Ex-World Leaders Urge US to Forgo Military Attack on Syria

Published on Portside (http://portside.org) Ex-World Leaders Urge US to Forgo Military Attack on Syria http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/09/ex-world-leaders-urge-u-s-to-forego-military-attack-on-syria/ Thalif Deen Saturday, September 7, 2013 Inter Press Service Several former world leaders are cautioning the United States, which is preparing to launch a military strike on Syria, and Nobel Peace laureates to seek a political solution to the ongoing crisis – and forego armed intervention in the beleaguered Middle Eastern nation. Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who described the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as “illegal” and a violation of the U.N. charter, unequivocally declared Wednesday there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria. Six Nobel Peace laureates, speaking on behalf of the Nobel Women’s Initiative (NWI), called upon the United States and its allies to use the international legal system, primarily the International Criminal Court (ICC), to respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. At the same time, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) said if the United States goes ahead with the military attack, it will have taken such action for reasons largely divorced from the interests of the Syrian people. “The administration has cited the need to punish, deter and prevent use of chemical weapons – a defensible goal, though Syrians have suffered from far deadlier mass atrocities during the course of the conflict without this prompting much collective action in their defense,” said ICG. Even as the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has decided to bypass the Security Council, Annan said the 15-member U.N. body has “a moral responsibility to find common ground, putting the well being of the Syrian people at the forefront of its decisions.” This is the only way, he said, to end the violence and achieve a peaceful settlement based on an inclusive political process. But the Security Council remains deadlocked, with Russia and China threatening to veto any resolution endorsing military action against Syria. Speaking on behalf of the 11-member group called ‘The Elders’, Annan said: “We urge all member states to await the report of the U.N. inspectors on the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the deliberations of the Security Council before drawing conclusions and deciding on the course of action.” The Elders, founded in 2007 by former South African President Nelson Mandela and currently chaired by Annan, is a group that includes former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, former Irish President Mary Robinson and former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo. In a statement released Wednesday, Annan said the Elders are appalled by the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria. “We strongly condemn the use of such weapons as inhumane and criminal. Those responsible must be held accountable both individually and collectively,” the statement read. The group says U.N. inspectors should determine the facts and the United States should await their report to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. There is no timeline for the release of the report, which focuses primarily on the chemical arms attack in Syria on Aug. 21. The United States says it has evidence to prove that Syrian security forces were responsible for the attack but President Bashar al-Assad has accused rebel forces of using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The Syrian conflict has raged for two and a half years with over 100,000 people killed, many thousands injured, two million refugees and over four million people internally displaced within Syria. “There is no military solution to this conflict. Therefore every effort must be made to stop further bloodshed and to re-energize the political process to put an end to the conflict that has devastated and brutalized Syria,” Annan said. The Nobel laureates, including Jody Williams (U.S.), Shirin Ebadi (Iran), Tawakkol Karman (Yemen), Mairead Maguire (Ireland), Leymah Gbowee (Liberia) and Rigoberta Menchu Tum (Guatemala), are asking the U.N. Security Council to refer the case of the chemical weapons attack to the ICC. “We hope that U.S. legislators, like their British counterparts, will recognize that there is no public appetite to resolve this problem through more bombs and more violence,” said Jody Williams, who won the Nobel Peace prize in 1997 for her work against the use of anti-personnel landmines. “Americans know that any intervention, far from being a strategic move, will only lead to more loss of lives and even possibly to retaliation against Americans,” she added. Last week, British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote – on military intervention in Syria – in the House of Commons. The laureates say the use of chemical weapons is a “war crime that should be addressed by the international legal system created precisely for such events”. They are urging the international community to convene the Syria Peace Conference, known as Geneva II, as one of the many nonviolent measures available to the international community help resolve Syria’s conflict and to include women in the peace process. Source URL: http://portside.org/2013-09-07/ex-world-leaders-urge-us-forgo-military-attack-syria Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/ "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs

The Economic Cost of a U.S. Military Strike on Syria

National Priorities Project September 6, 2013, 6:16:53 AM EDT jo@nationalpriorities.org The Economic Cost of a U.S. Military Strike on Syria NPP's Weekly Roundup As federal lawmakers and the American people grapple with the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria, NPP brings you a new interactive tool tracking the Cost of National Security. The site features counters displaying the real-time running cost of U.S. military programs, including the Tomahawk Cruise Missile - the weapon to be used in a strike on Syria. A snapshot of NPP's rolling counter showing how much U.S. taxpayers have spent so far in 2013 on Tomahawk Missiles. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Will Cost Taxpayers $36,000 Every Hour in 2013 In 2013, the Pentagon already plans to purchase 200 Tomahawk missiles at a total cost to U.S. taxpayers of $320 million in just one year, or over $36,000 every hour. Impossible to Predict the Total Cost of Military Intervention in Syria It's impossible to know if military intervention in Syria will cost the U.S. $100 million or hundreds of billions. The cost of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles alone would spike if we fire hundreds of them at Syria, as we did in Libya. In 2011, U.S. forces fired 110 Tomahawk missiles in the first hour of the strike on Libya. That conflict cost the nation upwards of $1 billion. Tracking War & Military Spending Per Hour In addition to the Tomahawk, NPP's new Cost of National Security site displays rolling counters tracking the cost per hour of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the entire Department of Defense, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Foreign Military Aid, and Homeland Security. Making National Security Local The Cost of National Security site also allows users to see the local cost of national security for 9,900 cities and towns, and every state, Congressional District, and county in the nation. In tandem with NPP's Trade-Offs tool, users can see what their city or town could have bought instead - from police officers to school teachers to Pell grants. What Counts As National Security? According to recent polling, only 26 percent of Americans support military intervention in Syria, while 40 percent favor humanitarian assistance instead. In addition to military-related spending, Cost of National Security tracks humanitarian aid and spending on a host of domestic programs. We created Cost of National Security to provoke a national debate about what it takes to be a secure nation. I hope you will explore this new resource and send us your thoughts! Sincerely, Jo Comerford Executive Director National Priorities Project (NPP) makes complex federal budget information transparent and accessible so people can prioritize and influence how their tax dollars are spent. We hold the vision of an informed and engaged democracy where all people affected by federal spending priorities have the ability and opportunity to shape our nation's budget. Find out more at our website. National Priorities Project | 243 King Street | Suite 109 | Northampton | MA | 01060

