Peace and Justice Post

Information Clearing House

By Noam Chomsky

02/05/08 “Z Magazine” — – Having brought up Iran [in Part 1], we might as well turn briefly to the third member of the famous Axis of Evil, North Korea. The official story right now is that after having been forced to accept an agreement on dismantling its nuclear weapons facilities, North Korea is again trying to evade its commitments in its usual devious way—”good news” for superhawks like John Bolton, who have held all along that the North Koreans understand only the mailed fist and will exploit negotiations only to trick us. A New York Times headline reads: “U.S. Sees Stalling by North Korea on Nuclear Pact” (January 19). The article by Helene Cooper details the charges. In the last paragraph we discover that the U.S. has not fulfilled its pledges. North Korea has received only 15 percent of the fuel that was promised by the U.S. and others and the U.S. has not undertaken steps to improve diplomatic relations, as promised. Several weeks later (February 6), in the McClatchey press Kevin Hall reported that the chief U.S. negotiator with North Korea, Christopher Hill, confirmed in Senate Hearings that “North Korea has slowed the dismantling of its nuclear reactor because it hasn’t received the amount of fuel oil it was promised.”

As we learn from the specialist literature, and asides here and there, this is a consistent pattern. North Korea may have the worst government in the world, but they have been pursuing a pragmatic tit-for-tat policy on negotiations with the United States. When the U.S. takes an aggressive and threatening stance, they react accordingly. When the U.S. moves towards some form of accommodation, so do they.

Continued . . .

The Guardian, May 2, 2008
Michael Tomasky

Twice this week now, Hillary Clinton has stood there smiling like the Cheshire Cat as the governor of North Carolina used the word “pansy” and then as a union leader in the same state, who more famously referred to her “testicular fortitude”, went on to inveigh that Hillary was the only thing that stood between the good and God-fearing people of North Carolina and the “Gucci-wearing, latte-drinking, self-centred, egotistical people that have damaged our lifestyle.” Clinton, according to the report linked to here, “smiled sheepishly before breaking into a nervous laugh.”

As campaign moments go, these may not be up there with the Iraq-withdrawal debate or, Lord knows, truly important things like Barack Obama’s failure to wear a flag lapel pin. But they’re worth marking all the same.

These are explicitly right-wing tactics and talking points. Those of you across the pond may be unfamiliar with a very famous soundbite from the 2004 presidential campaign, which featured in a commercial that ran early that year in Iowa and was produced by the anti-tax group Club for Growth.

Continued . . .

The New York Times, May 2, 2008

By JOHN HOLUSHA

Thousands of dockworkers at West Coast ports stayed off the job on Thursday in what their union said was a call for an end to the war in Iraq.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union said more than 25,000 members in 29 ports stayed off the job. The action came despite an order issued Wednesday by an arbitrator directing the union to tell its members to report for work as usual in response to a request from employers.

“Longshore workers are standing down on the job and standing up for America,” Bob McEllrath, the union’s president, said in a statement. “We’re supporting the troops and telling politicians in Washington that it’s time to end the war in Iraq.”

The scene at most West Coast ports was quiet, without any scuffles or confrontations. The cranes used to unload container ships stood idle and few trucks were lined up outside gates.
Guillermo Durell, 45, a truck driver, was at the Los Angeles-area port of Long Beach. “I got up at 6 a.m. to drop a load off,” he said. “When I got here the security guard said ‘Drop this, but that’s it. We’re all leaving.’ ”

Mr. McEllrath said the walkout was not ordered by the union’s leadership, but was the result of a “democratic decision” made by the rank and file in February to demonstrate on May 1, a traditional day for labor activism.

He said employers were notified in advance of the plan, but refused to accommodate the union’s request, instead seeking the arbitrator’s ruling.

The longshore union and other labor groups are planning marches and rallies in various cities along the West Coast, and authorities in some location warned that these activities could snarl traffic during the evening commute.

Rebecca Cathcart contributed reporting from Long Beach, Calif.

Global Research, May 1, 2008
RIA Novosti

Iran has sent a letter of complaint to the UN over comments made last week by Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton that the U.S. would be able to ‘totally obliterate” the Islamic Republic if it were to ever launch a nuclear strike on Israel.

Clinton made the remarks in a televised interview last week. Responding to a question about her policy as president should Iran ever attack Israel with nuclear weapons she said, “I want the Iranians to know, if I’m the president, we will attack Iran.” She added that, “Whatever stage they might be in their nuclear weapons program…we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
She went on to say that, “That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.”

In a letter sent to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon late on Wednesday, Iran’s deputy ambassador to the UN claimed that Clinton had “under erroneous and false pretexts threatened to use force against the Islamic Republic of Iran.” It also condemned her words as “provocative and irresponsible,” calling them “a flagrant violation” of the UN Charter.

Iran has so far defied three rounds of relatively mild United Nations Security Council sanctions over its nuclear program. Many Western nations suspect that the Islamic Republic is using the program as cover to build a nuclear weapon. Tehran insists however that it needs the nuclear program for electric power generation.

Clinton’s rival for the Democrat nomination, Barack Obama, had earlier commented on Clinton’s choice of words by saying that, “One of the things that we’ve seen over the last several years is a bunch of talk using words like ‘obliterate’. It doesn’t actually produce good results. And so I’m not interested in saber-rattling.”

A senior Russian government official said on Wednesday after talks with the Iranian leadership in Tehran that the Islamic Republic was not developing nuclear weapons.

“We believe that Iran is currently not involved in nuclear research for military purposes, but we are certain that our opinion must be shared by all countries involved in the resolution of this [Iranian uranium enrichment] problem,” Valentin Sobolev, the acting head of Russia’s Security Council, said.

By William Blum Information Clearing House, May 1, 2008

“More than any time in history, mankind now faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly.” — Woody Allen

Food riots, in dozens of countries, in the 21st century. Is this what we envisioned during the post-World War Two, moon-landing 20th century as humankind’s glorious future? It’s not the end of the world, but you can almost see it from here.

American writer Henry Miller (1891-1980) once asserted that the role of the artist was to “inoculate the world with disillusionment”. So just in case you — for whatever weird reason — cling to the belief/hope that the United States can be a positive force in ending or slowing down the new jump in world hunger, here are some disillusioning facts of life.

On December 14, 1981 a resolution was proposed in the United Nations General Assembly which declared that “education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights”. Notice the “proper nourishment”. The resolution was approved by a vote of 135-1. The United States cast the only “No” vote.

A year later, December 18, 1982, an identical resolution was proposed in the General Assembly. It was approved by a vote of 131-1. The United States cast the only “No” vote.

The following year, December 16, 1983, the resolution was again put forth, a common practice at the United Nations. This time it was approved by a vote of 132-1. There’s no need to tell you who cast the sole “No” vote.

Continued . . .

The Palestinian Information Center, May 1, 2008

KHAN YOUNIS, (PIC)– A large number of IOF troops reinforced by tanks, bulldozers and aerial cover invaded amid intensive gunfire at dawn Thursday the Farahin neighborhood in the east of Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip and kidnapped 30 Palestinians.

Palestinian local sources told the PIC reporter that the invading IOF troops stormed many houses moving from one house into another through demolishing the internal walls and kidnapped 30 Palestinian citizens, while the military bulldozers were sabotaging agricultural lands in the area.

For its part, the Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, announced in a communiqué received by the PIC that its fighters engaged in fierce clashes with the invading troops and fired four mortar shells at them.

In a monthly report received by the PIC, the international Tadamun (solidarity) society for human rights stated that the IOF troops killed during last April 83 Palestinians, 76 of them in Gaza, while they kidnapped in the same month 480 others including 64 children under age 18 and four women.

Continued . . .

The Bush Administration’s Shroud of Secrecy

CounterPunch, April 30, 2008

By Sen. RUSS FEINGOLD

More than any other Administration in recent history, this Administration has a penchant for secrecy.  To an unprecedented degree, it has invoked executive privilege to thwart congressional oversight and the state secrets privilege to shut down lawsuits.  It has relied increasingly on secret evidence and closed tribunals, not only in Guantanamo but here in the United States.  And it has initiated secret programs involving surveillance, detention, and interrogation, some of the details of which remain unavailable today, even to Congress.

These examples are the topic of much discussion and concern, and appropriately so.  But there is a particularly sinister trend that has gone relatively unnoticed – the increasing prevalence in our country of secret law.

“The notion of ‘secret law’ has been described in court opinions and law treatises as ‘repugnant’ and ‘an abomination.’  It is a basic tenet of democracy that the people have a right to know the law.  In keeping with this principle, the laws passed by Congress and the case law of our courts have historically been matters of public record.  And when it became apparent in the middle of the 20th century that federal agencies were increasingly creating a body of non-public administrative law, Congress passed several statutes requiring this law to be made public, for the express purpose of preventing a regime of ‘secret law.’   

Continued . . .