soon ushered off campus to nearby George St. by Brown University police and Providence police. Senator Reed never encountered the protesters, though they did hand out flyers to many entering the library to hear the senator speak. At 4pm, when the program inside the library was to start, one of the members of the Antiwar Committee, Cathy Orloff, entered the building to hear Reed speak, but was was turned away because the venue had reached capacity.

The text of the flyer is reproduced below:

QUESTIONS FOR SENATOR JACK REED FROM:
RHODE ISLAND ANTIWAR COMMITTEE
LOCATION: 94 GEORGE STREET, PROVIDENCE, RI
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2015

1) Since the United States finally admitted that it ordered and carried out a bombing which killed 22 people in a hospital in Afghanistan on October 3; such a bombing being widely considered a war crime and described as such by Doctors Without Borders (MSF); why aren’t you vigorously urging support for MSF’s call for an independent investigation by the International Fact-Finding Commission of the Geneva Conventions?

2) Do you support an expedited conclusion of the American investigation, now that more than one month has elapsed since the attack? Do you consider this act a war crime? Do you support a military court-martial of the person or persons who ordered it and participated in it? Would you support monetary compensation by the U.S. to the families of those patients and staff killed?

3) Although one of President Obama’s campaign promises was to end the long U.S. war in Afghanistan, and although he announced his decision last year to draw down forces there; you now have spoken in support of his about-face and preference for the U.S. continuing to fight that country (which has not attacked the U.S). Do you think this decision is one that most Americans support and will make our country safer and more respected around the world?

4) At the end of October, Obama reversed his campaign pledge and many subsequent statements and said he plans to put “boots on the ground” in Iraq and Syria. However, on October 29 the Iraqi government stated that it does not need U.S. ground forces, nor has it asked Washington for help in operations against the Islamic State. “This is an Iraqi affair, and the government did not ask the Dept. of Defense to be involved in direct operations,” Iraqi government spokesman Sa’ad al-Hadithi told NBC News. Al-Hadithi also warned the United States against sending ground troops to Iraq without first clearing it with Baghdad, in accordance with international law. In view of this statement, and a similar quote on November 1 of a Syrian parliament member that the U.S. sending troops into Syria would be an act of aggression because it does not have the government’s agreement. (Providence Journal 11/1/2015, p. B-1) do you now support sending ground troops into these two countries?

QUESTIONS FOR THOSE READING THIS FLYER Do you think citizens should actively monitor their country’s actions and speak up when conscience dictates? Would you like to spend some time working with other Rhode Islanders in this effort?
If so, please email ri-antiwar-activist@googlegroups.com

February 8, 2015February 9, 2015

Nap Quest

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

America with all its might
Protects our homeland from the fight
But rebels have a way to creep
Into our lives while we’re asleep

My bedroom used to be the place
Where I’d depart the human race
A pillow underneath my head
Anticipating dreams ahead

Sound sleep helps us rejuvenate
Revives us if we’re up too late
The eyes are how you always tell
When someone hasn’t slept too well

But that’s the way it used to be
Now sleep is just a memory
Of how life was before the sight
Of bodies on the news each night

Young children slaughtered in their school
A pilot doused with rocket fuel
Then set ablaze while people cheer
A blade cuts off a woman’s ear

We’re far away from all of it
Yet feel the pain from where we sit
Then try to shut it out in bed
But shut the horror in instead

Insomnia is on the rise
Dark circles under tired eyes
Like landmines on a Kabul road
Our minds are ready to explode
c2015pn

January 12, 2015

Torture in our name: #ReadtheReport

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

It has been roughly one month since Senator Dianne Feinstein (who became Mayor of San Francisco following the assassination of George Moscone) released the Senate Intelligence Committee report detailing the violence and torture used by the CIA against individuals in the years following 9/11.

At least 119 individuals were detained by the CIA in years after the attacks, and, according to the Senate report, at least 26 were wrongly detained and had no associations with terrorism.

One innocent man, Gul Rahman, spent a month in solitary confinement because he had the same name as a suspected terrorist. Two CIA informants spent “approximately 24 hours shackled in the standing sleep deprivation position” before it was confirmed they were mistakenly being detained. These examples are surely some of the more benign experiences of prisoners in CIA detention facilities.

In the foreword to the report, Senator Feinstein wrote:

“It is worth remembering the pervasive fear in late 2001 and how immediate the threat felt. Just a week after the September 11 attacks, powdered anthrax was sent to various news organizations and to two U.S. Senators. The American public was shocked by news of new terrorist plots and elevations of the color-coded threat level of the Homeland Security Advisory System. We expected further attacks against the nation.

I have attempted throughout to remember the impact on the nation and to the CIA workforce from the attacks of September 11, 2001. I can understand the CIA’s impulse to consider the use of every possible tool to gather intelligence and remove terrorists from the battlefield, and CIA was encouraged by political leaders and the public to do whatever it could to prevent another attack. The Intelligence Committee as well often pushes intelligence agencies to act quickly in response to threats and world events.

Nevertheless, such pressure, fear, and expectation of further terrorist plots do not justify, temper, or excuse improper actions taken by individuals or organizations in the name of national security.

The major lesson of this report is that regardless of the pressures and the need to act, the Intelligence Community’s actions must always reflect who we are as a nation, and adhere to our laws and standards.

It is precisely at these times of national crisis that our government must be guided by the lessons of our history and subject decisions to internal and external review. Instead, CIA personnel, aided by two outside contractors, decided to initiate a program of indefinite secret detention and the use of brutal interrogation techniques in violation of U.S. law, treaty obligations, and our values.”

After many years, and despite CIA interference, the report has been made public. We should know what is done in our name.

You can read the full report here.

May 30, 2013

School secrecy bills would stifle public information

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The General Assembly is poised to pass a series of very troubling bills that will keep parents, teachers and the public in total darkness when it comes to issues surrounding school safety. The proposed legislation (S-369A, S-801A, H-5941A), supported by the Governor and legislative leaders, would make secret all school committee discussions, and all school district documents, regarding school safety plans.

The enactment of these bills – which has been vigorously opposed by the ACLU, the R.I. Press Association, the New England First Amendment Coalition, and Common Cause Rhode Island – would be a major step backward for parental involvement in critical school matters and for the public’s right to know.

To appreciate just how far-reaching this legislation is, consider the following:

A school committee could discuss and decide in complete secrecy whether to have armed guards or other armed staff in their schools.
Parents wishing to learn a school’s plans for contacting them in the event of an emergency would be denied the ability their ability to get that information.
A concerned PTO interested in finding out how well the school district has complied with state department of education school safety standards would be told they have no right to know.

This extraordinary legislative response to tragedies like Newtown is likely to have precisely the opposite effect of what is intended. Rather than making parents feel safer, this blanket secrecy can only make parents feel more insecure and anxious about whether their children will be safe during an emergency.

Ultimately, the legislation is based on an element of hubris — that only school officials know the best way to protect students. The bills eliminate the ability of parents and the community to respond to the appropriateness of a school district’s safety plan, or to point out possible flaws that could be corrected or strengthened, or to hold school officials accountable if their standards, or implementation of those standards, fall short.

Just as we have seen on so many other matters post-9/11, governmental concerns about the need for secrecy in order to promote “security” or “safety” often serve no purpose other to prevent any meaningful public oversight.

In fact, there have recently been unrelated lockdowns in various schools around the state. It is becoming common for parents and the public to be given vague, and ultimately useless, hints about the reasons for these lockdowns, and thus no reason to know whether the threat was serious, or whether schools are engaging in vast, routine and unnecessary over-reactions that only perpetuate a climate of fear detracting from schools’ educational mission.

Obviously, specific types of security-related school information deserve confidentiality, but a complete ban on accessing any school safety policies, or being able to hear the reasons for their adoption, promotes the sort of secrecy that is truly harmful in a democratic society.

In other contexts, the Governor has talked about his administration’s efforts “to provide the public with an increased level of information regarding the operation and management of government.” Passage of this legislation does the opposite and, more ominously, sets the stage for further government attempts to keep all of us in the dark on important matters, all in the guise of doing it for our own good.