Striking Syria: Illegal, Immoral, and Dangerous

Published on Tuesday, September 3, 2013 by Al-Jazeera Striking Syria: Illegal, Immoral, and Dangerous Whatever Congress may decide, a US military strike against Syria would be a reckless and counterproductive move by Phyllis Bennis If I were very optimistic, I'd say that President Obama is hoping that Congress will follow the example of the British parliament, and vote against his proposed military strike on Syria. It would let him off the hook - he could avoid an illegal, dangerous, immoral military assault and say it's Congress' fault. But unfortunately, I don't think that much optimism is warranted. Obama's speech - not least his dismissal of any time pressure, announcing that his commanders have reassured him that their preparations to fire on command are not time-bound - gives opponents of greater US intervention in Syria a week or more to mobilise, to build opposition in Congress and in the public, and to continue fighting against this new danger. As the president accurately described it, "some things are more important than partisan politics". For war opponents in Congress, especially President Obama's progressive supporters, keeping that in mind is going to be difficult but crucial. Obama said he will "seek Congressional authorisation" for a military strike on Syria. He said he believes US policy is "stronger" if the president and Congress are united, but made clear his belief that he "has the authority to strike without" congressional support. That's the bottom line. The first question shouted by the press as he left the White House rose garden was "will you still attack if Congress votes no?" He didn't answer. There is little question that the Obama administration was blindsided by the British parliament's vote against the prime minister's proposal to endorse war. They were prepared to go to war without United Nations authorisation, but were counting on the UK as the core partner in a new iteration of a Bush-style "coalition of the willing." Then NATO made clear it would not participate, and the Arab League refused to endorse a military strike. France may stay in Obama's corner, but that won't be enough. And Congress was getting restive, with more than 200 members signing one or another letter demanding that the White House consult with them. Too many pesky journalists were reprinting Obama's own words from 2007, when then-candidate Obama told the Boston Globe that "the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorise a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." All of that led to the drive towards war slowing a bit. But it didn't stop. And that's a problem. Because whatever Congress may decide, a US military strike against Syria will still be illegal, immoral and dangerous, even reckless in the region and around the world. Congress needs to say no. Illegal However frustrated US presidents may be with the UN Security Council's occasional refusal to give in to their pressure, the law is clear. The United Nations Charter, the fundamental core of international law, may be vague about a lot of things. But it is unequivocal about when military force is legal, and when it isn't. Only two things make an act of war legal: immediate self-defense, which clearly is not the case for the US The horrific reality of chemical weapons devastated Syrian, not American lives. This is not self-defense. The other is if the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, authorises the use of force in response to a threat to international peace and security. That's the authorisation President Obama knows he cannot get - certainly Russia and China would veto, but right now a British veto would certainly be a possibility if Cameron wanted to respond to his public. And it's not at all clear a US resolution to use force would even get the nine necessary votes of the 15 Council members. The US is thoroughly isolated internationally. The problem for President Obama is he still is determined to use military force, despite the requirements of international law. He says he doesn't need that authority - that maybe he'll use the 1999 Kosovo precedent to "go around" the Security Council. The problem, of course, is that the 1999 US-NATO assault on Serbia and Kosovo was illegal - faced with a sure Russian veto, Bill Clinton simply announced he would not ask for Council permission. Instead, he would get permission from the NATO high command. But aside from the hammer-and-nail problem (if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail; if you're NATO military leaders looking for re-legitimation, everything looks like it needs a military solution), nothing in international law allows NATO to substitute for the Security Council. The Charter was specifically designed to make it difficult to get authorisation for military force - its whole raison d'etre is to stand against the scourge of war. So any new decision to go to use military force without Council authority means that use of force is illegal. Right now, in Syria, that means that members of Congress have the chance to prevent another illegal US war. If Congress should approve it, likely for political or partisan reasons that have nothing to do with Syria, their vote would mean direct complicity in an illegal and immoral war. Immoral Pentagon officials have confirmed what logic tells us all: every use of military force threatens civilian lives. More than 100,000 Syrians have been killed in this civil war so far, and hundreds more were killed in what appears to be (remember, we still don't know for sure) a chemical strike last week - US cruise missile strikes won't bring any of them back, and more important, won't protect any Syrian civilians from further threat. To the contrary, low-ranking conscript troops and civilians are almost certain to be injured or killed. Reports out of Syria indicate military offices and more being moved into populated areas - that shouldn't come as a surprise given the nature of the Syrian regime. But the knowledge makes those contemplating military force even more culpable. Dangerous A US military strike on Syria will increase levels of violence and instability inside the country, in the region, and around the world. Inside Syria, aside from immediate casualties and damage to the already shattered country, reports are already coming in of thousands of Syrian refugees returning from Lebanon to "stand with their government" when the country is under attack. It could lead to greater support to the brutal regime in Damascus. In Kosovo, more Kosovars were forcibly expelled from their homes by the Serbian regime after the NATO bombing began than had happened before it started; Syrian civilians could face similar retaliation from the government. A US strike will do nothing to strengthen the secular armed opposition, still largely based in Turkey and Jordan, let alone the heroic but weakened original non-violent democratic opposition forces who have consistently opposed militarization of their struggle and outside military intervention. Those who gain will be the most extreme Islamist forces within the opposition, particularly those such as the Jubhat al-Nusra which are closest to al-Qaeda. They have long seen the US presence in the region as a key recruitment tool and a great local target. There is also the danger of escalation between the US and Russia, already at odds in one of the five wars currently underway in Syria. So far that has been limited to a war of words between Washington and Moscow, but with the G-20 meeting scheduled for next week in St Petersburg, President Putin may feel compelled to push back more directly, perhaps with new economic or other measures. Crucially, a military strike without United Nations authorisation undermines the urgent need for serious, tough diplomacy to end the Syrian war. The US just cancelled a meeting with Russia to talk about negotiations; a couple of months ago, Russia cancelled one. They both must be pushed to meet urgently to arrange and implement an immediate ceasefire and an arms embargo on all sides in Syria. And finally, what happens the day after? If Syria retaliates against a US missile strike - with an attack on a US warship, or a US base in a neighbouring country, or on US troops in the region, or against Israel ... do we really think the US will simply stand back and say "no, this was just a one-time surgical strike, we won't respond"? What happens when that inevitable response pushes the US closer towards direct full-scale involvement in the Syrian civil war? The word to Congress now must be - you got the vote. That's important, because now you can use that vote to say NO to military action. What should the US do? First thing, stop this false dichotomy of it's either military force or nothing. The use of chemical weapons is a war crime, it is indeed what Secretary Kerry called a "moral obscenity". Whoever used such a weapon should be held accountable. So what do we do about it? • First, do no harm. Don't kill more people in the name of enforcing an international norm. • Recognise that international law requires international enforcement; no one country, not even the most powerful, has the right to act as unilateral cop. Move to support international jurisdiction and enforcement, including calling for a second UN investigation to follow-up the current weapons inspection team, this one to determine who was responsible for the attack. • Recommend that whoever is found responsible be brought to justice in The Hague at the International Criminal Court, understanding that timing of such indictments might require adjustment to take into account ceasefire negotiations in Syria. • President Obama can distinguish himself powerfully from his unilateralist predecessor by announcing an immediate campaign not only to get the Senate to ratify the International Criminal Court, but to strengthen the Court and provide it with serious global enforcement capacity. • Move urgently towards a ceasefire and arms embargo in Syria. Russia must stop, and must push Iran to stop arming and funding the Syrian regime. The US must stop, and must push Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and others to stop arming and funding the opposition, including the extremist elements. That won't be easy - for Washington it may require telling the Saudis and Qataris that if they don't stop, we will cancel all existing weapons contracts with those countries. (As my colleague David Wildman has said, why don't we demand that the Pentagon deal with arms producers the way the Department of Agriculture deals with farmers - pay them not to produce weapons? And then the money can be used to retool their factories to produce solar panels instead of Tomahawk missiles, and the workers stay on the job….) • Stand against further escalation of the Syrian civil war by voting no on any authorisation for US military strikes. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License Phyllis Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Her books include Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, Understanding the U.S.-Iran Crisis: A Primer, Ending the Iraq War: A Primer, and most recently Ending the Us War in Afghanistan: A Primer. If you want to receive her talking points and articles on a regular basis, click here and choose "New Internationalism." You can find her on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/PhyllisBennis Source URL: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/03-8 Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/ "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs

Baltimore Activist Alert - Sept. 7-9, 2013

22] Slutwalk Baltimore marches – Sept. 7 23] Promote vegan lifestyle – Sept. 7 24] Support the Little Friends for Peace – Sept. 7 25] Baltimore Ethical Society program – Sept. 8 26] Peace and Pancakes – Sept. 8 27] No War with Syria Rally –Sept. 8 28] Celebrating the Spirit of Vatican II – Sept. 8 29] 9/11 Unity Walk – Sept. 8 30] Film "Roadmap to Apartheid" – Sept. 8 31] Sobriety, Violence and Injustice – Sept. 8 32] Al Hannouneh Society for Popular Culture – Sept. 8 33] Film "Roadmap to Apartheid" – Sept. 8 34] Pentagon Vigil – Sept. 9 35] Immigration Reform! – Sept. 9 through Oct. 18 36] PEACE INSURRECTION – Sept. 9 through ?? 37] Lobby Congress to vote no on attacking Syria – Sept. 9 38] Marc Steiner on WEAA – Sept. 9 – Sept. 13 39] NO WAR ON SYRIA – HANDS OFF SYRIA – Sept. 9 40] End Gun Violence – Sept. 9 41] Film "One Day on Earth" – Sept. 9 42] Pledge of Resistance/Fund Our Communities meeting – Sept. 9 22] – There is an International Day of Action. Slutwalk Baltimore and Baltimore United Against Sexual Violence’s A Walk to End Shame 2013 is going to happen on Sat., Sept. 7 at 10 AM at Power Plant Live, Market Place and Water St. Do I really want it, Robin Thicke? From Congress' rulings to pretty much any rap song ever, it's clear that slut shaming and victim blaming is still very present in American culture. That's why Slutwalk Baltimore and Baltimore United Against Sexual Violence have decided to take a stand, uniting with international organizations from Munich, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Belleville (Ontario, Canada), as well as Tucson and Chicago for a rally to bring attention to these issues, as well as the way we think about sexuality. The Slutwalk will take place from Power Plant Live to City Hall, followed by the rally at the War Memorial. Call 410-727-5483. See http://www.powerplantlive.com/. 23] – On Sat., Sept. 7 from noon to 1 PM, do outreach at the Waterfront Festival, Middle Branch Park, 3301 Waterview Ave., Baltimore 21230. Sadly, “fishing and crabbing” are being billed as family-friendly activities at this event, and the festival slogan endorses a “fishable 2020.” If you would like to join in with engaging folks in conversations about vegan lifestyles, call 443- 478-3074 or email info@openthecages.org. See http://www.eventbrite.com/event/8053745971?ref=ebtn. 24] – Support the Little Friends for Peace [Little_Friends_for_Peace@mail.vresp.com] on Sat., Sept. 7 from 8 to 11 PM on a cruise leaving from Old Town, Alexandria. RSVP at https://lffpcruisinthepotomac.eventbrite.com. Go to www.lffp.org. 25] – Usually, the Baltimore Ethical Society, 306 W. Franklin St., Suite 102, Baltimore 21201-4661, meets on Sundays, and generally there is a speaker and discussion from 10:30 to noon. On Sun., Sept. 8 the platform address is “The Community Response to Intimate Partner Violence” with Angeles Evans, community educator, TurnAround, Inc. The first platform address of the fall season will cover the various forms of abuse involved in intimate partner violence. She will offer quizzes that create conversations about intimate partner violence and highlight some stereotypes, challenges, or barriers to helping victims of violence. Her presentation will end with some brainstorming as to how to mobilize as a community to respond to and/or better serve families and victims of intimate partner violence. Angeles Evans holds a Bachelor in Social Work (BSW) from Morgan State University. She currently works as Community Educator at TurnAround, Inc, an agency that serves sexual assault, domestic violence, and human trafficking victims with its broader mission being to free Baltimore City and County from all forms of abuse. Go to http://bmorethical.org/ or Twitter: @bmorethical or Facebook: http://fb.com/bmorethical/or email ask@bmorethical.org. 26] – Join the Kadampa Meditation Center for Peace and Pancakes on Sundays at 10:30 AM at KMC Maryland, 2937 North Charles St. All are invited to participate in guided meditation and chant praying for world peace. There will be a talk based on Buddhist thought followed by brunch. Call 410- 243-3837. Brunch is $5. 27] – Gather at the No War with Syria Rally on Sun., Sept. 8 at 11 AM at the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. This is a part of a national day of action to resist military strikes in Syria the day before Congress returns from recess on Monday. Visit https://www.facebook.com/events/563464440373777/. 28] – On Sun., Sept. 8 from 12:30 to 6 PM, be at the Open Windows Festival: Celebrating the Spirit of Vatican II. Spend an afternoon at the Retreat and Conference Center at Bon Secours, 1525 Marriotsville Road, Marriotsville 21104, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. The event will host two speakers celebrating the spirit of Vatican II fifty years later. Video interviews of those who were present or directly affected by the Vatican II will be shown as well as a chance for book signing. The day will conclude with a Eucharistic Liturgy led by Fr. Ray East of the Archdiocese of Washington. The option of lunch is available at an additional cost of $10. Reservations must be made in advance. Be guided Sr. Simone Campbell and Dr. Massimo Faggioli. The cost is $25, and $35 for the lunch option. You must register for lunch in advance at 410-442-1320. Go to www.openwindowsfestival.com. 29] – On Sun., Sept. 8 from 1 to 5 PM, be a part of the 9/11 Unity Walk – Honoring Nelsen Mandela. Began with talks at the Washington Hebrew Congregation, 3935 Macomb St. NW, WDC 20016. Then visit houses of worship, before ending at the Sikh Gurdwara. There enjoy a traditional meal. There will be a stop at the Gandhi Memorial. Also hear music and poetry. Charitable activities include a shoe drive, the bagging of fresh produce, and assembling trail mix to send to the homeless. Make cards for Nelson Mandela. FOR THE SHOE DRIVE PLEASE BRING NEW OR GENTLY USED SHOES FOR ALL AGES. RSVP at http://911unitywalk2013.eventbrite.com/. 30] – On Sun., Sept. 8 at 2 PM, the Committee for Palestinian Rights (CPR) is again sponsoring a showing of the documentary film "Roadmap to Apartheid" at the East Columbia Library, 6600 Cradlerock Way, Columbia, MD 21045. The film, narrated by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Alice Walker, "puts archival footage and interviews with South Africans alongside similar material that shows what life is like for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and inside Israel." The co-directors are South African-born Ana Nogueira and Israeli-born Eron Davidson. Following the film showing, Laila El-Haddad (author, talented blogger, political analyst, and social activist) will lead the discussion. ‘Roadmap to Apartheid” – The Committee for Palestinian Rights, Howard County, is again sponsoring a showing of the award-winning documentary film “Roadmap to Apartheid” on Sunday, September 8, 2:00 p.m., at the East Columbia Library, 6600 Cradlerock Way, Columbia 21045. The film, narrated by Pulitzer prize-winning author Alice Walker, explores parallels between apartheid in South Africa and the current situation for Palestinians in Israel. A discussion is to follow. The showing is free and open to the public. For more information, email CPR_Maryland@yahoo.com. 31] – Sobriety, Violence and Injustice: The tension of abstinence-focused drug policy in Quaker values will be explored on Sun., Sept. 8 from 6:30 to 8:30 PM at William Penn House, 515 East Capitol St. SE. The presentation will explore how US drug laws create and sustain violence, are enforced in racially unjust ways and how the primary objective both historically and contemporarily is to maintain white privilege. In addition, the discussion will examine how the Quaker community has supported, either directly or through silence, the anti-narcotics laws and policies of the U.S. government and the United Nations. There will then be a discussion on how the Quaker community can develop a better understanding and response to drug policy, addiction, and racial injustice. Email info@williampennhouse.org. 32] – On Sun., Sept. 8 from 6:30 to 8 PM, the Jerusalem Center presents Al Hannouneh Society for Popular Culture - a performance of music, dance, and storytelling by one of the most highly acclaimed Palestinian folkloric societies in the Arab world. Specializing in dramatic choreography, music and dabke dance, Al Hannouneh seeks to preserve Palestinian culture and identity through artistic expression. 33] – On Sun., Sept. 8 join Healthcare-Now Maryland in a showing of the documentary "The Healthcare Movie." The filmmakers will be at the showing which will take place at 2640 St. Paul at 6:30 PM. This hour-long documentary, narrated by Kiefer Sutherland, provides the real story of how the health care systems in Canada and the United States evolved to be so completely different, when at one point they were essentially the same. Most Americans are not aware of the intensity of the political struggle that led to the universal healthcare system in Canada. Nor are they aware of the public relations campaigns begun in the early 1900’s and still active today to scare the American public away from supporting national health care. After the movie, both the filmmakers and members of Healthcare Now! Maryland will discuss the ongoing work to achieve a truly universal healthcare system in Maryland with everybody in, nobody out. 802,000 Marylanders have no health insurance (census bureau). When the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented over 400,000 Marylanders will still be uninsured. Tens of thousands more will be under-insured. Despite the Massachusetts' health reform, the rate of medical bankruptcy, the leading type of bankruptcy, will not diminish. Healthcare is a Human Right – Maryland is building a grassroots movement across the state. Go to www.mdsinglepayer.org or email HealthcareisaHumanRightMD@gmail.com. 34] – There is a weekly Pentagon Peace Vigil from 7 to 8 AM on Mondays, since 1987, outside the Pentagon Metro stop. The next vigil is Mon., Sept. 9, and it is sponsored by the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker. Email artlaffin@hotmail.com or call 202-882-9649. 35] – From Mon., Sept. 9 through Oct. 18, take part in the 40 days of prayer, fasting and advocacy for Immigration Reform! The Interfaith Immigration Coalition and Conference of Major Superiors of Men invite you to participate. Sign up at http://www.fastaction.us. 36] – Code Pink is hosting a PEACE INSURRECTION. This will be an encampment on the Hill to say NO to War on Syria till the vote goes through sometime next week. This is a 24/7 encampment to draft a People's Resolution as an alternative to war, to visit elected representatives every single day, to paint and chalk and to create visuals, to build a dialogue booth for folks to talk about long-lasting solutions to this impending invasion, and to do anything YOU want to do. Bring your chairs, sleeping bags, pots and pans, art supplies, spirit and positive energy! Camp Peace Insurrection takes place at the corner of Independence and New Jersey Aves., across from the Cannon Building. 37] – On Mon., Sept. 9 from 8 AM to 3 PM, Pax Christi, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, Franciscan Action Network, and many other mainly faith based organizations will be conducting literature drops at Congressional offices and meeting with Congresspersons and their staff to try to convince them that “War Is Still Not the Answer.” Come to the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, 200 New York Ave. NW, WDC 20001 on Monday any time. Email cooker@pppnpf.com or call 202-832-1780. 38] – The Marc Steiner Show airs Monday through Friday from 9 to 11 AM on WEAA 88.9 FM, The Voice of the Community, or online at www.weaa.org. The call-in number is 410-319-8888, and comments can also be sent by email to steinershow@gmail.com. All shows are also available as podcasts at www.steinershow.org. 39] – Join a protest – NO WAR ON SYRIA – HANDS OFF SYRIA – on Mon., Sept. 9 at 10 AM. Then at noon march to Upper Senate Park, near the U.S. Capitol. Join with the Syrian American Forum and many other anti-war groups in front of the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. If you need transportation from Baltimore, call 443-221-3775. 40] – On Mon., Sept. 9 from 5 to 6 PM, join a protest to End Gun Violence! Join the Washington Chapter of Heeding God’s Call at their second and fourth Monday of the month vigil at REALCO Guns, 6108 Marlboro Pike, District Heights, MD 20747. This is an effort to convince the gun shop owner to sign the 10-Point Code for responsible gun dealers based on the one signed with Wal-Mart by Mayors against Illegal Guns. According to the Post, Realco Guns in District Heights sold 86 guns linked to homicides within the last twenty years with 300 guns sold there being linked to non-fatal shootings, as of 2010. In that article Major Andy Ellis of the Prince George’s (MD) Police Department is quoted as saying, “I can only imagine how much lower our violent-crime rate would be if Realco sold shoes instead of guns.” Go to http://www.heedinggodscall.org/. 41] – Beyond the Classroom presents "One Day on Earth" on Mon., Sept. 9 from 7 to 9 PM at 1102 South Campus Commons, Building 1, College Park. This award-winning documentary is subtitled “The World’s Time Capsule.” It is the first film made in every country of the world on the same day – October 10, 2010! There were 19,000 volunteer filmmakers assembled by a participatory social media experiment. Visit https://www.facebook.com/events/361783123954359/. 42] – The Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore usually meets on Mondays at 7:30 PM, and the meetings take place at Max’s residence. There will be a meeting on Mon., Sept. 9. The proposed agenda will include preventing an attack on Syria, anti-drone activities, the next visit to the NSA, the trial of the CIA Six and other agenda items. Call 410-366-1637 or email mobuszewski at verizon.net for directions. To be continued. Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/. "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs

Dead at Only 24, Yemeni Anti-Drone and Pro-Democracy Activist Left Legacy of Peace and Justice

Published on Friday, September 6, 2013 by Common Dreams Dead at Only 24, Yemeni Anti-Drone and Pro-Democracy Activist Left Legacy of Peace and Justice Ibrahim Mothana (1988-2013); 'As surely as he will be missed, his work and his example will continue to inspire his colleagues, friends, and compatriots' - Jon Queally, staff writer Friends and colleagues of Yemen social justice campaigner and political activist Ibrahim Mothana have been expressing shock, sadness and loss over the early death of the 24-old-man who died in Sanaa on Thursday. Known internationally as a voice for the peaceful pro-democracy uprising in Yemen that began in 2011 and as a tireless critic of the U.S. drone campaign that has terrorized his country in recent years, Mothana was both a co-founder of the Wantan Party in Yemen and an international spokesperson for what many term the "New Yemen" envisioned by many of its citizens, especially the youth. The cause of his death was not being reported, nor were those expressing grief discussing the circumstances. In announcing Mothana's passing, the Yemen Peace Project, released a statement, which read in part: A recital of his resumé does not do Ibrahim justice, though. He was 24 years old, and as someone of that age should, he defined himself by what he hoped and planned to do, rather than what he had already done. Ibrahim was devoted to his country, and he saw in Yemen as much potential as we all saw in him. Though a harsh and realistic critic of Yemen’s flaws, Ibrahim believed in the idea of a New Yemen, which he and so many other revolutionaries struggled for. His hopefulness for his country was pragmatic; he understood better than most what it would take to build the Yemen he imagined. For everyone who knew him, it is hard to imagine the New Yemen without Ibrahim. But just as surely as he will be missed, his work and his example will continue to inspire his colleagues, friends, and compatriots through the difficult years to come. From Western journalists like Jeremy Scahill and Iona Craig who spent time with him in Yemen to other leading Yemen activists like Farea Al-muslimi who worked closely with him, the loss of Mothana was being expressed in heartfelt posts on Twitter: And others: Recounting some of his anti-drone campaigning, the Huffington Post adds: Last year, Mothana penned an op-ed in The New York Times, "How Drones Help Al Qaeda," arguing that "Drone strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join radical militants; they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and despair." This past May, Greenwald published Mothana's testimony for a Senate sub-committee when the activist was unable to attend the meeting. Mothana wrote in the testimony: "We Yemenis got our first experience with targeted killings under the Obama administration on December 17, 2009, with a cruise missile strike in al-Majala, a hamlet in a remote area of southern Yemen. This attack killed 44 people including 21 women and 14 children, according to Yemeni and international rights groups including Amnesty International." Mothana concluded, "I call on the United States to critically reflect on using targeted strikes and the existing counterterrorism policy in Yemen and to see that, it is insecurity and not security that these are creating in my country, the region, the US, and the entire world." ________________________________________ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License Source URL: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/09/06 Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/ "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs

Vote NO to attack on Syria

Friends, A copy of this letter was delivered to the offices of Rep. Elijah Cummings and to Rep. John Sarbanes. On September 4, Rep. Cummings, on WYPR, said that 95% 0f the calls to his office oppose an attack on Syria. Kagiso, Max 325 East 25th Street Baltimore, MD 21218 September 4, 2013 Rep. John Sarbanes 600 Baltimore Ave. Suite 303 Baltimore, MD 21204 Dear Representative Sarbanes, Rep. Elijah Cummings 1010 Park Avenue Suite 105 Baltimore, MD 21201 Dear Representative Cummings, We appreciate President Obama's decision to seek the advice and consent of Congress in making the decision whether to strike Syria in response to the lethal gas attacks of Aug. 21. We look forward to a full public debate as Congress fulfills its constitutional obligation. We hope that all relevant questions are answered before a decision is made, and that there will be neither a rush to judgment nor a march to folly. President Obama's proposed military authorization is simply too broad and open-ended. After debate and amendments, the final decision may be between [1] a narrower authorization limited in scope and timing, or [2] an authorization endorsing forceful diplomacy as the primary policy of the US towards the Syrian conflict. It is even possible that the authorization will fail due to intractable differences among the parties in Congress. Progressive Democrats generally oppose any military escalation likely to deepen the quagmire or set off a spiral of further escalation. Progressive Democrats generally favor forceful diplomacy instead of force uncoupled from meaningful diplomacy. Progressive Democrats are mindful that every cruise missile flying towards Damascus represents one million dollars that could be invested in health care, education, or the fight against climate change. And progressive Democrats worry about the rise of an Imperial Presidency which smothers democratic decision-making in the fog of secret wars. Therefore we oppose any Congressional military authorization and favor instead a forceful diplomacy based on path to a cease-fire and power-sharing arrangements under international supervision. To those who claim that America's global credibility reputation is on the line, we say that we must act to save America from its recent reputation for unnecessary, unaffordable and unwinnable wars. We ask why in recent days our government should be readying missiles to attack a Syrian dictatorship for massacring innocent civilians when we are funding and supporting an Egyptian dictatorship that massacres innocent civilians in Cairo. No wonder our credibility is in question. Our power is out of alignment with any discernible purpose in the eyes of most Americans. We offer these thoughts as the debate proceeds. First, it is necessary to complete a thorough investigation of the Syrian gas attacks using the most objective and rigorous standard of proof. There is no question that the deployment of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians on Aug. 21 was a violation of international morality and law. But if substantial questions remain, after a thorough investigation, as to who was actually responsible for the attack, a US decision to launch military action against the Assad government, army or bases should be deferred, out of respect for what our Declaration of Independence calls the "decent opinion of mankind". Second, take seriously the role of multilateral alliances. The United Nations Security Council will not approve of a military action against Syria. Nor does the UN Secretary-General who personally says there is no military solution. No does the Arab League endorse military action. The British government has been shaken by dissent. The Germans are silent. Only France, the former colonial power, favors military action. How does it benefit America power or reputation to act in such virtual isolation? Third, do not be drawn into the trap of escalation. Massive pressure now is being exerted to escalate the conflict in order to offset the perceived battlefield advantages of the Assad regime. But as John F. Kennedy observed, military escalation is like drinking to an alcoholic. One drink leads to another while the corpses mount. If we strike Syria, we only invite escalation and a wider war. Or as Gen. Dempsey observed in his letter to Sen. Levin, "once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid." We should ask ourselves, who benefits from deeper involvement in what could be a permanent quagmire, and at what costs? Fourth, forceful diplomacy is more important than force without diplomacy. We should escalate morally, politically and diplomatically against the Assad dictatorship while insisting that Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and all Assad's allies terminate their military assistance in what has become an ugly sectarian proxy war. Congress should call for an immediate cease-fire in place and diplomacy aimed at an interim power-sharing arrangement in a new Syria. President Obama should be armed with that message in his forthcoming summits in Europe and St. Petersburg. It is striking that President Obama has suspended a summit with Vladimir Putin over the case of whistleblower Edward Snowden while applying no such pressure to cut off the flow of Russian arms to Assad in pursuit of a cease-fire. It is equally telling that US diplomatic hostility towards Iran prevents seeking an accommodation over Syria. All talk of sovereignty aside, Syria is a broken country composed of a Sunni majority ruled over by an untenable royal dynasty representing a privileged Alawite/Shi'a minority. All the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put the Assad kingdom back together again. The battle in Syria has inflamed and attracted the Sunni minority in Iraq. Al Qaeda is not the cause of these ethno-religious uprisings, but is the malignant offspring. Fifth, begin a national conversation about the incoherence of America's Middle East policy. Widen the conversation beyond the traditional national security elite. The consistent thread of our policy should be towards greater democracy, equity and citizen participation in the region. But again and again, however, our policy reflects a double standard, or even multiple standards. To a certain extent, this pragmatism is understandable, but it is incomprehensible that our government funds the massacre of innocent Egyptian civilians by generals who overthrew an elected government, while at the same time threatening to bomb a Syrian dictatorship for the same massacring of civilians. We inflict drone punishment on Taliban sanctuaries while offering military protections for oil monarchies. It is this double standard which radicalizes so many people in the region towards jihad by providing evidence for what is taught in madrassas. Democracy and conflict resolution, not religious power struggles, competition over oil, or blind support of the Israeli Right, should be the steady standard of American foreign policy. If Congress should approve a military authorization for bombing Syria, one thing is certain. Another military action, and another congressional debate, are likely to happen again. The conversation we need will resume again. That is why Congress should seize the opportunity, in the tradition of the Fulbright and Church hearings of decades ago, to create an accountable public forum for the public debate over war and peace. Other forums of civic society should be energized to join the public debate in the spirit of the "teach ins" which spread across our campuses in response to the Vietnam escalation of 1965. The conflicts in the Middle East are only the foreign policy focal point of this debate over democracy and security. At home the shadow of a new Imperial Presidency has arisen in response to the militarized foreign policy crisis. The drone wars have escalated behind a curtain of secrecy. CIA secret operations proliferate. Our government is launching offensive and defensive cyber war operations. Big Data has enabled Big Brother spying on a scale unimagined. Whistleblowers are hounded. None of this has occurred with proper Congressional debate, decision and concurrence. Instead the public sphere meant for democratic dialogue is left to the underwhelming oversight of secret courts and intelligence committees who are bound not to speak of what they know. We need congressional resistance to this loss of democratic and constitutional power. Congress, which is closest to the voting public under our governing arrangements, is meant to share the war-making power with the executive state, raise and expend taxes for national defense, and conduct oversight over every branch of the federal bureaucracy. Congress was never meant to be a junior partner in collaboration with the executive, but an independent check on the excessive power of the state. The battle to stop an escalation over Syria is only the next chapter of the longer struggle to enrich democracy in America. In peace, Max Obuszewski, on behalf of the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore www.pdamerica.org

See film EUROPA EUROPA/Ruses for War

There is a silent peace vigil on Fri., Sept. 6 from 5 to 6 PM outside the Cathedral of the Incarnation, University Parkway and St. Paul St. The vigil is sponsored by Homewood Friends and Stony Run Meetings, and was recently moved because of the construction on Charles St. War Is Not the Answer. End gun violence. Since this is a First Friday, there will be a potluck dinner at Homewood Friends Meetinghouse, 3107 N. Charles St., Baltimore 21218 after the vigil. Then there will be a film screening. The Hiroshima-Nagasaki Commemoration Committee and others are continuing the FILM & SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS DVD SERIES. The DVDs will be shown at Homewood Friends Meetinghouse on the First Friday. After the peace vigil, there will be a potluck dinner. At 7 PM, a DVD will be shown with a discussion to follow. There is no charge, and refreshments will be available. The series theme is WHAT TO DO WHEN GOVERNMENTS VIOLATE THE LAW. The first film in the series, EUROPA EUROPA [FRANCE, 1990] will be shown on Fri., Sept. 6. It is directed by Agnieszka Holland, and had an original German title of “Hitlerjunge Solomon,” i.e. "Hitler Youth Solomon." It is based on the 1989 autobiography of Solomon Perel, a German Jewish boy who escaped the Holocaust by masquerading not just as a non-Jew, but as an elite "Aryan" German. The film stars Marco Hofschneider and Julie Delpy; and Perel appears briefly as himself in the finale. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 5, 2013 4:58 PM CONTACT: Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 Ruses for War WASHINGTON - September 5 - JOHN QUIGLEY, Quigley.2 at osu.edu Professor emeritus of international law at Ohio State University, Quigley recently wrote a piece scrutinizing the legal justifications for an attack on Syria: “John Quigley on Intervention.” He is author of the book The Ruses for War: American Interventionism Since World War II. In addition to the false claims being used to drive the U.S. to war in Iraq, he cites numerous other examples of the U.S. government making such claims: * In 1998, the U.S. government told the UN Security Council that it had launched missiles against Khartoum, Sudan, because VX nerve gas was being produced at a factory there. In fact, no nerve gas was being produced there, as later acknowledged by administration officials. * In 1993, after it launched missiles at the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service in Baghdad, the U.S. government told the Council that the circuitry found in a Renault (vehicle) at the Iraq-Kuwait border was of a type that linked it to the Iraqi intelligence service, and that the Renault was part of a plot to assassinate George Bush, who was then visiting Kuwait. As later analysis showed, the circuitry was not of a type that showed a connection to the Iraqi intelligence service. * In 1964, it told the Council that U.S. vessels had been attacked by Vietnamese vessels in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin. This information was based on reports from U.S. vessels that the vessels’ commander soon said were in error. Nonetheless, the State Department used the information before the Council and relied on it as a major rationale for a military buildup in Vietnam. * In 1954, when the elected government of Guatemala was overthrown militarily by Guatemalan military officers, the U.S. was charged before the Council with organizing the coup. It denied to the Council any involvement. In fact it organized the coup. * On three occasions, it told the Council it was invading other states because U.S. nationals were in danger there: Dominican Republic 1965, Grenada 1983, Panama 1989. In none of these instances were U.S. nationals in danger. ### A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists. Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org Source URL: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/09/05-4 Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/ "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs

N.S.A. Able to Foil Basic Safeguards of Privacy on Web

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130906&_r=0 NEW YORK TIMES September 5, 2013 N.S.A. Able to Foil Basic Safeguards of Privacy on Web By NICOLE PERLROTH, JEFF LARSON and SCOTT SHANE The National Security Agency is winning its long-running secret war on encryption, using supercomputers, technical trickery, court orders and behind-the-scenes persuasion to undermine the major tools protecting the privacy of everyday communications in the Internet age, according to newly disclosed documents. The agency has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches, Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the world, the documents show. Many users assume — or have been assured by Internet companies — that their data is safe from prying eyes, including those of the government, and the N.S.A. wants to keep it that way. The agency treats its recent successes in deciphering protected information as among its most closely guarded secrets, restricted to those cleared for a highly classified program code-named Bullrun, according to the documents, provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor. Beginning in 2000, as encryption tools were gradually blanketing the Web, the N.S.A. invested billions of dollars in a clandestine campaign to preserve its ability to eavesdrop. Having lost a public battle in the 1990s to insert its own “back door” in all encryption, it set out to accomplish the same goal by stealth. The agency, according to the documents and interviews with industry officials, deployed custom-built, superfast computers to break codes, and began collaborating with technology companies in the United States and abroad to build entry points into their products. The documents do not identify which companies have participated. The N.S.A. hacked into target computers to snare messages before they were encrypted. In some cases, companies say they were coerced by the government into handing over their master encryption keys or building in a back door. And the agency used its influence as the world’s most experienced code maker to covertly introduce weaknesses into the encryption standards followed by hardware and software developers around the world. “For the past decade, N.S.A. has led an aggressive, multipronged effort to break widely used Internet encryption technologies,” said a 2010 memo describing a briefing about N.S.A. accomplishments for employees of its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ. “Cryptanalytic capabilities are now coming online. Vast amounts of encrypted Internet data which have up till now been discarded are now exploitable.” When the British analysts, who often work side by side with N.S.A. officers, were first told about the program, another memo said, “those not already briefed were gobsmacked!” An intelligence budget document makes clear that the effort is still going strong. “We are investing in groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities to defeat adversarial cryptography and exploit Internet traffic,” the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., wrote in his budget request for the current year. In recent months, the documents disclosed by Mr. Snowden have described the N.S.A.’s reach in scooping up vast amounts of communications around the world. The encryption documents now show, in striking detail, how the agency works to ensure that it is actually able to read the information it collects. The agency’s success in defeating many of the privacy protections offered by encryption does not change the rules that prohibit the deliberate targeting of Americans’ e-mails or phone calls without a warrant. But it shows that the agency, which was sharply rebuked by a federal judge in 2011 for violating the rules and misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, cannot necessarily be restrained by privacy technology. N.S.A. rules permit the agency to store any encrypted communication, domestic or foreign, for as long as the agency is trying to decrypt it or analyze its technical features. The N.S.A., which has specialized in code-breaking since its creation in 1952, sees that task as essential to its mission. If it cannot decipher the messages of terrorists, foreign spies and other adversaries, the United States will be at serious risk, agency officials say. Just in recent weeks, the Obama administration has called on the intelligence agencies for details of communications by leaders of Al Qaeda about a terrorist plot and of Syrian officials’ messages about the chemical weapons attack outside Damascus. If such communications can be hidden by unbreakable encryption, N.S.A. officials say, the agency cannot do its work. But some experts say the N.S.A.’s campaign to bypass and weaken communications security may have serious unintended consequences. They say the agency is working at cross-purposes with its other major mission, apart from eavesdropping: ensuring the security of American communications. Some of the agency’s most intensive efforts have focused on the encryption in universal use in the United States, including Secure Sockets Layer, or SSL; virtual private networks, or VPNs; and the protection used on fourth-generation, or 4G, smartphones. Many Americans, often without realizing it, rely on such protection every time they send an e-mail, buy something online, consult with colleagues via their company’s computer network, or use a phone or a tablet on a 4G network. For at least three years, one document says, GCHQ, almost certainly in collaboration with the N.S.A., has been looking for ways into protected traffic of popular Internet companies: Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Microsoft’s Hotmail. By 2012, GCHQ had developed “new access opportunities” into Google’s systems, according to the document. (Google denied giving any government access and said it had no evidence its systems had been breached). “The risk is that when you build a back door into systems, you’re not the only one to exploit it,” said Matthew D. Green, a cryptography researcher at Johns Hopkins University. “Those back doors could work against U.S. communications, too.” Paul Kocher, a leading cryptographer who helped design the SSL protocol, recalled how the N.S.A. lost the heated national debate in the 1990s about inserting into all encryption a government back door called the Clipper Chip. “And they went and did it anyway, without telling anyone,” Mr. Kocher said. He said he understood the agency’s mission but was concerned about the danger of allowing it unbridled access to private information. “The intelligence community has worried about ‘going dark’ forever, but today they are conducting instant, total invasion of privacy with limited effort,” he said. “This is the golden age of spying.” A Vital Capability The documents are among more than 50,000 shared by The Guardian with The New York Times and ProPublica, the nonprofit news organization. They focus on GCHQ but include thousands from or about the N.S.A. Intelligence officials asked The Times and ProPublica not to publish this article, saying it might prompt foreign targets to switch to new forms of encryption or communications that would be harder to collect or read. The news organizations removed some specific facts but decided to publish the article because of the value of a public debate about government actions that weaken the most powerful privacy tools. The files show that the agency is still stymied by some encryption, as Mr. Snowden suggested in a question-and-answer session on The Guardian’s Web site in June. “Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on,” he said, though cautioning that the N.S.A. often bypasses the encryption altogether by targeting the computers at one end or the other and grabbing text before it is encrypted or after it is decrypted. The documents make clear that the N.S.A. considers its ability to decrypt information a vital capability, one in which it competes with China, Russia and other intelligence powers. “In the future, superpowers will be made or broken based on the strength of their cryptanalytic programs,” a 2007 document said. “It is the price of admission for the U.S. to maintain unrestricted access to and use of cyberspace.” The full extent of the N.S.A.’s decoding capabilities is known only to a limited group of top analysts from the so-called Five Eyes: the N.S.A. and its counterparts in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Only they are cleared for the Bullrun program, the successor to one called Manassas — both names of an American Civil War battle. A parallel GCHQ counterencryption program is called Edgehill, named for the first battle of the English Civil War of the 17th century. Unlike some classified information that can be parceled out on a strict “need to know” basis, one document makes clear that with Bullrun, “there will be NO ‘need to know.’ ” Only a small cadre of trusted contractors were allowed to join Bullrun. It does not appear that Mr. Snowden was among them, but he nonetheless managed to obtain dozens of classified documents referring to the program’s capabilities, methods and sources. Ties to Internet Companies When the N.S.A. was founded, encryption was an obscure technology used mainly by diplomats and military officers. Over the last 20 years, it has become ubiquitous. Even novices can tell that their exchanges are being automatically encrypted when a tiny padlock appears next to a Web address. Because strong encryption can be so effective, classified N.S.A. documents make clear, the agency’s success depends on working with Internet companies — by getting their voluntary collaboration, forcing their cooperation with court orders or surreptitiously stealing their encryption keys or altering their software or hardware. According to an intelligence budget document leaked by Mr. Snowden, the N.S.A. spends more than $250 million a year on its Sigint Enabling Project, which “actively engages the U.S. and foreign IT industries to covertly influence and/or overtly leverage their commercial products’ designs” to make them “exploitable.” Sigint is the acronym for signals intelligence, the technical term for electronic eavesdropping. By this year, the Sigint Enabling Project had found ways inside some of the encryption chips that scramble information for businesses and governments, either by working with chipmakers to insert back doors or by exploiting security flaws, according to the documents. The agency also expected to gain full unencrypted access to an unnamed major Internet phone call and text service; to a Middle Eastern Internet service; and to the communications of three foreign governments. In one case, after the government learned that a foreign intelligence target had ordered new computer hardware, the American manufacturer agreed to insert a back door into the product before it was shipped, someone familiar with the request told The Times. The 2013 N.S.A. budget request highlights “partnerships with major telecommunications carriers to shape the global network to benefit other collection accesses” — that is, to allow more eavesdropping. At Microsoft, as The Guardian has reported, the N.S.A. worked with company officials to get pre-encryption access to Microsoft’s most popular services, including Outlook e-mail, Skype Internet phone calls and chats, and SkyDrive, the company’s cloud storage service. Microsoft asserted that it had merely complied with “lawful demands” of the government, and in some cases, the collaboration was clearly coerced. Some companies have been asked to hand the government the encryption keys to all customer communications, according to people familiar with the government’s requests. N.S.A. documents show that the agency maintains an internal database of encryption keys for specific commercial products, called a Key Provisioning Service, which can automatically decode many messages. If the necessary key is not in the collection, a request goes to the separate Key Recovery Service, which tries to obtain it. How keys are acquired is shrouded in secrecy, but independent cryptographers say many are probably collected by hacking into companies’ computer servers, where they are stored. To keep such methods secret, the N.S.A. shares decrypted messages with other agencies only if the keys could have been acquired through legal means. “Approval to release to non-Sigint agencies,” a GCHQ document says, “will depend on there being a proven non-Sigint method of acquiring keys.” Simultaneously, the N.S.A. has been deliberately weakening the international encryption standards adopted by developers. One goal in the agency’s 2013 budget request was to “influence policies, standards and specifications for commercial public key technologies,” the most common encryption method. Cryptographers have long suspected that the agency planted vulnerabilities in a standard adopted in 2006 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and later by the International Organization for Standardization, which has 163 countries as members. Classified N.S.A. memos appear to confirm that the fatal weakness, discovered by two Microsoft cryptographers in 2007, was engineered by the agency. The N.S.A. wrote the standard and aggressively pushed it on the international group, privately calling the effort “a challenge in finesse.” “Eventually, N.S.A. became the sole editor,” the memo says. Even agency programs ostensibly intended to guard American communications are sometimes used to weaken protections. The N.S.A.’s Commercial Solutions Center, for instance, invites the makers of encryption technologies to present their products to the agency with the goal of improving American cybersecurity. But a top-secret N.S.A. document suggests that the agency’s hacking division uses that same program to develop and “leverage sensitive, cooperative relationships with specific industry partners” to insert vulnerabilities into Internet security products. By introducing such back doors, the N.S.A. has surreptitiously accomplished what it had failed to do in the open. Two decades ago, officials grew concerned about the spread of strong encryption software like Pretty Good Privacy, designed by a programmer named Phil Zimmermann. The Clinton administration fought back by proposing the Clipper Chip, which would have effectively neutered digital encryption by ensuring that the N.S.A. always had the key. That proposal met a backlash from an unlikely coalition that included political opposites like Senator John Ashcroft, the Missouri Republican, and Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, as well as the televangelist Pat Robertson, Silicon Valley executives and the American Civil Liberties Union. All argued that the Clipper would kill not only the Fourth Amendment, but also America’s global technology edge. By 1996, the White House backed down. But soon the N.S.A. began trying to anticipate and thwart encryption tools before they became mainstream. Each novel encryption effort generated anxiety. When Mr. Zimmermann introduced the Zfone, an encrypted phone technology, N.S.A. analysts circulated the announcement in an e-mail titled “This can’t be good.” But by 2006, an N.S.A. document notes, the agency had broken into communications for three foreign airlines, one travel reservation system, one foreign government’s nuclear department and another’s Internet service by cracking the virtual private networks that protected them. By 2010, the Edgehill program, the British counterencryption effort, was unscrambling VPN traffic for 30 targets and had set a goal of an additional 300. But the agencies’ goal was to move away from decrypting targets’ tools one by one and instead decode, in real time, all of the information flying over the world’s fiber optic cables and through its Internet hubs, only afterward searching the decrypted material for valuable intelligence. A 2010 document calls for “a new approach for opportunistic decryption, rather than targeted.” By that year, a Bullrun briefing document claims that the agency had developed “groundbreaking capabilities” against encrypted Web chats and phone calls. Its successes against Secure Sockets Layer and virtual private networks were gaining momentum. But the agency was concerned that it could lose the advantage it had worked so long to gain, if the mere “fact of” decryption became widely known. “These capabilities are among the Sigint community’s most fragile, and the inadvertent disclosure of the simple ‘fact of’ could alert the adversary and result in immediate loss of the capability,” a GCHQ document warned. Since Mr. Snowden’s disclosures ignited criticism of overreach and privacy infringements by the N.S.A., American technology companies have faced scrutiny from customers and the public over what some see as too cozy a relationship with the government. In response, some companies have begun to push back against what they describe as government bullying. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook have pressed for permission to reveal more about the government’s requests for cooperation. One e-mail encryption company, Lavabit, closed rather than comply with the agency’s demands for customer information; another, Silent Circle, ended its e-mail service rather than face such demands. In effect, facing the N.S.A.’s relentless advance, the companies surrendered. Ladar Levison, the founder of Lavabit, wrote a public letter to his disappointed customers, offering an ominous warning. “Without Congressional action or a strong judicial precedent,” he wrote, “I would strongly recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.” John Markoff contributed reporting. © 2012 The New York Times Company Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/ "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs

Climate Change Makes Pests Move North from the Tropics – Study

Published on Portside (http://portside.org) Climate Change Makes Pests Move North from the Tropics – Study http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/02/climate-change-crop-pests Press Association Tuesday, September 3, 2013 theguardian.com Hundreds of crop pests are advancing away from the tropics at a rate of nearly two miles a year, research has shown. The mostly likely explanation for the trend is said to be climate change as rising temperatures make new habitats more inviting. Pest invasions driven by global warming have serious implications for agriculture and food security, according to scientists. Already, between 10% and 16% of global crop production is lost to pests such as fungi, bacteria, viruses, insects and worms. Losses caused by fungi and fungi-like micro-organisms alone amount to enough to feed 8.5% of the global population. Agricultural pests are mainly spread by being carried on transported farm products. But the second most important factor in disseminating pests is weather. To investigate the likely effect of climate change, British scientists studied data on the distribution of 612 crop pests collected over the past 50 years. They found an average shift towards the north and south poles of around 1.7 miles (2.7km) per year. Pests whose traditional homes were warmer regions near the equator were branching out to new locations they would have previously found too cold. Dan Bebber, from University of Exeter, who led the research published in the journal Nature Climate Change, said: "If crop pests continue to march polewards as the Earth warms, the combined effects of a growing world population and the increased loss of crops to pests will pose a serious threat to global food security." One example of a serious weather-sensitive pest was the mountain pine beetle, Denroctonus ponderosae. Warmer weather had driven the beetle northward to destroy large areas of pine forest in the US Pacific north-west. Another was rice blast fungus, a devastating pest affecting more than 80 countries which was now attacking wheat. Considered a new disease, "wheat blast" is having a severe impact in Brazil and there are fears of it spreading further north to the US. The scientists wrote: "Observed changes in pest distributions accord with observations of wild species, direct responses of pests to warming, and with expectations for expanding pest ranges under climate change." Co-author Professor Sarah Gurr, also from University of Exeter, said: "Renewed efforts are required to monitor the spread of crop pests and to control their movement from region to region if we are to halt the relentless destruction of crops across the world in the face of climate change." Source URL: http://portside.org/2013-09-03/climate-change-makes-pests-move-north-tropics-%E2%80%93-study Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/ "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs

Professor and activist Noam Chomsky: Syria Attack Would Be "War Crime"/On Syria: The U.S. Is No Lone Ranger and Should Put That Six Shooter Away

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/266-32/19219-chomsky-syria-attack-would-be-qwar-crimeq Professor and activist Noam Chomsky. Chomsky: Syria Attack Would Be "War Crime" By Natasha Lennard, Salon 03 September 13 Even if congressional support is garnered, the antiwar linguist rejects the case for war The administration has fallen back on a standard pretext for war crimes when all else fails: the credibility of the threats of the self-designated policeman of the world." So wrote linguist and renowned antiwar voice, MIT's Noam Chomsky, in an email to HuffPo on the weekend. Chomsky argued that even if the Obama administration can garner congressional support for its planned missile strikes against Assad's regime, any such incursion would still constitute a "war crime" in abrogation of international agreements. "[T]hat aggression without UN authorization would be a war crime, a very serious one, is quite clear, despite tortured efforts to invoke other crimes as precedents," Chomsky commented. Indeed, as I noted here last week, much of the White House's case for military intervention has been couched in rhetoric about inaction in the face of evil, and the idea that the U.S. must carry the historical baton - grasped in the wars of last century - in "leading" the world against despotic regimes. Critics of the proposed strikes have not failed to highlight that the U.S. regularly both permits and supports regimes that carry out massacres against their own people. (The Egyptian army, the recipient of billions in U.S. aid yearly, comes to mind in the present context in light of three major massacres against Islamist citizens in recent weeks.) On Syria: The U.S. Is No Lone Ranger and Should Put That Six Shooter Away http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/on_syria_the_us_is_no_lone_ranger_and_should_put_that_six_shooter_away_20/ Posted on Sep 2, 2013 By Juan Cole The odd discourse in Washington around President Barack Obama’s determination to bomb Syria over the country’s use of chemical weapons assumes a moral superiority on the part of the United States and its allies on this issue that can only astonish anyone who knows the history. At the same time, the most propagandistic allegations are being made about Iran. The creation of a fetish around some sorts of weapons (i.e., chemical ones) takes the focus off others that are just as deadly to innocents. The U.S. has had a checkered history in the use of unconventional arms, and is still among the most dedicated to retaining the ability to make, stockpile and use weapons that indiscriminately kill innocent noncombatants. The British government as recently as 2012 licensed its firms to sell chemical agents that can be used as poison gas precursors to the Baath government of Syria. Although critics of Prime Minister David Cameron used phrases such as “astonishingly lax” to describe British government policy in this regard, it seems clear that Western governments value profits over morality when it comes to providing such material to seedy dictatorships. Most of Syria’s chemical weapons production technology came from “large chemical brokerage houses in Holland, Switzerland, France, Austria and Germany,” according to security information provider GlobalSecurity.org. Russia may have played a later role, though I find Western charges of Iranian involvement unlikely for reasons I’ll get to later. Nor are U.S. hands clean with regard to chemical weapons use by allies. In the Iraq-Iran War of 1980-1988, the Baath regime of Saddam Hussein deployed chemical weapons against Iranian troops at the front. Iran had a three-to-one manpower advantage over Iraq, and Hussein sought to level the playing field with gas. Notoriously, his regime also deployed poison gas against separatist Iraqi Kurds, whom he accused of allying with the enemy, Iran, during wartime. As I showed in the early days of Truthdig, the Reagan administration knew about the chemical weapons use. It nevertheless sought an alliance with the Iraqi government via Donald Rumsfeld, then-Reagan’s special envoy to the Middle East. High administration officials deflected Iran’s complaint against Iraq at the United Nations Security Council. The United States did not just ignore Iraqi use of gas. It actively protected Baghdad from international sanctions for it. At the same time, the Reagan administration licensed U.S. firms to provide deadly agents such as anthrax to Saddam Hussein. At the very least, President Obama should acknowledge the Reagan administration’s actions and apologize for them to the people of Iran (where many veterans still suffer from burned lungs) before he strikes an outraged pose toward Syria and Russia. The U.S. has committed to destroying its own once-extensive arsenal of chemical weapons, but 10 percent remain and their final disposal keeps slipping into the next decade. That Iran suffered so badly from U.S.-backed Iraqi chemical weapons use makes it especially weird that American pundits and politicians should be citing a need to deter Iran by bombing Syria. The Iranian political elite refused to deploy chemical weapons against Iraq, and its religious leader, Ali Khamenei, has condemned making, stockpiling and using weapons that kill innocent noncombatants, including nuclear arms. The U.S. and Israeli case that Iran has a militarized nuclear weapons program that seeks a warhead has never been backed by any convincing proof, and so far resembles their similar case against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which was groundless. That both countries have big nuclear weapons stockpiles of their own also makes their demand that Iran be sanctioned hypocritical at the least. Although he later had to walk it back, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani deplored the Syrian government’s use of gas against its own people, and Tehran-watchers are convinced that the Baath army’s action has provoked a heated debate within the closed Iranian elite. Current Iranian President Hasan Rouhani has condemned all chemical weapons use. Because Tehran backs the Syrian Baath government, it has publicly taken the same position as Russia, that the rebels gassed themselves. That allegation is not plausible, and it is clear that even some high ranking Iranian political figures have difficulty saying it with a straight face. Short of weapons of mass destruction, the United States has a rather sick attachment to land mines and cluster munitions. Washington used land mines in World War II, and for decades after civilians in countries such as Tunisia were still being killed by them on occasion. In Cambodia and Laos, bomb disposal teams continue the tedious and deadly work of removing munitions dropped during the Vietnam War some 40 years prior. The United States placed tens of thousands of land mines between North and South Korea, though control of them has now been given to Seoul. U.S. allies in Afghanistan also laid thousands of land mines, and years later Afghans were still losing their feet to them. The 2001 Iranian film “Kandahar” showed a gaggle of Afghans hopping on one foot. The U.S. has refused to sign the international convention against land mines, and insists that it now has “non-persistent” land mines that can be deployed and then remotely destroyed. This theory of civilian-safe land mines remains untested and seems implausible on the face of it. The U.S. makes, stockpiles and sells cluster munitions, which deploy thousands of “bomblets.” These weapons sometimes do not explode, and form a persistent danger to civilian populations in the aftermath. They are inevitably indiscriminate in their impact on noncombatants and have no place in contemporary warfare. Often children will pick them up and play with them, with fatal results. Some 83 countries have banned them, and 31 are currently suffering from the aftereffects of their use. As the 2006 Lebanon War was winding down, the Israeli military used American-supplied cluster munitions on southern Lebanon, dropping an estimated 4 million bomblets. This action was certainly a war crime, since the U.N. Security Council had already called for a cease-fire, which everyone knew would end the war shortly. The bombs had no conceivable military use. They were intended to make it dangerous for Shiite farmers to return to their homes just north of Israel. That is, they were aimed at the civilian population. Some 40 percent of the bomblets failed to explode immediately. In the year after the war ended, some 200 Lebanese noncombatants were killed by Israeli cluster bombs in south Lebanon. The United States imposed no penalties on Israel for this action, despite its own laws that forbid indiscriminate use of U.S.-supplied cluster bombs. Just this summer, the U.S. announced the sale of $630 million worth of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia. That country and Israel are among the most vigorous proponents of an attack on Syria because of its deployment of a weapon that indiscriminately killed noncombatants. They have also condemned Damascus for using cluster munitions. I am not arguing that because the United States and its allies have indiscriminately killed large numbers of innocent noncombatants in the past, the Syrian government should be held harmless for its own gas attack at Ghouta, which killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Two wrongs never make a right. I am arguing that the United States is in no moral or legal position to play the Lone Ranger here. The first steps Washington should take are to acknowledge its own implication in such atrocities and to finish destroying its chemical stockpiles and join the ban on land mines and cluster bombs. Now that we’re in the 21st century, moreover, it is time to cease using the supposedly macho language of violence in response to political challenges. Tossing a couple of Tomahawk cruise missiles on a few government facilities in Damascus is not going to deter the Syrian government from using chemical weapons, and it will not affect the course of the war. Sonni Efron, a former State Department official and now a senior government fellow at Human Rights First, has argued that the United States and Europe could have a much more effective impact by announcing that in response to the Baath provocation they were going to close the loopholes that allow Syrian banks to continue to interface with world financial institutions. This strategy would involve threatening third-party sanctions on Russian banks that provide Damascus with a financial backdoor. A united U.S.-EU push on this front would be far more consequential for the Syrian government than a limited military strike. Indeed, the Syrian regime will almost certainly welcome the cruise missiles. In the aftermath, Syria can portray itself as a hero of Arab nationalism, standing up to a bullying, imperialist West. Pro-regime demonstrations are already being planned in Iraq, Egypt and Tunisia. Domestically, President Bashar al-Assad portrays his foes as al-Qaida cadres trained and paid for by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United States. (Although there are al-Qaida affiliates among the rebels, the vast majority of the demonstrators and rebels are ordinary Syrians tired of the regime’s tyranny and economic stagnation). Assad will be in a better position to make this argument after the Tomahawks land, and some Syrians who have been on the fence may well declare for the regime for nationalist reasons. In 1998, then-President Bill Clinton fired cruise missiles at the Sudan of President Omar al-Bashir. If you don’t know, do a quick Google search for whom the sitting president of the Sudan is now. Bombs are seldom the answer to geopolitical problems. Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/ "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs

Protesting Activists' Firings, Walmart Workers Plan the Biggest Mobilization Since Black Friday

Published on Portside (http://portside.org) Protesting Activists' Firings, Walmart Workers Plan the Biggest Mobilization Since Black Friday http://www.thenation.com/blog/175995/protesting-activists-firings-walmart-workers-plan-biggest-mobilization-black-friday#axzz2dtQ1mDU2 Josh Eidelson Tuesday, September 3, 2013 The Nation blogs Walmart workers and supporters plan to mount protests in fifteen cities Thursday, a mobilization that the union-backed group OUR Walmart expects will be its largest since last November’s Black Friday strike. This week’s rallies follow an August 22 civil disobedience action at which the campaign announced a Labor Day deadline for Walmart to raise its wages to at least $25,000 per year, and reverse the terminations of twenty workers who participated in a June strike. As The Nation has reported, nearly eighty OUR Walmart members have been disciplined by the company since returning from the June walkout. OUR Walmart’s response to the alleged illegal retaliation has included protest rallies, pressure on Yahoo! CEO and Walmart board member Marissa Mayer and outreach to members of Congress. The campaign has filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that the discipline violated federal labor law. Walmart has denied wrongdoing; a spokesperson told The Nation last month that “no associates were disciplined for participating in any specific protests.” The company did not respond to a Monday request for comment regarding the strikers’ demands and their deadline, which passed yesterday without any public concession by Walmart. A Sunday mass e-mail to supporters from the allied Making Change at Walmart campaign referenced “intensified actions nationwide” Thursday if the retail giant didn’t respond by Labor Day. Fired employee Barbara Collins told The Nation prior to last month’s civil disobedience that “if they don’t reinstate us, our actions are going to be bigger and stronger every time, and this is just the beginning.” Thursday’s actions will include a march through downtown Los Angeles to the site of a proposed Walmart in Chinatown, and a demonstration in Washington, DC, where all sides are awaiting word on whether Mayor Vince Gray will veto a bill (passed by City Council in July but formally sent to his desk last Friday) that would require “large retailers” like Walmart to pay employees at least $12.50 in total hourly compensation. Thursday actions are also planned for cities in the East, West, South and Midwest: Baton Rouge, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Miami, Minneapolis, New York, Orlando, Sacramento, San Francisco and Seattle. According to the campaign, Thursday’s rallies will have the largest total turnout by Walmart employees, and the biggest overall number of participants, of any Walmart mobilization since the one-day November 23 strike last year, in which organizers say 400-some workers walked off the job and thousands of supporters turned out to support them. Since then, organizers say hundreds of workers took part in collective confrontations with local management over scheduling on April 24, and over a hundred participated in the longer June work stoppage, which included a week of protests in and around Walmart’s Arkansas hometown. United Food & Commercial Workers union official and OUR Walmart strategist Dan Schlademan told The Nation in April to expect “much bigger actions” in 2013, saying, “Either we prove it’s growing or it’s not. And we’re certainly going to prove it’s growing this year.” The OUR Walmart campaign has asked the National Labor Relations Board, whose pace and penalties labor has long charged are insufficient for protecting workers, to seek an injunction to more quickly address Walmart’s recent alleged retaliation. (The NLRB did not respond to The Nation’s request for comment last month.) According to the campaign, the NLRB recently indicated that it has found sufficient merit in some charges filed against Walmart in California last fall—including alleged illegal intimidation in the lead-up to the Black Friday strike—to issue a complaint (similar to an indictment) unless the Labor Board reaches a settlement with the company. “We don’t want to be silenced,” Collins said last month before being arrested with other OUR Walmart activists outside a Washington, DC, Walmart office last month. “We’re not going to be silenced. And we’re getting stronger every day, and we’re fighting back harder every day.” Source URL: http://portside.org/2013-09-04/protesting-activists-firings-walmart-workers-plan-biggest-mobilization-black-friday Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/ "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs

Successful blockade at nuclear weapon base Buchel/Udall needs to rethink huge spending on B61

http://www.nonukes.nl/en/news/succesful-blockade-at-nuclear-weapon-base-buchel Successful blockade at nuclear weapon base Buchel Today a group from IKV Pax Christi is joining the blockade of the German military base Büchel that hosts US nuclear weapons. Every gate of the base has been blocked since 11.55h this morning by non-violent activists from all over the world. Every gate is supporting the “Rhythm Beats Bombs”message with musical performances. Krista van Velzen, nuclear disarmament campaigner at IKV Pax Christi: 'We join this 24 hour long blockade to show solidarity with the German peace movement. Just as in the Netherlands, Germany hosts 20 American B61 nuclear weapons at the air base. Although the German government said they wanted to send them back, there are still at Büchel, this is the reason why it is necessary to protest. The nuclear weapons in Germany will be modernised in the upcoming years, just like the weapons at Volkel (the Netherlands). This modernisation costs more than 1 billion dollars, which means that these nuclear weapons will cost more than their weight in gold'. The IKV Pax Christi peace activists handed out cheese at the blockade. Benthe van de Pol, today Frau Antje: 'Cheese not nukes is our message, of course it is a joke, but with a serious undertone: it is bizarre that plans are being made to place new nuclear weapons in Germany and the Netherlands'. http://www.abqjournal.com/243904/opinion/udall-needs-to-rethink-huge-spending-on-b61.html Udall needs to rethink huge spending on B61 Daryl Kimball / Executive Director, Arms Control Association and Jay Coghlan / Executive Director, Nuclear Watch New Mexico President Barack Obama and the Pentagon announced on July 19 that they have determined that the United States can reduce the size of the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal by one-third while ensuring a strong nuclear deterrent. The president also said he will seek “bold’ reductions in tactical nuclear bombs along with Russia. At the same time, Congress has directed the Pentagon and the National Nuclear Security Administration to achieve some $500 billion in defense-related budget cuts over the next decade. Unfortunately, his National Nuclear Security Administration and the nuclear weapons labs do not seem to have gotten the message. The NNSA is aggressively planning a “life extension program” for 400 B61 nuclear bombs, 180 of which are deployed in NATO countries. According to a Pentagon audit, the cost of upgrading about 300 units of the tactical version and about 100 of the strategic version of the warhead has exploded from $4 billion to more than $10 billion. That makes the cost of each bomb twice its weight in gold. Earlier this year, Obama requested $537 million for the B61 life extension in FY 2014 (a 45 percent increase), which the House approved. But over in the Senate, appropriators cut that by $168 million. Congress can and should enforce greater budgetary and design discipline for the ambitious B61 program. For example, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chair of the Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, said in April that NNSA has studied another option for the B61 life extension program that would cost billions less. This option, known as the triple alteration or “triple-alt,” would replace only three key bomb parts that are said to be nearing the end of their useful lives in the next ten years: the bomb’s neutron generator, power source and radar system. This plan would extend the life of B61 bombs for another 10 years, according to NNSA, and would cost approximately $3 billion, according to the Defense Department. Unfortunately, New Mexico’s Sen. Tom Udall has been pushing for the gold-plated, $10 billion version of the B61 bomb. Earlier this year, he threatened to vote against the entire $35 billion Energy and Water Appropriations bill unless measures were included to possibly restore that money, later saying that he wanted to protect 200 jobs in New Mexico. Worse, the gold-plated plan Udall and the Los Alamos and Sandia labs are seeking would also give the B61 significant new military capabilities. Proposed new tail fin guidance kits would transform the B61 into the world’s first nuclear “smart” bomb for delivery on the new, stealthy, and costly F35 bomber. With the end of the Cold War, there is still no identifiable threat that would justify this expensive and potentially provocative new military capability. The NNSA says its main goal is simply to refurbish the nuclear and nonnuclear components to assure extended service life, and improve the safety, reliability, and security of the bomb. However, there are better ways to achieve goals of maintaining safety, security and reliability of the B61 at lower cost. Safety has far more do with how the weapons are handled rather than the bombs themselves. Better security can be achieved by withdrawing the United States’ B61 bomb from the European air bases, where they serve no military role for NATO’s defense. When Congress reconvenes this fall, the House and Senate will have to reconcile differences in their budget allocations for the B61 program. Udall should take a closer look at the costly B61 life extension program, support less expensive alternatives and encourage mission and jobs diversification at the labs. But most of all, he needs to do more to prevent the labs from designing new military capabilities into existing nuclear weapons. Unnecessary and expensive improvements to U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities make it all the more difficult to pressure other countries not to acquire them. Copyright © 2013 Albuquerque Journal | Albuquerque, N.M. Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/ "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs

Obama Will Launch a Huge Propaganda Blitz, and May Attack Syria Even if he Loses the Vote in Congress

Published on Portside (http://portside.org) Obama Will Launch a Huge Propaganda Blitz, and May Attack Syria Even if he Loses the Vote in Congress http://www.nationofchange.org/obama-will-launch-huge-propaganda-blitz-and-may-attack-syria-even-if-he-loses-vote-congress-13781322 Norman Solomon : Monday, September 2, 2013 Nation of Change Grassroots pressure has forced President Obama to seek approval from Congress for an attack on Syria. But Obama is hell-bent on ordering a missile assault on that country, and he has two very important aces in the hole. The administration is about to launch a ferocious propaganda blitz that will engulf a wide range of U.S. media. And as a fallback, the president is reserving the option of attacking Syria no matter what Congress does. Until Obama’s surprise announcement Saturday that he will formally ask Congress for authorization of military action against Syria, the impassioned pitches from top U.S. officials in late August seemed to be closing arguments before cruise missiles would hit Syrian targets. But the pre-bombing hyper spin has just gotten started. The official appeals for making war on yet another country will be ferocious. Virtually all the stops will be pulled out; all kinds of media will be targeted; every kind of convoluted argument will be employed. Hell hath no fury like war-makers scorned. Simmering rage will be palpable from political elites who do not want to see Congress set an unprecedented precedent: thwarting the will of a president who wants Pentagon firepower unleashed on another country. President Obama and top Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will twist every arm they can to get a “yes” vote for attacking Syria. Meanwhile, most mainline media pundits, numbingly addicted to war, will often chastise and denigrate foes of authorization. But we have a real chance to prevent a U.S. attack. One cogent argument after another, from intelligence veterans [1] and policy analysts [2] and weapons experts [3], has debunked the messaging for war on Syria. And some members of Congress -- not nearly enough, but some -- have begun to speak up with cogent opposition. One of NPR’s inside-the-box hosts of “All Things Considered” on August 30 asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) about the Obama administration’s claim that missile strikes on Syria would be “a limited action” and not “war.” Congresswoman Lofgren replied: “I think that anyone who argues that shooting missiles and dropping bombs on another country is not an act of war has got some further education warranted. If somebody shot cruise missiles at Washington for only one day, we would still consider it an act of war, wouldn’t we?” Not many members of Congress have Lofgren’s clarity, and many of their votes on authorization are up for grabs. Each of us can help affect the outcome by demanding that our senators and representative oppose the war resolution. We should make our voices heard in all sorts of public venues. The president’s move for a congressional vote should cause a major escalation of anti-war activism. A straw in the wind: during just a few hours after Obama’s announcement on Saturday afternoon, nearly 10,000 people took the initiative via RootsAction.org to email members of Congress with a “No Attack on Syria” message [4]. National opinion polling and momentum inside Congress indicate that we can defeat Obama’s war resolution. It’ll be a tremendous fight, but we can prevail. But even if Obama loses the vote in Congress, there’s a very real danger that he will proceed with ordering an attack on Syria. Burying the lead almost a dozen paragraphs into a September 1 news story [5], the New York Times mentioned in passing: “White House officials indicated that Mr. Obama might still authorize force even if Congress rejected it.” A careful reading of Obama’s Rose Garden announcement on Saturday verifies that he never quite said he will abide by the decision of Congress if it refuses to approve an attack on Syria. Instead, the president filled his statement [6] with hedging phrases, detouring around any such commitment with words like these: * “I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. … And I'm prepared to give that order. But … I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy.” * “I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.” * “Over the last several days, we've heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.” * “And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.” * “I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.” At the grassroots, people across the United States will be working very hard to prevent congressional approval of an attack on Syria. That activism is imperative. But we should also understand that Obama has not committed himself to abide by the decision that Congress makes. This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/obama-will-launch-huge-propaganda-blitz-and-may-attack-syria-even-if-he-loses-vote-congress-13781322 [7]. All rights are reserved. Source URL: http://portside.org/2013-09-02/obama-will-launch-huge-propaganda-blitz-and-may-attack-syria-even-if-he-loses-vote Links: [1] http://consortiumnews.com/2013/08/30/an-appeal-to-gen-dempsey-on-syria/ [2] http://www.thenation.com/blog/175928/moral-obscenities-syria [3] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/chemical-weapons-west-global-policeman [4] http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=8463 [5] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp [6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-aug-31-statement-on-syria/2013/08/31/3019213c-125d-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html [7] http://www.nationofchange.org/obama-will-launch-huge-propaganda-blitz-and-may-attack-syria-even-if-he-loses-vote-congress-13781322 Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/ "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs