Choice America Network

IN SEARCH OF PEACE

By Monica Benderman 

There have been protests, rallies, concerts, camps, and mobilizations.  There have been marches from East to West and North to South. There have been candlelight vigils, world-wide conferences, fasts, arrests, intrusions, interruptions, standoffs, Congressional Debates, Congressional Briefs. There is a Peace Movement, a Peace Academy, a Peace Coalition, an Institute for Peace, Voters for Peace, a Peace Party, Declarations of Peace and a Prayer for Peace. There have been wars.

All of this has been in search of Peace. 

Does anyone know what we are looking for? 

WHAT is Peace?

Is Peace quiet, or loud?

Is Peace black, white, red, brown or blue?  

Is Peace of community, or is it solitary?  

Does Peace come in the written word or is it shouted from the rooftops?  

Can Peace be held?  

Do we dream Peace?

Is Peace made, or bought, or sold?  

Can Peace be taught?

Can Peace be regulated?  

Is Peace available on demand?

Can Peace be given to others?

Is Peace quality or quantity?

Is Peace uniform?   

If our mind is “under the influence” can we see Peace when it’s with us?

Does Peace have requirements?   

Does Peace have needs?

Is Peace Democratic, Socialist, Communist? 

Is Anarchy Peace? 

Does Peace require order and discipline?  

Is Peace free?

When we get to Peace, how will we know we are there?  

Will we all think alike?  

Will we never disagree?  

Must we all sound the same?

Will we all know equally, and if we do, how will we know it?

Will we lose our need to question, to wonder, to hope, to learn?

Will we lose our desire to achieve?

Will we die?

Will we cry?  

If we can look another in the eye and see ourselves staring back, is it Peace?

How do I know that your peace is my peace?

How do you know that my peace is yours?

If I believe in a different dream and you tell me I’m wrong, is it Peace?   

If I speak a different language and you ignore me and say you cannot understand, is it Peace? 

If I practice a different religion and you run from me as if from an infidel, is it Peace?   

If I love in a manner you cannot recognize and you say I do not know how to feel, is it Peace?  

If the voice in my heart speaks to me in words you cannot hear and you say I am not good, is it Peace? 

Because you stand on a platform with a microphone in hand and demand that I follow you as you lead me to Peace, how can I trust that I will get there?  

What is Peace?

Copyright 2006 The Benderman Foundation

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

JonBenét Died - And Bush Lied?

by Thom Hartmann

I was on the air doing my radio program two weeks ago when the story came down the wire that the killer of JonBenét Ramsey had been captured in Thailand just hours earlier. I opened the microphone and said words to the effect of, "Today there must be something really awful going down for the Republicans. Maybe Rove really will be indicted. Maybe Cheney. Maybe some terrible revelation about Bush. And if there isn't, today will be the day they'll toss out the unsavory stories - like gutting an environmental law or wiping out pension plans - that they don't want covered."

Apparently it was worse than I'd imagined.

That same morning - just hours after the JonBenét information hit the press and just after I got off the air - it was revealed that US District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor had ruled that George W. Bush and now-CIA Director Michael Hayden had committed multiple High Crimes, Misdemeanors, and felonies, both criminal and constitutional. If her ruling stands, Bush and Hayden could go to prison.

As Judge Taylor said in her "ACLU v. NSA" decision (available here): "In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] forbids."

When somebody acts "as FISA forbids," the law is pretty clear about the penalties. As you can read here, when somebody - anybody - breaks the FISA law, they are subject to "a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both."

Further, in the case of a president or NSA director, the law specifies that federal agents and courts have the authority to arrest and prosecute: "There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed."

Judge Taylor went on to point out that Bush had not only broken the law, but that he had also violated the Constitution - which many legal scholars would suggest is clearly an impeachable offense. In Judge Taylor's words:

"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments [the Bill of Rights], has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well."

But the media didn't notice. They were too busy with the story of the child-killer who had finally, after a decade, been found and captured. As the Think Progress blog noted:

Yesterday, a federal judge in Michigan issued "a sweeping rebuke of the once-secret domestic-surveillance effort the White House authorized following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." The ruling was "a significant blow to Bush's attempts to expand presidential powers," but you wouldn't know that by watching last evening's network newscasts.

Think Progress went on to chronicle how much time the three big networks had devoted to the two stories that first night:

NBC - 7 minutes 39 seconds on the Ramsey story, only 27 seconds on the NSA

CBS - 3 minutes 23 seconds on the Ramsey story, only 25 seconds on the NSA

ABC - 4 minutes 3 seconds on the Ramsey story, only 2 minutes on the NSA

Within a few days, the story of the President being found guilty of both imprisonable felonies and impeachable violations of the Constitution had vanished from the mainstream media altogether.

This isn't the first time bad news for Republicans has been coincidentally eclipsed by Suddenly Huge Stories.

Keith Olbermann first compiled, almost a year ago on his "Countdown" program on MSNBC, a list of ten "coincidences" wherein bad news for the Bush administration (or, during the election, good news for John Kerry) was immediately followed by terror alerts that grabbed the headlines and diverted the attention, Teflon-like, away from Republicans and into a media frenzy.

Olbermann's list is now up to 13 of these odd "coincidences." An administration that would out a CIA agent and bring down an entire counterterrorism operation just to punish a former ambassador who dared to speak out about administration lies may well be easily capable of cooking up news-grabbing "coincidences."

And apparently there's some fire to go with that smoke. As USA Today reported ("Ridge Reveals Clashes On Alerts" by Mimi Hall, 10 May 2005):

"The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says. ...

"'More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it,' Ridge told reporters. 'Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, "For that?"'"

By coincidence, when Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy made her first announcement, transcribed by the Rocky Mountain News, she mentioned her work with Bush's Department of Homeland Security several times, naming agents of that department, and pointing out that her own investigator, Mark Spray, had been sent off to Thailand a week earlier "with little more than four hours notice."

It probably took Judge Anna Diggs Taylor around a week to wrap up the wording of her decision, and if the NSA were spying on her without a warrant, the timing of sending off a Boulder agent just in time to generate a sensational headline a week later would be no problem.

In a way, it would be nothing new: Republican operatives working out of Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch's office successfully hacked into the computers of and spied on several prominent Democrats, most notably Massachusetts Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, for over a year from the Spring of 2002 through April of 2003. As The Boston Globe noted on January 22, 2004, the memos were then leaked at useful moments to The Washington Times, Bob Novak, and others:

"Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The Globe.

"From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would fight -- and with what tactics.

"The office of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched an investigation into how excerpts from 15 Democratic memos showed up in the pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website last November.

"With the help of forensic computer experts from General Dynamics and the US Secret Service, his office has interviewed about 120 people to date and seized more than half a dozen computers -- including four Judiciary servers, one server from the office of Senate majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, and several desktop hard drives.

"But the scope of both the intrusions and the likely disclosures is now known to have been far more extensive than the November incident, staffers and others familiar with the investigation say.

"The revelation comes as the battle of judicial nominees is reaching a new level of intensity. Last week, President Bush used his recess power to appoint Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, bypassing a Democratic filibuster that blocked a vote on his nomination for a year because of concerns over his civil rights record."

Investigations into the "computer glitch" have been blocked by Senate Republicans for three years now, and the data was used to successfully torpedo several of Kennedy's and other Democrats' efforts against Bush's federal judicial appointments of right-wing extremists.

So we have Republicans who have admitted spying illegally. Who brag about it. And who have evidently - according to Tom Ridge - played the media like a violin for years. Could it be that the Karr/Ramsey case is another Soviet-style manipulation of the media?

Or is that too paranoid to contemplate?

Tragically, there are virtually no investigative reporters left in America, and the few who are still working find incredible roadblocks - and over the past year the threat of imprisonment - when looking into the workings of the Bush administration's intelligence services.

So, at the worst for Republicans who trot out "news" and "terror alerts" to misdirect our attention, this will probably just be chalked up as Coincidence Number 14 on Keith Olbermann's list.

Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network and Sirius. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent book, just released, is "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It." Other books include: "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People," and "What Would Jefferson Do?" 

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

Election 2006 & World War III

By Robert Parry

As Americans go to the polls in two months, they should have one thought fixed in their minds: they will be voting on whether to commit the nation to fighting World War III against large segments of the world’s one billion Muslims. Beyond the cost in blood and treasure, this war will mean the end of the United States as a democratic Republic.

Those are the stakes that were made clear by George W. Bush in an alarmist speech to an association of U.S. military officers on Sept. 5. He declared that the United States must battle not only likely or even possible threats from terrorists, but the most fantastical dreams of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda about a mystical global “caliphate.”

Adopting some of the most extreme rhetoric favored by his neoconservative advisers, Bush also broadened the “war on terror” beyond al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists and the Sunni-dominated Iraqi insurgency to include the Shiite-run Hezbollah movement in Lebanon and the Shiite government of Iran.

“As we continue to fight al-Qaeda and these Sunni extremists inspired by their radical ideology, we also face the threat posed by Shia extremists, who are learning from al-Qaeda, increasing their assertiveness and stepping up their threats,” Bush said.

“This Shia strain of Islamic radicalism is just as dangerous, and just as hostile to America, and just as determined to establish its brand of hegemony across the broader Middle East,” Bush continued. “And the Shia extremists have achieved something that al-Qaeda has so far failed to do: In 1979, they took control of a major power, the nation of Iran, subjugating its proud people to a regime of tyranny, and using that nation’s resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue their radical agenda.”

Bush also cited his determination to defeat Hezbollah, a Shiite movement in Lebanon that is now a prominent part of the elected Lebanese government and broadly popular because its militia battled the Israeli army when it invaded Lebanon in July.

Bush referred to Hezbollah’s leader as “the terrorist Nasrallah,” suggesting the United States has joined Israel in its determination to kill Sheikh Sayyad Hassan Nasrallah who was rated the most respected leader in the Middle East by an August 2006 poll in Egypt, which is considered one of Washington’s staunchest regional allies.

Ranked second in that Egyptian poll was Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, another target of the Bush administration. By contrast, Egypt’s pro-American president Hosni Mubarak wasn’t even in the top 10, coming in 11th. Polls across the Middle East also have shown almost universal disapproval of the Bush administration and its policies.

So, Bush has set the United States on course to battle not only the stateless terrorists of al-Qaeda and the stubborn insurgents in Iraq but Islamic political leaders who have widespread support among the Muslim masses. How the United States would win such a war or even assemble the vast numbers of soldiers needed is hard to comprehend.

'World War III'

Bush’s virtual declaration of war on the Islamic world ranks as possibly the most ambitious military plan in American history – and without doubt the most reckless. This so-called “long war,” which Bush’s followers hail as “World War III,” would mean fighting large portions of a religious movement that has the allegiance of about one-sixth of the planet’s population.

Muslims are concentrated in nations from northern Africa to East Asia, but also include large numbers in Europe and North America.

Nevertheless, in his address to the military officers, Bush talked bravely about how confident he is that the United States will win this war. “America will not bow down to tyrants,” he declared to applause.

Bush’s experience over the past five years, however, suggests that his strategy would require a full-scale transformation of the United States into a warrior nation, committed to a virtual endless struggle against any and all Islamic extremists who harbor thoughts of power, no matter how fanciful those imaginings might be.

A key point in Bush’s argument is that al-Qaeda has expressed a dream of creating a “caliphate” reaching from Spain to Indonesia. Bush described the steps to this empire as starting with “numerous, decentralized operating bases across the world, from which they can plan new attacks, and advance their vision of a unified, totalitarian Islamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the free world.”

But the reality is that prior to Bush’s presidency, al-Qaeda was a marginal movement in the Islamic world, driven out of countries across northern Africa, hounded by secular governments in the Middle East, and expelled even from the Sudan.

In summer 2001, as Bush brushed aside CIA warnings about bin Laden’s plans to strike inside the United States, al-Qaeda leaders were holed up in caves in Afghanistan, literally chased to the ends of the earth.

Then, after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington – and the U.S. counterattack in Afghanistan – bin Laden fled to the mountains of Tora Bora where he apologized to his followers for leading them to what looked like defeat both militarily and politically, since the vast majority of Muslims had joined the rest of the world in condemning the 9/11 attacks.

At that crucial moment, the Saudi terrorist leader set off on horseback along with a small band of supporters and was surprised to find that Bush hadn’t ordered in U.S. troops to cut off al-Qaeda’s escape routes. Bush already was shifting his focus to Iraq, which was governed by a secular dictator who had persecuted Islamic extremists like bin Laden. [See, for instance, Ron Suskind’s account in The One Percent Doctrine.]

Military Blunder

The failure to trap or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora might rank as one of modern history’s worst military blunders. But in his Sept. 5 speech, Bush instead cited other historical failures – what he called missed opportunities to eliminate Lenin and Hitler when they were living in obscurity and writing about their improbable dreams of power.

“In the early 1900s, an exiled lawyer in Europe published a pamphlet called ‘What Is To Be Done?’ – in which he laid out his plans to launch a communist revolution in Russia,” Bush said. “The world did not heed Lenin’s words, and paid a terrible price. …

“In the 1920s, a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews. The world ignored Hitler’s words, and paid a terrible price.”

But the problem with Bush’s history lesson is that wiping out some future Lenin or Hitler would require killing or imprisoning anyone who wrote about political change in a way that rulers considered objectionable or threatening at that time. While “predictive assassination” might eliminate a Lenin or a Hitler, it also might kill a Mandela or a Jefferson.

What Bush appears to be advocating is the end of free speech and free thought, or at least the regulation and punishment of speech and thought that he disdains. Bush is extending his concept of “preemptive war” – launching attacks against countries that might present a future threat to the United States – to “preemptive thought control,” eliminating political opponents who might pose some future threat.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the U.S. government from criminalizing speech. But Bush is indicating that he and his political followers believe that, amid the “war on terror,” it is justifiable to do just that.

Al-Qaeda Plot

In another chilling passage in his speech, Bush laid out a scenario for labeling criticism of him in the U.S. news media as part of al-Qaeda’s terrorist strategy. Bush claimed that bin Laden wrote to Taliban leader Mullah Omar about launching “a media campaign … to create a wedge between the American people and their government.”

Bush said this media campaign would send the American people messages, including “that their government [will] bring them more losses, in finances and casualties.” Bush continued that bin Laden’s media plan “aims at creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan.”

Bush cited this supposed al-Qaeda manipulation of the U.S. media as one of the reasons that “bin Laden and his allies are absolutely convinced they can succeed in forcing America to retreat and causing our economic collapse. They believe our nation is weak and decadent, and lacking in patience and resolve. And they’re wrong.”

As Bush defines domestic criticism of his war’s costs “in finances and casualties” as part of a terrorist scheme, it’s not hard to imagine how Bush’s devoted followers will react. Any expression of concern that Bush is charting a course toward mad destruction will be attacked as somehow acting in concert with terrorists.

Though Bush has said that his goal in waging his vague and seemingly endless “war on terror” is to defend freedom, the reality behind Bush’s grim vision is the emergence of an American totalitarianism where objectionable thought will be repressed and dissent will be equated with treason.

The President has now made clear that he wants the Nov. 7 congressional elections to be a referendum on whether Americans will follow him into this dark future.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

SUPPORT THE TROOPS? 

  PROVE IT!

By Monica Benderman

In 2003, 60% of the American public supported the invasion of Iraq.  Based on the information at the time, the majority of the American public "supported the troops" in their efforts to topple a radical, tyrannical government that purportedly threatened our American way of life.

United States citizens rallied as soldiers said goodbye to families, homes and peace to invade Iraq and bring "freedom" to its people and "security" to ours. 

Members of anti-war groups were ostracized and anyone who questioned the actions demanded of the soldiers was called "unpatriotic" and "unsupportive."  It was the duty and obligation of the American soldier to serve on the frontlines in defense of the freedom of the United States of America. 

OBLIGATION. 

Three years later over 60% of the American public now opposes the actions in Iraq.  Based on the information of this time, the majority of the American public no longer supports the war in Iraq, and activists are now working to topple what they consider to be another "radical, tyrannical government" that purportedly threatens our American way of life.

Activists rally together to encourage soldiers to say goodbye to careers, to leave their units and, in some instances, families and walk away from what these activists declare to be an illegal war.  They claim it is the responsibility and obligation of the American soldier to serve on the frontlines in a new war against the American government for misleading this country into an immoral and illegal action.

RESPONSIBILITY.

There are reportedly 40,000 military personnel now AWOL and Deserted from ranks in this country, each having broken several military regulations in the process.  They stay gone, knowing that to return means facing stiff consequences for having violated the law.   Peace activists are busy calling them back, seeking attorneys to defend their actions by citing the illegality of the war as justification. 

A Lieutenant now stands to be court-martialed for making his own assessment of the illegality of the war and speaking out against the decision of the government.  This Lieutenant made a public refusal to deploy, thus violating military law. 

These soldiers claim an allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America - the LAW of our land.  Where is the allegiance when they are so willing to break the law?

ALLEGIANCE.   

Civilians continue to cheer these defiant soldiers on, encouraging them to break regulations, to risk their personal freedom in an effort to prove that our administration has broken the law.  Once again civilians have turned to the soldiers to rely on their courage to do what civilians are not willing to accept responsibility for -- fight for their freedom.

Civilians claim to "support the troops" and rally around those soldiers who speak out with the encouragement of eager by-standers - BY-STANDERS --- remember -- that is all they can be. 

Soldiers stand alone - no matter how many thousands of people circle them - soldiers who act on their conscience, stand alone.

Sgt. Kevin Benderman was just released from military prison having served a 15-month sentence for allegedly refusing to deploy on a second tour of duty in Iraq.  He used the legal means available to protest an unjust, immoral military action, and filed a Conscientious Objector application on moral and ethical grounds.  He not only listened to his conscience, but he acted on it, and defended the foundation of this country in his actions.  He broke no law, but spoke out against the immoral and unjust actions of those who chose to violate laws in an effort to punish him for standing up for his principles.  In his efforts, he defended the rights of soldiers to live by their conscience and make a moral choice to serve their country and participate in life as their own beliefs and values dictated.  His actions do not support breaking laws to defend one's conscience, they do support standing against those in positions of leadership who violate our Constitution, and facing the consequences that inevitably come for having done so.  It is by facing actions we know to be unjust with a firm adherence to principle and rule of law, that we can bring justice to those who believe they are above the law.

Sgt. Benderman stood alone.  He alone faced his command.  He alone faced the judge.  He alone faced the sentence. 

Supporters cheered, encouraged and at times assisted.  All of this was greatly appreciated, but in the end it was one man and one battle waged. 

It is time for the citizens of the United States of America to face their own responsibility. 

Activists claim this war is illegal.  THEN PROVE IT - in a Federal Court of Law.  Please.

It is past time for the citizens of this country to step up and act as responsible citizens.

A US military court is not the place to wage a battle over the illegality of the war. 

A FEDERAL COURT is.

A soldier sworn to defend his Constitution is not the party responsible for holding our administration accountable for allegedly corrupt actions.

THE UNITED STATES CITIZEN is.

Our soldiers have done enough.  It is time for the citizens of these United States to accept their responsibility as established by the Law of our land - our Constitution.

If soldiers are to be expected to refuse illegal orders, then it is up to the civilian attorneys, the United States citizens and the United States Congress to give these soldiers the legal justification to do so.  Organizations, attorneys, activists have produced countless pages of documentation citing hundreds of laws broken in the prosecution of this war, and yet they rely on soldiers in military courts to fight their battles. 

The battle a soldier wages when his conscience says "no more" is one of morality and ethics - and it is one man standing alone. 

Where is your courage, America?  Where is your adherence to duty, to responsibility, to allegiance to what is RIGHT? 

When will you step out from behind the banners, the yellow ribbons, the coffins, and boots and fight for your freedom and your rights? 

When will you lay down your signs of protest and pick up the Constitution and read it - then ACT on it?  When will you stop sending our soldiers to jail to defend what you believe? 

The war is illegal?  Then PROVE IT -- so the soldiers can come home - so those daring to stand up for their conscience and morality have the legal defense you claim exists? 

You say you "support the troops" -- then PROVE IT -- in a court of law, so that soldiers like Sgt. Kevin Benderman no longer have to stand alone.

Copyright 2006 Choice America Network

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK