Bay . Area . United . Against . War
|
||
|
BAUAW NEWSLETTER Subscribe/Unsubscribe
Saturday, October 23, 2004
BAUAW NEWSLETTER-SATURDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2004---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* END THE U.S. OCCUPATION OF IRAQ! BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW! MARCH AND RALLY TO STOP THE WAR NOW! WEDNESDAY, NOV. 3RD, 5PM POWELL AND MARKET-MARCH TO 24TH & MISSION ST., S.F. ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* VOTE YES ON N! MEETING THURSDAY, OCT. 28, 7PM, GLOBAL EXCHANGE, 2017 MISSION STREET, SUITE 303 (NEAR 16TH & MISSION STREETS) ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* NEXT BAUAW MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 7 P.M. 1380 VALENCIA STREET (BETWEEN 24TH & 25TH STREETS) Dear All, One thing is for sure, the war is not over and a new, massive Offensive against the people of Iraq is about to begin-right after the elections, of course. We can't let this go on. We have to come together in a massive outpouring of opposition to this war- bigger than Feb. 15/16. Vote Yes on N! Bring all the troops home now! Money for Human Needs, not war! All out Nov. 3rd, 5pm, Powell and Market Streets, S.F. March to 24th and Mission. Come to the meeting with your ideas for building these actions and for future actions. Peace and solidarity, Bonnie ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 1) An Evening of Anti-War Culture: Art, Comment, Spoken Word, Poetry, Music in support of Prop N Saturday, October 23, 4-7 PM 523 Gallery, 523 Sutter between Powell and Mason near Union Square 2) BVHP mothers fight for their children's environmental health by Marie Harrison http://www.sfbayview.com/102004/bvhpmothers102004.shtml 3) After Terror, a Secret Rewriting of Military Law By TIM GOLDEN WASHINGTON October 24, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/international/worldspecial2/24gitmo.html?h p&ex=1098590400&en=65eec9e56f90971f&ei=5094&partner=homepage 4) Rebel Attacks Kill 12 Iraqis; G.I.'s Injured By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. BAGHDAD, Iraq October 24, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/international/middleeast/24iraq.html?hp&ex =1098590400&en=34534b10fa606fde&ei=5094&partner=homepage 5) CORRUPTION ACCUSATIONS Memos Warned of Billing Fraud by Firm in Iraq By ERIK ECKHOLM October 23, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/politics/23whistle.html 6) Wife of Soldier Sentenced in Prison Abuse Scandal Speaks Out By Brian Witte The Associated Press Baltimore Friday 22 October 2004 http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102304V.shtml 7) Stand in Solidarity with the People of Haiti 8) Safeguarding Colombia's Oil By JUAN FORERO PUERTO VEGA, Colombia October 22, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/business/worldbusiness/22colombia.html?ore f=login&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 1) An Evening of Anti-War Culture: Art, Comment, Spoken Word, Poetry, Music in support of Prop N Saturday, October 23, 4-7 PM 523 Gallery, 523 Sutter between Powell and Mason near Union Square Art: OUTRAGE exhibit of 60 paintings and sculpture by Sheila Haligan-Waltz www.outrage2004.org Program Includes: > Matt Gonzalez, President of SF Board of Supervisors > Neeli Cherkovski, writer in residence New College Spoken word by members of the Molotov Mouths * Outspoken Word Troupe > School of the Arts Creative Writing Program Students > Ilya Kaminski > Music by John Duke > and more Refreshments served Suggested donation $5-$250 No one turned away for lack of funds If you want to be in the program contact Jim Dorenkott, 415-240-8839 More info: contact Howard Wallace 415-861-0318 ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 2) BVHP mothers fight for their children's environmental health by Marie Harrison http://www.sfbayview.com/102004/bvhpmothers102004.shtml With San Francisco's No. 1 polluter, the Hunters Point power plant, as a backdrop, BVHP residents teach about environmental racism at a People's Earth Day celebration. Photo: www.greenaction.org (Go to web site to view image.) Young mothers straight out of Hunters Point - fighting for the environmental health of their community. It's a great story and a source of pride for all of us! Tessie Ester, coordinator for the "Mothers Committee" and president of the Huntersview Tenants Association said it best: "We want thing to change. We have to fight for our community and our children. We know we can't do it all, but it's time each one of us did something." She is always emotional when she is talking about her community: "You realize that people in Bay View Hunters Point are still eating mercury contaminated fish? It's a disgrace that our people are getting cancer because nobody took the time to tell them the simple truth." That was one of the first projects that the Mothers Committee took on. Fifteen mothers canvassed the community door-to-door, handing out leaflets on the dangers of subsistence fishing and telling their neighbors about the dangers of eating fish from the Bay. Toxins like DDE, chlordane, selenium, mercury and dioxins. "These were things we had never heard of," said Ester. "It's no wonder we have one of the highest rates of infant mortality in the Bay Area." The flier the Mothers Committee put out explained the dangers of each chemical and the health risks when toxins accumulate in the body. "It was tough to decide where to begin," said Sabrina Warren, mother of three. "This community is so screwed up - it's a toxic soup. "She stops to listen to her 8-year-old talk about school work and continues, "I still feel like Hunters Point Power Plant poses the biggest danger to our children. The Mothers Committee did research on the plant. Did you know that it sends up 600 tons of pollution every year!" She looks angry and continues, "It's about time that we stop being sick and just get plain mad! Gov. Schwarzenegger and Mayor Newsom better start listening, because we're going to come gunning for them next. And the ISO! Who gave these people the right to make decisions about our lives? They don't even live here." The Mothers Committee started out more than a year ago as a collaboration between Huntersview Tenants Association and Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice. The official name was "Bayview Hunters Point Mothers Environmental Health and Justice Committee," but that was a mouthful, so soon it was shortened to the Mothers Committee. The goal is to educate a new generation of environmental advocates, mothers from public housing, to fight for their own and their children's futures. Mothers Committee meetings were always open to the public and tended to be spirited. Participants know first hand how their community is being destroyed by pollution and neglect. PG&E was a favorite subject. Everyone had a horror story about the plant or their electric bill. Early on, it became a priority for the Mothers Committee. "Everyone knows that that plant should have been closed down years ago," said Monica Autry. "Government agencies look right through you like you were invisible. Our young men and woman can't get jobs and can't take care of their families - and to add insult to injury, die a little at a time to keep the lights on in other parts of the Bay Area." "Remember how Willie Brown said we'd get jobs when they put in the light rail?"she asks. "We all know what happened to that promise." The Mothers Committee set their targets high. They lobbied the city, state agencies and even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They also circulated a petition calling on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Independent System Operator (ISO) to remove the Reliability Must Run Contract from PG&E's Hunters Point Power Plant. Going door to door, they collected more than 5,000 signatures that they plan to deliver to the state capital. "We've listened to promises long enough,"says Ester, "Now it's time for action." The Mothers Committee is reaching out to other neighborhoods in other areas of San Francisco to educate them on what's happening in Bay View Hunters Point. "We're not looking for a handout. This city is just 49 miles square. People have to understand that pollution is a problem for everyone," says Autry, a long-term resident of BVHP. "The soot from PG&E hits us first," she continues, "but the other parts of San Francisco are breathing the same toxic chemicals we are." In a public meeting held at Milton Meyers Auditorium in Hunters Point, Mothers Committee members unveiled a year-long effort entitled "Pollution, Health, Environmental Racism and Injustice: A Toxic Inventory of Bayview Hunters Point, San Francisco." The 40-page report describes the sources of water and air pollution in BVHP and talks about the worst toxic waste sites in the community and the health problems that the residents are suffering. The Mothers Committee introduced it to the community at their meeting. The full report can be read or downloaded at www.greenaction.org/hunterspoint/documents/TheStateoftheEnvironment090204Fin al.pdf. The Mothers want to continue their work, perhaps expanding it to youth activities that include parents and highlight environmental issues. "It's still hard to figure out where to begin,"says Ester. "We're a needy community but also a community with a lot of heart." As I walked away from the Mothers Committee meeting at Milton Meyers, I had to agree. We do have a lot of heart. It's amazing to see what a few mothers in public housing can do. With the full support of the community, Bay View Hunters Point could again become the safe and healthy community we all hope for. If you are interested in the work of the Mothers Committee, contact me at marie@greenaction.org or Tessie Ester, president of Huntersview Tenants Association, at (415) 821-2873 or see www.greenaction.org for more information. About us Search sfbayview.com Search WWW Advertise in the Bay View! San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper 4917 Third Street San Francisco California 94124 Phone: (415) 671-0789 Fax: (415) 671-0316 Email: editor@sfbayview.com ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 3) After Terror, a Secret Rewriting of Military Law By TIM GOLDEN WASHINGTON October 24, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/international/worldspecial2/24gitmo.html?h p&ex=1098590400&en=65eec9e56f90971f&ei=5094&partner=homepage WASHINGTON - In early November 2001, with Americans still staggered by the Sept. 11 attacks, a small group of White House officials worked in great secrecy to devise a new system of justice for the new war they had declared on terrorism. Determined to deal aggressively with the terrorists they expected to capture, the officials bypassed the federal courts and their constitutional guarantees, giving the military the authority to detain foreign suspects indefinitely and prosecute them in tribunals not used since World War II. The plan was considered so sensitive that senior White House officials kept its final details hidden from the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and the secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, officials said. It was so urgent, some of those involved said, that they hardly thought of consulting Congress. White House officials said their use of extraordinary powers would allow the Pentagon to collect crucial intelligence and mete out swift, unmerciful justice. "We think it guarantees that we'll have the kind of treatment of these individuals that we believe they deserve," said Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a driving force behind the policy. But three years later, not a single terrorist has been prosecuted. Of the roughly 560 men being held at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, only 4 have been formally charged. Preliminary hearings for those suspects brought such a barrage of procedural challenges and public criticism that verdicts could still be months away. And since a Supreme Court decision in June that gave the detainees the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal court, the Pentagon has stepped up efforts to send home hundreds of men whom it once branded as dangerous terrorists. "We've cleared whole forests of paper developing procedures for these tribunals, and no one has been tried yet," said Richard L. Shiffrin, who worked on the issue as the Pentagon's deputy general counsel for intelligence matters. "They just ended up in this Kafkaesque sort of purgatory." The story of how Guantánamo and the new military justice system became an intractable legacy of Sept. 11 has been largely hidden from public view. But extensive interviews with current and former officials and a review of confidential documents reveal that the legal strategy took shape as the ambition of a small core of conservative administration officials whose political influence and bureaucratic skill gave them remarkable power in the aftermath of the attacks. The strategy became a source of sharp conflict within the Bush administration, eventually pitting the highest-profile cabinet secretaries - including Ms. Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld - against one another over issues of due process, intelligence-gathering and international law. In fact, many officials contend, some of the most serious problems with the military justice system are rooted in the secretive and contentious process from which it emerged. Military lawyers were largely excluded from that process in the days after Sept. 11. They have since waged a long struggle to ensure terrorist prosecutions meet what they say are basic standards of fairness. Uniformed lawyers now assigned to defend Guantánamo detainees have become among the most forceful critics of the Pentagon's own system. Foreign policy officials voiced concerns about the legal and diplomatic ramifications, but had little influence. Increasingly, the administration's plan has come under criticism even from close allies, complicating efforts to transfer scores of Guantánamo prisoners back to their home governments. To the policy's architects, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon represented a stinging challenge to American power and an imperative to consider measures that might have been unimaginable in less threatening times. Yet some officials said the strategy was also shaped by longstanding political agendas that had relatively little to do with fighting terrorism. The administration's claim of authority to set up military commissions, as the tribunals are formally known, was guided by a desire to strengthen executive power, officials said. Its legal approach, including the decision not to apply the Geneva Conventions, reflected the determination of some influential officials to halt what they viewed as the United States' reflexive submission to international law. In designing the new system, many of the officials said they had Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda in mind. But in picking through the hundreds of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, military investigators have struggled to find more than a dozen they can tie directly to significant terrorist acts, officials said. While important Qaeda figures have been captured and held by the C.I.A., administration officials said they were reluctant to bring those prisoners before tribunals they still consider unreliable. Some administration officials involved in the policy declined to be interviewed, or would do so only on the condition they not be named. Others defended it strongly, saying the administration had a responsibility to consider extraordinary measures to protect the country from a terrifying enemy. "Everybody who was involved in this process had, in my mind, a white hat on," Timothy E. Flanigan, the former deputy White House counsel, said in an interview. "They were not out to be cowboys or create a radical new legal regime. What they wanted to do was to use existing legal models to assist in the process of saving lives, to get information. And the war on terror is all about information." As the policy has faltered, other current and former officials have criticized it on pragmatic grounds, arguing that many of the problems could have been avoided. But some of the criticism also has a moral tone. "What several of us were concerned about was due process," said John A. Gordon, a retired Air Force general and former deputy C.I.A. director who served as both the senior counterterrorism official and homeland security adviser on President Bush's National Security Council staff. "There was great concern that we were setting up a process that was contrary to our own ideals." An Aggressive Approach The administration's legal approach to terrorism began to emerge in the first turbulent days after Sept. 11, as the officials in charge of key agencies exhorted their aides to confront Al Qaeda's threat with bold imagination. "Legally, the watchword became 'forward-leaning,' '' said a former associate White House counsel, Bradford Berenson, "by which everybody meant: 'We want to be aggressive. We want to take risks.' '' That challenge resounded among young lawyers who were settling into important posts at the White House, the Justice Department and other agencies. Many of them were members of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal fraternity. Some had clerked for Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in particular. A striking number had clerked for a prominent Reagan appointee, Lawrence H. Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. One young lawyer recalled looking around the room during a meeting with Attorney General John Ashcroft. "Of 10 people, 7 of us were former Silberman clerks," he said. Mr. Berenson, then 36, had been consumed with the nomination of federal judges until he was suddenly reassigned to terrorism issues and thrown into intense, 15-hour workdays, filled with competing urgencies and intermittent new alerts. "All of a sudden, the curtain was lifted on this incredibly frightening world," he said. "You were spending every day looking at the dossiers of the world's leading terrorists. There was a palpable sense of threat." As generals prepared for war in Afghanistan, lawyers scrambled to understand how the new campaign against terrorism could be waged within the confines of old laws. Mr. Flanigan was at the center of the administration's legal counteroffensive. A personable, soft-spoken father of 14 children, Mr. Flanigan's easy manner sometimes belied the force of his beliefs. He had arrived at the White House after distinguishing himself as an agile legal thinker and a Republican stalwart: During the Clinton scandals, he defended the independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr, saying he had conducted his investigation "in a moderate and appropriate fashion." In 2000, he played an important role on the Bush campaign's legal team in the Florida recount. In the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Flanigan sought advice from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel on "the legality of the use of military force to prevent or deter terrorist activity inside the United States,'' according to a previously undisclosed department memorandum that was reviewed by The New York Times. The 20-page response came from John C. Yoo, a 34-year-old Bush appointee with a glittering résumé and a reputation as perhaps the most intellectually aggressive among a small group of legal scholars who had challenged what they saw as the United States' excessive deference to international law. On Sept. 21, 2001, Mr. Yoo wrote that the question was how the Constitution's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure might apply if the military used "deadly force in a manner that endangered the lives of United States citizens." Mr. Yoo listed an inventory of possible operations: shooting down a civilian airliner hijacked by terrorists; setting up military checkpoints inside an American city; employing surveillance methods more sophisticated than those available to law enforcement; or using military forces "to raid or attack dwellings where terrorists were thought to be, despite risks that third parties could be killed or injured by exchanges of fire." Mr. Yoo noted that these actions could raise constitutional issues, but said that in the face of devastating terrorist attacks, "the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties." If the president decided the threat justified deploying the military inside the country, he wrote, then "we think that the Fourth Amendment should be no more relevant than it would be in cases of invasion or insurrection." The prospect of such military action at home was mostly hypothetical at that point, but with the government taking the fight against terrorism to Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world, lawyers in the administration took the same "forward- leaning" approach to making plans for the terrorists they thought would be captured. The idea of using military commissions to try suspected terrorists first came to Mr. Flanigan, he said, in a phone call a couple of days after the attacks from William P. Barr, the former attorney general under whom Mr. Flanigan had served as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the first Bush administration. Mr. Barr had first suggested the use of military tribunals a decade before, to try suspects in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Although the idea made little headway at the time, Mr. Barr said he reminded Mr. Flanigan that the Legal Counsel's Office had done considerable research on the question. Mr. Flanigan had an aide call for the files. "I thought it was a great idea," he recalled. Military commissions, he thought, would give the government wide latitude to hold, interrogate and prosecute the sort of suspects who might be silenced by lawyers in criminal courts. They would also put the control over prosecutions squarely in the hands of the president. The same ideas were taking hold in the office of Vice President Cheney, championed by his 44-year-old counsel, David S. Addington. At the time, Mr. Addington, a longtime Cheney aide with an indistinct portfolio and no real staff, was not well-known even in the government. But he would become legendary as a voraciously hard-working official with strongly conservative views, an unusually sharp pen and wide influence over military, intelligence and other matters. In a matter of months, he would make a mark as one of the most important architects of the administration's legal strategy against foreign terrorism. Beyond the prosecutorial benefits of military commissions, the two lawyers saw a less tangible, but perhaps equally important advantage. "From a political standpoint," Mr. Flanigan said, "it communicated the message that we were at war, that this was not going to be business as usual." Changing the Rules In fact, very little about how the tribunal policy came about resembled business as usual. For half a century, since the end of World War II, most major national-security initiatives had been forged through interagency debate. But some senior Bush administration officials felt that process placed undue power in the hands of cautious, slow-moving foreign policy bureaucrats. The sense of urgency after Sept. 11 brought that attitude to the surface. Little more than a week after the attacks, officials said, the White House counsel, Alberto F. Gonzales, set up an interagency group to draw up options for prosecuting terrorists. They came together with high expectations. "We were going to go after the people responsible for the attacks, and the operating assumption was that we would capture a significant number of Al Qaeda operatives," said Pierre-Richard Prosper, the State Department official assigned to lead the group. "We were thinking hundreds." Mr. Prosper, then 37, had just been sworn in as the department's ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues. As a prosecutor, he had taken on street gangs and drug Mafias and had won the first genocide conviction before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Even so, some administration lawyers eyed him suspiciously - as more diplomat than crime-fighter. Mr. Gonzales had made it clear that he wanted Mr. Prosper's group to put forward military commissions as a viable option, officials said. The group laid out three others - criminal trials, military courts-martial and tribunals with both civilian and military members, like those used for Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. Representatives of the Justice Department's criminal division, which had prosecuted a string of Qaeda defendants in federal district court over the previous decade, argued that the federal courts could do the job again. The option of toughening criminal laws or adapting the courts, as several European countries had done, was discussed, but only briefly, two officials said. "The towers were still smoking, literally," Mr. Prosper said. "I remember asking: Can the federal courts in New York handle this? It wasn't a legal question so much as it was logistical. You had 300 Al Qaeda members, potentially. And did we want to put the judges and juries in harm's way?" Lawyers at the White House saw criminal courts as a minefield, several officials said. Much of the evidence against terror suspects would be classified intelligence that would be difficult to air in court or too sketchy to meet federal standards, the lawyers warned. Another issue was security: Was it safe to try Osama bin Laden in Manhattan, where he was facing federal charges for the 1998 bombings of American embassies in East Africa? Then there was a tactical question. To act pre-emptively against Al Qaeda, the authorities would need information that defense lawyers and due-process rules might discourage suspects from giving up. Mr. Flanigan framed the choice starkly: "are we going to go with a system that is really guaranteed to prevent us from getting information in every case or are we going to go another route?" Military commissions had no statutory rules of their own. In past American wars, when such tribunals had been used to carry out battlefield justice against spies, saboteurs and others accused of violating the laws of war, they had generally hewed to prevailing standards of military justice. But the advocates for commissions in the Bush administration saw no reason they could not adapt the rules, officials said. Standards of proof could be lowered. Secrecy provisions could be expanded. The death penalty could be more liberally applied. But some members of the interagency group saw it as more complicated. Terrorism had not been clearly established as a war crime under international law. Writing new law for a military tribunal might end up being more difficult than prosecuting terrorism cases in existing courts. By late October 2001, the White House lawyers had grown impatient with what they saw as the dithering of Mr. Prosper's group and what one former official called the "cold feet" of some of its members. Mr. Flanigan said he thought the government needed to move urgently in case a major terrorist linked to the attacks was apprehended. He gathered up the research that the Prosper group had completed on military commissions and took charge of the matter himself. Suddenly, the other options were off the table and the Prosper group was out of business. "Prosper is a thoughtful, gentle, process-oriented guy," the former official said. "At that time, gentle was not an adjective that anybody wanted." A Secretive Circle With the White House in charge, officials said, the planning for tribunals moved forward more quickly, and more secretly. Whole agencies were left out of the discussion. So were most of the government's experts in military and international law. The legal basis for the administration's approach was laid out on Nov. 6 in a confidential 35-page memorandum sent to Mr. Gonzales from Patrick F. Philbin, a deputy in the Legal Counsel's office. (Attorney General Ashcroft has refused recent Congressional requests for the document, but a copy was reviewed by The Times.) The memorandum's plain legalese belied its bold assertions. It said that the president, as commander-in-chief, has "inherent authority'' to establish military commissions without Congressional authorization. It concluded that the Sept. 11 attacks were "plainly sufficient" to warrant applying the laws of war. Opening a debate that would later divide the administration, the memorandum also suggested that the White House could apply international law selectively. It stated specifically that trying terrorists under the laws of war "does not mean that terrorists will receive the protections of the Geneva Conventions or the rights that laws of war accord to lawful combatants." The central legal precedent cited in the memorandum was a 1942 case in which the Supreme Court upheld President Franklin D. Roosevelt's use of a military commission to try eight Nazi saboteurs who had sneaked into the United States aboard submarines. Since that ruling, revolutions had taken place in both international and military law, with the adoption of the Geneva Conventions in 1949 and the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 1951. Even so, the Justice memorandum said the 1942 ruling had "set a clear constitutional analysis" under which due process rights do not apply to military commissions. Roosevelt, too, created his military commission without new and explicit Congressional approval, and authorized the military to fashion its own procedural rules. He also established himself, rather than a military judge, as the "final reviewing authority'' for the case. Mr. Addington seized on the Roosevelt precedent as a model, two people involved in the process said, despite vast differences. Roosevelt acted against enemy agents in a traditional war among nations. Mr. Bush would be asserting the same power to take on a shadowy network of adversaries with no geographic boundaries, in a conflict with no foreseeable end. Mr. Addington, who drafted the order with Mr. Flanigan, was particularly influential, several officials said, because he represented Mr. Cheney and brought formidable experience in national-security law to a small circle of senior officials. Mr. Addington turned down several requests for interviews and a spokesman for the vice president's office declined to comment. "He was probably the only one there who would know what an order would look like, what it would say," a former Justice Department official said, noting Mr. Addington's work at the Defense Department, the C.I.A., and Congressional intelligence committees. "He didn't have authority over anyone. But he's a persuasive guy." To many officials outside the circle, the secrecy was remarkable. While Mr. Ashcroft and his deputy, Larry D. Thompson, were closely consulted, the head of the Justice Department's criminal division, Michael Chertoff, who had argued for trying terror suspects in federal court, saw the military order only when it was published, officials said. Mr. Rumsfeld was kept informed of the plan mainly through his general counsel, William J. Haynes II, several Pentagon officials said. Many of the Pentagon's experts on military justice, uniformed lawyers who had spent their careers working on such issues, were mostly kept in the dark. "I can't tell you how compartmented things were," said retired Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter, who was then the Navy's senior military lawyer, or judge advocate general. "This was a closed administration." A group of experienced Army lawyers had been meeting with Mr. Haynes repeatedly on the process, but began to suspect that what they said did not resonate outside the Pentagon, several of them said. On Friday, Nov. 9, Defense Department officials said, Mr. Haynes called the head of the team, Col. Lawrence J. Morris, into his office to review a draft of the presidential order. He was given 30 minutes to study it but was not allowed to keep a copy or even take notes. The following day, the Army's judge advocate general, Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Romig, hurriedly convened a meeting of senior military lawyers to discuss a response. The group worked through the Veterans Day weekend to prepare suggestions that would have moved the tribunals closer to existing military justice. But when the final document was issued that Tuesday, it reflected none of the officers' ideas, several military officials said. "They hadn't changed a thing," one official said. In fact, while the military lawyers were pulling together their response, they were unaware that senior administration officials were already at the White House putting finishing touches on the plan. At a meeting that Saturday in the Roosevelt Room, Mr. Cheney led a discussion among Attorney General Ashcroft, Mr. Haynes of the Defense Department, the White House lawyers and a few other aides. Senior officials of the State Department and the National Security Council staff were excluded from final discussions of the policy, even at a time when they were meeting daily about Afghanistan with the officials who were drafting the order. According to two people involved in the process, Mr. Cheney advocated withholding the draft from Ms. Rice and Secretary Powell. When the two cabinet members found out about the military order - upon its public release - Ms. Rice was particularly angry, several senior officials said. Spokesmen for both officials declined to comment. Mr. Bush played only a modest role in the debate, senior administration officials said. In an initial discussion, he agreed that military commissions should be an option, the officials said. Later, Mr. Cheney discussed a draft of the order with Mr. Bush over lunch, one former official said. The president signed the three-page order on Nov. 13. No ceremony accompanied the signing, and the order was released to the public that day without so much as a press briefing. But its historic significance was unmistakable. The military could detain and prosecute any foreigner whom the president or his representative determined to have "engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit" terrorism. Echoing the Roosevelt order, the Bush document promised "free and fair" tribunals but offered few guarantees: There was no promise of public trials, no right to remain silent, no presumption of innocence. As in 1942, guilt did not necessarily have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and a death sentence could be imposed even with a divided verdict. Despite those similarities, some military and international lawyers were struck by the differences. "The Roosevelt order referred specifically to eight people, the eight Nazi saboteurs," said Mr. Shiffrin, who was then the Defense Department's deputy general counsel for intelligence matters and had studied the Nazi saboteurs' case. "Here we were putting in place a parallel system of justice for a universe of people who we had no idea about - who they would be, how many of them there would be. It was a very dramatic measure." Mounting Criticism The White House did its best to play down the drama, but criticism of the order was immediate and widespread. Civil libertarians and some Congressional leaders saw an attempt to supplant the criminal justice system. Critics also worried about the concentration of power: The president or his proxies would define the crimes (often after an act had been committed); set the rules for trial; and choose the judges, juries and appellate panels. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was among a handful of legislators who argued that the administration's plan required explicit Congressional authorization. The Congress had just passed the Patriot Act by a huge margin, and Mr. Leahy proposed authorizing military commissions, but with some important changes, including a presumption of innocence for defendants and appellate review by the Supreme Court. Critics seized on complaints from abroad, including an announcement from the Spanish authorities that they would not extradite some terrorist suspects to the United States if they would face the tribunals. "We are the most powerful nation on earth," Mr. Leahy said. "But in the struggle against terrorism, we don't have the option of going it alone. Would these military tribunals be worth jeopardizing the cooperation we expect and need from our allies?" Senators called for Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Ashcroft to testify about the tribunals plan. Instead, the administration sent Mr. Prosper from the State Department and Mr. Chertoff of the Justice Department - both of whom had questioned the use of commissions and were later excluded from the administration's final deliberations. But the Congressional opposition melted in the face of opinion polls showing strong support for the president's measures against terrorism. There was another reason fears were allayed. With the order signed, the Pentagon was writing rules for exactly how the commissions would be conducted, and an early draft that was leaked to the news media suggested defendants' rights would be expanded. Mr. Rumsfeld, who assembled a group of outside legal experts - including some who had worked on World War II- era tribunals - to consult on the rules, said critics' concerns would be taken into account. But all of the critics were not outside the administration. Many of the Pentagon's uniformed lawyers were angered by the implication that the military would be used to deliver "rough justice" for the terrorists. The Uniform Code of Military Justice had moved steadily into line with the due-process standards of the federal courts, and senior military lawyers were proud and protective of their system. They generally supported using commissions for terrorists, but argued that the system would not be fair without greater rights for defendants. "The military lawyers would from time to time remind the civilians that there was a Constitution that we had to pay attention to," said Admiral Guter, who, after retiring as the Navy judge advocate general, signed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of plaintiffs in the Guantánamo Supreme Court case. Even as uniformed lawyers were given a greater role in writing rules for the commissions, they still felt out of the loop. In early 2002, Admiral Guter said, during a weekly lunch with Mr. Haynes and the top lawyers for the military branches, he raised the issue with Mr. Haynes directly: "we need more information." Mr. Haynes looked at him coldly. "No, you don't," he quoted Mr. Haynes as saying. Mr. Haynes declined to comment on the exchange. Lt. Col. William K. Lietzau, a Yale-trained Marine lawyer on Mr. Haynes's staff, often found himself in the middle. "I could see how the JAGs were frustrated that the task of setting up the commissions hadn't been delegated to them,'' he said, referring to the senior military lawyers. "On the other hand, I could see how some of their recommendations frustrated the leadership because they didn't always appear to embrace the paradigm shift needed to deal with terrorism." Some Justice Department officials also urged changes in the commission rules, current and former officials said. While Attorney General Ashcroft staunchly defended the policy in public, in a private meeting with Pentagon officials, he said some of the proposed commission rules would be seen as "draconian," two officials said. On nearly every issue, interviews and documents show, the harder line was staked out by White House lawyers: Mr. Addington, Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Flanigan. They opposed allowing civilian lawyers to assist the tribunal defendants, as military courts- martial permit, or allowing civilians to serve on the appellate panel that would oversee the commissions. They also opposed granting defendants a presumption of innocence. In the end, Mr. Rumsfeld compromised. He granted defendants a presumption of innocence and set "beyond a reasonable doubt" as a standard for proving guilt. He also allowed the defendants to hire civilian lawyers, but restricted the lawyers' access to case information. And he gave the presiding officer at a tribunal license to admit any evidence he thought might be convincing to a "reasonable person.'' One right the administration sought to deny the prisoners was the ability to appeal the legality of their detentions in federal court. The administration had done its best to decide the question when searching for a place to detain hundreds of prisoners captured in Afghanistan. Every location it seriously considered - including an American military base in Germany and islands in the South Pacific - was outside the United States and, the administration believed, beyond the reach of the federal judiciary. On Dec. 28, 2001, after officials settled on Guantánamo Bay, Mr. Philbin and Mr. Yoo told the Pentagon in a memorandum that it could make a "very strong" claim that prisoners there would be outside the purview of American courts. But the memorandum cautioned that a reasonable argument could also be made that Guantánamo "while not part of the sovereign territory of the United States, is within the territorial jurisdiction of a federal court." That warning would come back to haunt the administration. A Shift in Power Some of the officials who helped design the new system of justice would later explain the influence they exercised in the chaotic days after Sept. 11 as a response to a crisis. But a more enduring shift of power within the administration was taking place - one that became apparent in a decision that would have significant consequences for how terror suspects were interrogated and detained. At issue was whether the administration would apply the Geneva Conventions to the conflicts with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and whether those enemies would be treated as prisoners of war. Based on the advice of White House and Justice Department lawyers, Mr. Bush initially decided on Jan. 18, 2002, that the conventions would not apply to either conflict. But at a meeting of senior national security officials several days later, Secretary of State Powell asked him to reconsider. Mr. Powell agreed that the conventions did not apply to the global fight against Al Qaeda. But he said troops could be put at risk if the United States disavowed the conventions in dealing with the Taliban - the de facto government of Afghanistan. Both Mr. Rumsfeld and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, supported his position, Pentagon officials said. In a debate that included the administration's most experienced national-security officials, the voice that was heard belonged to Mr. Yoo, who was only a deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel. He cast Afghanistan as a "failed state," and said its fighters should not be considered a real army but a "militant, terrorist-like group." In a Jan. 25 memorandum to the president, the White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales, characterized that opinion as "definitive." The Gonzales memorandum suggested that the "new kind of war" Mr. Bush wanted to fight could hardly be reconciled with the "quaint" privileges that the Geneva Conventions gave to prisoners of war, or the "strict limitations" they imposed on interrogations. Military lawyers disputed the idea that applying the conventions would necessarily limit interrogators to the name, rank and serial number of their captives. "There were very good reasons not to designate the detainees as prisoners of war, but the claim that they couldn't be interrogated was not one of them," Colonel Lietzau said. Again, though, such questions were scarcely heard, officials involved in the discussions said. Mr. Yoo's rise reflected a different approach by the Bush administration to sensitive legal questions concerning foreign affairs, defense and intelligence. In past administrations, officials said, the Office of Legal Counsel usually weighed in with opinions on questions that had already been deliberated by the legal staffs of the agencies involved. Under Mr. Bush, the office frequently had a first and final say on such questions. "O.L.C. was definitely running the show legally, and John Yoo in particular," a former Pentagon lawyer said. "He's kind of fun to be around, and he has an opinion on everything. Even though he was quite young, he exercised disproportionate authority because of his personality and his strong opinions." Mr. Yoo's influence was amplified by friendships he developed not just with Mr. Addington and Mr. Flanigan, but also Mr. Haynes, with whom he played squash as often as three or four times a week at the Pentagon Officers Athletic Club. If the Geneva Conventions debate raised Mr. Yoo's stature, it had the opposite effect on lawyers at the State Department, who were later excluded from sensitive discussions on matters like the interrogation of detainees, officials from several agencies said. "State was cut out of a lot of this activity from February of 2002 on," one senior administration official said. "These were treaties that we were dealing with; they are meant to know about that." The State Department legal adviser, William H. Taft IV, was shunned by the lawyers who dominated the detainee policy, officials said. Although Mr. Taft had served as the deputy secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, more conservative colleagues whispered that he lacked the constitution to fight terrorists. "He was seen as ideologically squishy and suspect," a former White House official said. "People did not take him very seriously." Through a State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, Mr. Taft declined to comment. The rivalries could be almost adolescent. When field trips to Guantánamo Bay were arranged for administration lawyers, the invitations were sometimes relayed last to the State Department and National Security Council, officials said, in the hope that lawyers there would not be able to come on short notice. It was on the first field trip, 10 days after detainees began to arrive there on Jan. 11, 2002, that White House lawyers made clear their intention to move forward quickly with military commissions. On the flight home, several officials said, Mr. Addington urged Mr. Gonzales to seek a blanket designation of all the detainees being sent to Guantánamo as eligible for trial under the president's order. Mr. Gonzales agreed. The next day, the Pentagon instructed military intelligence officers at the base to start filling out one-page forms for each detainee, describing their alleged offenses. Weeks later, Mr. Haynes issued an urgent call to the military services, asking them to submit nominations for a chief prosecutor. The first trials, many military and administration officials believed, were just around the corner.Next: A Policy Unravels Jack Begg contributed research for this article. Copyright 2004 The New York Times ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 4) Rebel Attacks Kill 12 Iraqis; G.I.'s Injured By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. BAGHDAD, Iraq October 24, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/international/middleeast/24iraq.html?hp&ex =1098590400&en=34534b10fa606fde&ei=5094&partner=homepage BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 23 - Insurgents launched strikes on Saturday at United States and Iraqi outposts across Iraq, killing at least a dozen Iraqi police officers and national guardsmen in car bombings and wounding dozens of Iraqis and Americans in the assaults, which included mortars and hidden roadside bombs. No American soldiers were killed but six were wounded when their Bradley fighting vehicle was attacked on the dangerous road that leads to the Baghdad airport. The deadliest attack occurred outside the gates of a Marine base in Baghdadi, in the restive Anbar Province of western Iraq, a Sunni area where a car bomber killed at least 10 Iraqi policemen and wounded 5 others, according to the Marines. The police were gathered at a checkpoint on the perimeter of the base, which is home to a Marine aircraft wing near the Euphrates River about 110 miles west of Baghdad. Mujtaba Ahmed al-Hiti, the police chief in Hit, a nearby town, told Agence France-Presse that a total of 40 people had been wounded, and he said the attacker had been trying to drive into an academy where police were training. In Falluja, the insurgent-controlled stronghold west of Baghdad where a major offensive is being planned to take back the city, United States officials say an early morning raid led to the capture of a lieutenant to the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Mr. Zarqawi is the Jordanian militant said to have sworn allegiance to Al l Qaeda and taken responsibility for scores of car bombings, beheadings and other acts of terror. American officials said the "individual targeted and captured today was recently assessed to be a relatively minor member of the Zarqawi network." But with more important Zarqawi aides having been detained or killed in recent weeks, the aide captured at a safe house south of Falluja at 1:30 a.m. "had moved up to take a critical position as a Zarqawi senior leader." Five other terrorists were captured, the military said. Members of Mr. Zarqawi's network are increasingly moving to the outskirts of the city to evade American attacks on safe houses and other hideouts and are trying to blend in with civilians, military officials say. United States forces, they say, have eliminated meeting sites and safe houses for the network and destroyed car bombs and other weapons. Military officials say Iraqi civilians in Falluja have been providing information about the whereabouts of Zarqawi associates. The Marines have stepped up operations on the outskirts of Falluja during the last two weeks, trying to flush out insurgents and members of Mr. Zarqawi's Tawhid and Jihad terror organization in anticipation of what Iraqi leaders have said will be a major offensive. The Marines have also conducted nightly bombing raids for the last two months aimed at the Zarqawi network. Since this summer, Falluja has been controlled by insurgents and a Taliban-style Islamist local government that United States and Iraqi officials say has given refuge to Mr. Zarqawi and members of his network. The flurry of violence on Saturday underscores the challenge facing American and Iraqi officials as national elections draw near. Violence and attacks have been rising, and American deaths continue to mount, though by most accounts there are fewer attacks taking place than during the recent peak in August. In one of the most dangerous areas, the sprawling Sadr City slum, a Shiite neighborhood in eastern Baghdad, the security situation has been surprisingly calm of late, according to some American officers. But in other places, especially Anbar Province, car bombings and other attacks have continued at a steady pace. In a statement on Saturday afternoon following the attack in Baghdadi, the Marines said: "Insurgents have increased attacks on Iraqi Security Forces seeking to secure a free Iraq." Near Samarra, an insurgent flashpoint north of Baghdad that United States forces retook early this month after a grisly three-day battle, several Iraqi national guardsmen were killed Saturday morning by a car bomb at a checkpoint south of town. Reports quoting Iraqi officials said at least four guardsmen died in the attack, but American forces that control the area say there were two fatalities. Lt. Wayne Adkins, a spokesman for the Army's First Infantry Division, said the attack occurred at 10:40 a.m. "Two Iraqi National Guard soldiers were killed and one was injured when Anti-Iraqi Forces detonated" a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device at an Iraqi National Guard checkpoint, he said. One Iraqi guardsman died at the scene and a second died later from his wounds, Lieutenant Adkins said. Insurgents also struck in central Baghdad, lobbing mortars during lunchtime near the American-controlled green zone, where the American Embassy and the Iraqi government have headquarters. There were no reports of deaths or injuries from the mortars, which could be easily heard throughout central Baghdad. A rocket also struck the building that houses an Iraqi legal association. And six soldiers were wounded at 7:15 a.m. when their Bradley was struck by an improvised explosive device on the road that leads to the Baghdad airport. Copyright 2004 The New York Times ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 5) CORRUPTION ACCUSATIONS Memos Warned of Billing Fraud by Firm in Iraq By ERIK ECKHOLM October 23, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/politics/23whistle.html Managers of a security firm that won large contracts in Iraq warned their bosses in February of what they called a pattern of fraudulent billing practices, internal company memorandums suggest. The memorandums, written primarily by two company managers, charged that the security firm, Custer Battles, repeatedly billed the occupation authorities for nonexistent services or at grossly inflated prices. The company, which quickly grew to garner security contracts worth $100 million in little more than a year, denies the charges. It argues that the managers confused sincere attempts to document jobs done in a hurry, in a war zone, with deliberate deception and that the company provided all contracted services for the agreed-upon price. The memos and a lawsuit filed by former employees cite several specific instances, including billing the Coalition Provisional Authority $157,000 for a helicopter pad that in fact cost $95,000, and repainting forklifts abandoned by Baghdad Airways and then charging the authority thousands of dollars a month, claiming that the forklifts were leased. One of the managers was later fired by the company and is part of a lawsuit charging Custer Battles with defrauding the federal government of tens of millions of dollars. The other manager, who has since been appointed to a high-level position with the company, recently declared that after further research, he believed that any questionable practices were the fault of a few individuals and had not been condoned by the owners. On Sept. 30, the Pentagon, concerned by the allegations raised by the employees, barred Custer Battles from receiving further military contracts, and it has withheld at least $10 million in payments to the company. The company is appealing the ban. The charges swirling around Custer Battles in part reflect a problem that American government auditors have acknowledged: the inability of the Iraq occupation authority, particularly in its first year, to monitor properly the performance of hundreds of companies, large and small, that flocked to Baghdad seeking contracts for everything from building materials to armed guards. The memorandums, provided by a lawyer for the managers who filed the lawsuit against Custer Battles, charge that the company submitted invoices from supposed subcontractors or suppliers that - unbeknownst to the American officials who paid the final tab - were virtual shells, newly created by Custer Battles executives and their partners. Custer Battles, founded in 2001 by Scott Custer and Michael Battles, both in their 30's, says it has about 700 employees. Pete Baldwin, then the Iraq facilities manager, wrote in a Feb. 2 memorandum that in one typical invoice, Custer Battles claimed that one of its shell companies had installed a helicopter pad for $157,000. In fact, Custer Battles had hired a different company to build the pad for $95,000, he asserted. He wrote that "every line item on that invoice," which was submitted for a total of $250,000, was just as "false, fabricated, inflated." Mr. Baldwin wrote that he had repeatedly informed Mr. Custer, the company co-owner, of similar practices, but to no avail. A lawyer for Custer Battles, Richard Sauber, said that Mr. Custer had subsequently brought accountants to Iraq to clear up incomplete books but that they had not found fraud. Mr. Baldwin said in the memorandum that after he began raising alarms, an executive with the company tried to fire him. Mr. Baldwin was given notice on Feb. 20 - he has said because of his charges of fraud. Larry Robbins, a lawyer for Custer Battles, says he was fired for "incompetence.'' Last week, documents unsealed by the Justice Department disclosed that two former managers of Custer Battles, including Mr. Baldwin, had brought a civil suit under the federal whistle-blower act charging the company with fraud. The company called those charges baseless and the work of "a competitor and a disgruntled employee." The two former managers could win million of dollars in rewards if the charges hold up. In a memorandum dated Feb. 28, 2004, Peter Miskovich, who was manager of the company's $21 million contract to safeguard Iraq's new currency as it was being distributed, gave a scathing review of the project, which he took over in midstream. Mr. Miskovich - who is not part of the whistle-blower lawsuit - wrote to his superior, Charles Baumann, then the country manager, that the records provided "prima facie evidence of a course of conduct consistent with criminal activity and intent." Mr. Miskovich was later named director of the company's new Office of Corporate Integrity. In an Oct. 13 affidavit, he said that after further review, he had concluded that financial improprieties were more isolated than he had declared in February. He said that "I do not believe, based on what I learned during my tenure" as a project manager, "that Scott Custer or Mike Battles was involved in the questionable conduct." Reached by telephone this week, Mr. Miskovich refused to speak to a reporter. Mr. Baldwin could not be reached for comment. The Air Force, which suspended the Custer Battles contract, wrote a memorandum citing suspicion of repeated fraud. The Air Force quotes Mr. Miskovich's Feb. 28 memorandum, and calls the evidence of company misconduct "of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects their present responsibility to be government contractors or subcontractors." In the case of the currency exchange project, said Mr. Sauber, the lawyer for Custer Battles, the occupation authority agreed on a final fee of $21 million, but the Pentagon has held up the final $10 million in payments while it investigates the contract. Earlier this month, the Justice Department declined to prosecute Custer Battles, though the civil suit continues under the whistle- blower law. The department gave no public explanation, but officials had previously told lawyers in the lawsuit that because the alleged fraud was against the Coalition Provisional Authority, federal prosecutors did not have jurisdiction. Some experts have questioned that reasoning. The company founders, Scott Custer and Michael Battles, are both Army veterans. Mr. Battles unsuccessfully ran for Congress in Rhode Island as a Republican two years ago. The two started out by offering security services to nongovernmental organizations in Afghanistan after the fall of Kabul in late 2001. But their business really took hold in June 2003, soon after the fall of Baghdad. The men obtained a $16.5 million contract from the occupation authorities to provide security for the Baghdad airport. That one-year contract was not renewed, but the company had already begun pulling in others, directly with the Coalition Provisional Authority or as a subcontractor to other companies. As it cut a quick and profitable swath, Custer Battles sometimes angered more experienced security companies with its aggressive recruitment of scarce security experts and claims to industry leadership. The company describes itself as "the premier security company in Iraq" on its corporate Web site. The two founders have received praise for their entrepreneurship. The internal memorandums charge that part of that success, at least, was built on questionable practices. One example captures some of the fog of post-invasion Iraq. With forged invoices, Mr. Miskovich wrote, Custer Battles billed for providing a security detail for the road delivery from Baghdad to Mosul of prefabricated cabins. The housing was urgently required by teams carrying out the currency exchange. Not only did the company provide no guards for the trip, Mr. Miskovich said in his Feb. 28 memo, but the convoy was also somehow lost for a week, officials in Mosul had to sleep in tents, and the company had to offer a reward to locate the cabins. Copyright 2004 The New York Times ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 6) Wife of Soldier Sentenced in Prison Abuse Scandal Speaks Out By Brian Witte The Associated Press Baltimore Friday 22 October 2004 http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102304V.shtml Baltimore - The wife of an Army reservist sentenced to prison for abusing prisoners in Iraq said she knows her husband was wrong, but she also blames higher-ranking officials who "sit behind the curtains" for the abuse. Martha Frederick, wife of Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, said the eight-year sentence he received Thursday for his role in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal will force her family to "endure hardships and many sacrifices." "The pain sets deeper yet in knowing that he serves these years not only for his actions or actions of a few reservists, but those included in the chain of command," she wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. Her 38-year-old husband, of Buckingham, Va., received the stiffest punishment given so far in the scandal. But she questioned why her husband's superiors weren't being punished for what she said was their complicity on the abuse. "I feel outrage that he and a few others will bear the weight for the actions of many," she wrote. Since finding out her husband faced charges, Frederick wrote that her family has felt as if they were "facing a life-threatening situation when you relive your life's most memorable moments as well as contemplating all the things that you wish you could change or have done differently." Martha Frederick said she will always see her husband as a "good soldier." "I will see my husband as a far greater man than those who have abandoned him, left him to be convicted for his acts and the failures of their own," she wrote. Throughout the e-mail, she claims "misguided" leadership led to the abuse of Iraqi detainees. She wrote that the photographs and videos showing abuse "do not represent the people of this country, nor do they represent Chip as a person." "I do not see Chip as a good soldier gone bad but as a good soldier thrust into a no-win situation," she wrote. She writes of the pain and isolation her family has felt, especially her husband, who was sentenced in Iraq, far from his family. "It is not just how my husband will endure incarceration but how he will endure being left behind, used and discarded," she wrote. Frederick joined the Army National Guard at 17, after convincing his mother to sign the papers authorizing his enlistment. Seven members of the 372nd Military Police Company of Cresaptown, Md., have been charged in the scandal. Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits of Hyndman, Pa., is already serving a one-year sentence after pleading guilty in May to three counts. (c) Copyright 2004 by TruthOut.org ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 7) Stand in Solidarity with the People of Haiti The crisis situation in Haiti continues to deepen. The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition - along with the Haiti Support Network and progressives in the Haitian community - initiated the Emergency Campaign to Support the Haitian People. Many people are joining as volunteers to help support an effective political response in Haiti and here in the United States in solidarity with those resisting a wave of repression. We are also sending humanitarian assistance in the form of much-needed medicines. In the past two weeks, the de facto Haitian government has demonstrated its complete bankruptcy by doing nothing for the flood victims and instead launching a brutal crackdown on people in the neighborhoods of Belair and Cité Soleil. On October 13, Haitian police, backed by UN occupation troops, beat and arrested well-known activist priest Gérard Jean-Juste as he was distributing food to hungry children. He is accused of being "a threat to public order." The de facto prime minister called the warrantless arrest "pre-emptive." Meanwhile, the police and occupation troops have arrested and killed dozens of other anti-coup activists. The former soldiers of the banned Haitian Army now openly patrol the streets and have openly announced their plan to "wipe out" resistance to the coup and occupation. These developments make the indoor rally planned for Dec. 5 in Brooklyn at New York Technical College all the more important. Speakers from the Lavalas Family Party and the National Popular Party will outline their respective visions of how the Haitian people's struggle can advance. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and others will also take part. Thanks to your responses, we have been able to begin sending medicine to help stave off and treat the diseases stemming from waters polluted by sewage and cadavers. But more help is needed given the dramatic medical and political situations in Haiti. The Haitian people need our further support. At this time of great crisis, generated by the U.S. government and its financial and political dictates, the independent response of the people in the U.S. to help stop the suffering of the Haitian people is urgently needed. Stand with the Haitian people in their fight for democracy and self-determination, and in their hour of medical and humanitarian need. You can make an urgently needed contribution immediately to the Emergency Campaign to Support the Haitian People by clicking here to donate by credit card online through our secure server. Credit card donations are not tax deductible. If you want to make a tax deductible donation to the Emergency Campaign, you can do so by writing a check made out to the Progress Unity Fund/Haiti and send it to Progress Unity Fund, 167 Anderson St., San Francisco, CA 94110. A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition Act Now to Stop War & End Racism http://www.ANSWERcoalition.org info@internationalanswer.org National Office in Washington DC: 202-544-3389 New York City: 212-533-0417 Los Angeles: 323-464-1636 San Francisco: 415-821-6545 For media inquiries, call 202-544-3389. ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 8) Safeguarding Colombia's Oil By JUAN FORERO PUERTO VEGA, Colombia October 22, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/business/worldbusiness/22colombia.html?ore f=login&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position PUERTO VEGA, Colombia - In the biggest, most ambitious army offensive in Colombia's 40-year rebel war, 18,000 counterinsurgency troops have since January fanned out across four isolated southern states, a lawless swath that for years functioned as a de facto republic for Marxist rebels. Aided by American helicopters, planning and surveillance, Colombian forces have the stated goal of penetrating the historic heart of Colombia's largest rebel group to "strike a decisive blow to narco- terrorists," as Gen. James Hill, the commander of United States forces in Latin America, put it earlier this year. But the Washington-backed offensive has another motive, oil and military authorities say, one that Colombian and American officials only gingerly discuss: to make potentially oil-rich regions safe for exploration by private companies and the government-run oil company. With Colombian oil production falling and the Bush administration eagerly seeking to diversify American oil imports, Colombia's government has made securing potentially lucrative oil basins and other energy infrastructure a cornerstone of its efforts to pacify this vast country. "For the military, the priority is to protect and provide confidence for investors, in particular in the petroleum sector," said Mauricio Salgar, operations director for Ecopetrol, the state oil firm. "For the investor, it's important that he know that in Colombia he has an ally." The policy's twin emphasis of protecting oil production and challenging Colombia's most formidable rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, is most apparent here in Putumayo province, where coca once grew like weeds and rebels freely controlled roads and towns. One of the newcomers is Petrotesting Colombia, a small, spirited homegrown company that has made the production of crude in dangerous corners of Colombia something of a specialty. But it does not operate here alone. Four hundred troops patrol a narrow dirt road used by tankers to transport crude. At one Petrotesting well, soldiers with Galil assault rifles stand guard from a heavily fortified base circled by a dozen sandbag bunkers. "We went in with the support of the armed forces," Frank C. Kanayet, the company's president, said in an interview in at the company's new offices in Bogotá. "Without government support, we would not have been able to come in." Much of the coca, used to produce cocaine, has been destroyed here in an American-funded eradication drive. The soldiers who now stand guard in the wilting heat say they have been told their job is vital - ensuring that the oil and government revenues flow. Lately, they have been in an upbeat mood. "All of this belonged to the guerrillas," said Lt. Luis Villalba, the young commander of a group of soldiers standing sentry. "Now it belongs to the army." Such boasts may be premature. Across four provinces, the guerrillas have melted into the jungle, avoiding direct confrontations. But they have left behind snipers and land mines that have bogged down army forces, killed about 50 soldiers and wounded hundreds. Here in the cattle pastures and jungles south of the Putumayo River, the rebels also recently burned nine tankers carrying Petrotesting's oil and killed one driver. "They've told us, 'This is our crude, and you are only helping the multinationals,' " said José Ney, 44, whose tanker was set on fire by rebels in September. "If they stop me again, they'll kill me." Still, for the first time in years, soldiers and police have arrived in isolated pockets of this province, as well as forgotten regions of three others, Caquetá, Meta and Guaviare. And while bombings against infrastructure like oil pipelines and wells continue in Putumayo, the attacks have fallen from 149 in 2003 to 58 this year through mid-October. The military and oil company representatives credit two battalions created just to guard oil infrastructure. They and other units protect such companies as Argosy Energy International of Houston, which has 15 wells in Putumayo, and Petrobank Energy and Resources, a Canadian oil producer that has banked much of its future in Colombia on tapping into an oil deposit in the Orito region that may contain a billion barrels. "There's a feeling of safety, that we're keeping the peace," said Major Pedro Sánchez, an 18-year counterinsurgency specialist who is the second in command of the battalion that protects oil installations in Orito. "We've provided confidence so companies can explore here." Employing Colombia's 200,000-member army to further oil interests is seen as critical to President Ãlvaro Uribe's ambitious plans to boost oil production. Oil is Colombia's No. 1 export, providing nearly a third of the state's revenues. Latin America's third-largest exporter of oil, Colombia has long been among the top 10 suppliers of crude to the United States. But a worsening conflict, coupled with contract terms that prospective investors found unpalatable, prompted oil companies to abandon the country and caused exploration to stagnate. From production of 830,000 barrels a day in 1999, Colombia now pumps 535,000 daily. With many of the country's major fields fast declining, like Occidental Petroleum's Caño Limón and BP's Cusiana and Cupiagua, energy planners here say Colombia will become a net importer by 2009 unless new discoveries are made. That means luring oil companies, large and small, even to regions like Putumayo, where energy planners say production of just 10,000 barrels a day could easily quadruple with more exploration. "Whatever barrel of oil that's out there, we're going to go after aggressively," said Mr. Salgar, the Ecopetrol director of operations. "Some of these fields are very small, but we think they are all important. One barrel of oil is better than no barrels." Though unproven, Colombian energy officials believe the country may contain 47 billion barrels of oil, an estimate based on Colombia's proximity to its oil-rich neighbor, Venezuela, with which it shares much of the same oil-producing geology. Colombia, however, is vastly underexplored, with exploration and production going on in only 7 of the nation's 18 sedimentary basins, Ecopetrol officials said. To spur exploration, the state in 2001 reduced Ecopetrol's mandatory share in joint ventures from 50 percent to 30 percent. Then, in 2002, the government replaced its flat 20 percent royalty with a sliding scale that enhances the financial viability of small projects. In April, the state went further, eliminating Ecopetrol's required participation in projects. Taxes were also reduced, the lifespan of contracts extended and the awarding of concessions made more flexible. Ecopetrol itself was split into two units, one devoted to developing business. The scope of the changes prompted the regional president of one major oil company, who asked that his name not be used, to remark: "The government is literally desperate." Armando Zamora, director of the National Hydrocarbon Agency, which administers concessions, agreed. "We were anguished and that's what permitted us to undertake these reforms." The measures have attracted attention and business. The biggest catch this year has been Exxon Mobil , which along with Petrobras, a long-time oil producer here, took advantage of beneficial terms to undertake an ambitious offshore exploration project. Other big companies like ChevronTexaco and Occidental Petroleum have extended natural gas and oil contracts. The Harken Energy Corporation , Repsol-YPF of Spain, Hocol and several smaller companies have in recent months signed either exploration contracts or viability agreements that will likely lead to exploration. In all, 20 exploration contracts have been signed this year, continuing a trend from 2003, when 21 companies signed contracts. In 2002, when the conflict was raging and before new terms were introduced, 14 contracts were signed. But the state realized that it needed to address security if it wanted oil companies to explore in regions like the foothills of the Andes in Meta and Casanare provinces or in the war-torn Catatumbo region in northeastern Colombia. These areas may have oil, but they are lawless and violent. Upon taking office in August of 2002, Mr. Uribe's government stepped up its protection of power lines and reduced the theft of gasoline by right-wing paramilitary groups that had a long- standing practice of tapping into government-owned pipelines. The government also established a new office in the presidency, the Presidential Councilor for Infrastructure Protection, which meets frequently with military officials, Ecopetrol and oil officials to discuss security measures. The Bush administration, meanwhile, reversed American policy and dispatched Special Forces trainers from Fort Bragg, N.C., to train Colombian soldiers to protect a 500-mile pipeline used by Occidental Petroleum, which is based in Los Angeles, to pump crude from its northeastern oil fields. State oil officials say the idea now is to simply get prospective companies to travel to Colombia to discuss the safety issues. "Those companies that are afraid, we tell them, 'First send your security people,' " said Mr. Zamora of the National Hydrocarbons Agency. "They come down, and we take them to the Defense Ministry, the Mines and Energy Ministry, to other companies, so they can see for themselves." Such measures have raised concerns among some policy analysts who question using public funds, both American and Colombian, to benefit mostly private companies. Many of the companies are American and, like Occidental, have long lobbied Washington to back Colombia's government more strongly. American military planners have also played an important role in devising military efforts to both protect infrastructure and hit the guerrillas. "Even if the Uribe government has launched offensives in other places, the U.S. assistance has been in places that do have oil reserves," said Adam Isacson, a senior policy analyst who tracks Colombia for the Center for International Policy, an organization in Washington that promotes demilitarization and human rights. "Coincidence?" The policies, though, have in many cases benefited ordinary Colombians long forgotten by the state. There are now security forces in all 1,100 Colombian municipalities nationwide; two years ago, nearly 200 towns had no police or soldiers. Soldiers and light tanks line vital roads near big cities where Colombians were often kidnapped. For Petrobank's Colombian subsidiary, Petrominerales, the presence of troops has been reassuring. Steven J. Benedetti, Petrominerales' general manager in Colombia, notes that the company has not gone unscathed: rebels have been attacking its wells since production began in January of 2003. Still, Mr. Benedetti remains optimistic. "It's a situation where we have to weigh the risks with the benefits," he said. "Putumayo is going to be important for a long time to come." Copyright 2004 The New York Times ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Friday, October 22, 2004
BAUAW NEWSLETTER-FRIDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2004 Â
---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* END THE U.S. OCCUPATION OF IRAQ! BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW! MARCH AND RALLY TO STOP THE WAR NOW! WEDNESDAY, NOV. 3RD, 5PM POWELL AND MARKET-MARCH TO 24TH & MISSION ST., S.F. ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* VOTE YES ON N! MEETING THURSDAY, OCT. 28, 7PM, GLOBAL EXCHANGE, 2017 MISSION STREET, SUITE 303 (NEAR 16TH & MISSION STREETS) ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* NEXT BAUAW MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 7 P.M. 1380 VALENCIA STREET (BETWEEN 24TH & 25TH STREETS) ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 1) Dear UFPJ Bay Area Members, (and BAUAW and everyone...bw) "This week both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Examiner came out strongly against Prop N..." Quote from Chronicle Editorial: "Such is the danger of a symbolic resolution written by a group of politicians who have enough trouble solving problems in the streets of their own city. They are clearly over their heads in trying to figure out how to bring peace and stability to Fallujah or Baghdad." 2) Yes on N Lowell coverage/photos "Jeff Paterson" Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:57:11 -0700 3) MWM Meeting Sunday October 24th 5:30PM !!! From: "Douglas MacDonald" To: All MWM supporters and Committee Memebers (NOTE: The Date for the Report Back on the MWM is SUNDAY October 24 th !!!!! ( not the 22 nd ) 4) Just Say No to More Cops! This special Education not Incarceration announcement is being sent out as the No on Measure Y campaign goes into its home stretch. 5) A Call to Action: The following Call to Action was raised from the stage at the Million Worker March on Sunday, and supported by a meeting of the Million Worker March Committee on Monday, October 18. 6) Bush Signs $136 Billion Corporate Tax Cut Bill By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON Filed at 3:51 p.m. ET October 22, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Corporate-Taxes.html?oref=login 7) Why Didn't Anyone Tell Us? Environmental Racism Threatens the Lives of our Babies By Ebony Colbert http://www.sfbayview.com/102004/why102004.shtml 8) A Schoolgirl Riddled with Bullets. And No One is to Blame Questions remain after Israeli unit commander is cleared of Palestinian pupil's death By Chris McGreal in Rafah Published on Thursday, October 21, 2004 by the Guardian/UK http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1021-03.htm 9) Cancer and the Environment What the Bill Moyers Program "Trade Secrets" Revealed By Roland Sheppard 10) Ogallala Aquifer Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/3754520.stm Published: 2004/10/20 07:48:58 GMT [map on url] http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/3754520.stm Map: The world's water hotspots 11) I Was Robbed Last Sunday My Personal Reflections After the Washington DC. Million Workers March and the Armed Robbery Happened to Me By: Lee Siu Hin October 20, 2004 12) DOCUMENTARY: 'A Killing in Choctaw' tells an extraordinary American story of murder and forgiveness 13) Dear Readers Here is the digest for October 21, 2004 1-Two killed in the northern Gaza Strip, another dies of wounds sustained on Wednesday 2-231 Palestinians, including 88 children, killed in Khan Younis in four year 14) Return of the Class Struggle: Hotel Workers National Battle, One We Can't Afford to Lose By Gene Pepi craigslist.org/cgi-bin/search?areaID=1&subAreaID=1&query=san+francisco&cat=o ff&minAsk=500&maxAsk=1000&minSqft=600&neighborhood= ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 1) Dear UFPJ Bay Area Members, (and BAUAW and everyone...bw) "This week both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Examiner came out strongly against Prop N..." Quote from Chronicle Editorial: "Such is the danger of a symbolic resolution written by a group of politicians who have enough trouble solving problems in the streets of their own city. They are clearly over their heads in trying to figure out how to bring peace and stability to Fallujah or Baghdad." Prop N needs your help. This week both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Examiner came out strongly against Prop N despite endorsements from dozens of San Francisco groups including the SF Labor Council, SF Building & Construction Trades Council, the Sierra Club and the SF Democratic Party. This is a low blow to the local Peace Movement. In both arguments, the editors state that there is no place for opposition to the Iraq War in local politics, appear to ignore the psychological, economic and even physical harm caused to people in our city because of the Iraq War, and seem to encourage the citizens of San Francisco who are voicing their opposition through local government to essentially burry our heads in the sand and let the Bush or Kerry Administration take care of it. Yeah, right. The Chron went so far as to suggest that Prop N was conceived exclusively by ill-witted SF Supervisors, mockingly rename Prop N 'Bring the supes home now', and say "(The Supervisors) are clearly over their heads in trying to figure out how to bring peace and stability to Fallujah or Baghdad." Are we activists over our heads, too? Both newspapers also took the common stance that an immediate withdrawal of US Troops would do more harm than good. But, if they had taken the time to speak to some of us working on the Prop N, maybe they would have come to the conclusion that the US military presence is a source of violence, not tranquility and that our military occupation should be replaced by humanitarian aid in order to bring peace. Maybe they would have also learned about similar legislation that occured in many cities across the nation during the final stages of the Vietnam War. At the bottom of this message are links to the Chron and Examiner Prop N arguments. If you want to help counter their assaults, please send your opinion to the editors: http://www.sfgate.com/feedback/ letters@examiner.com Finally, to give you an idea of the Chron's cogent perspective on local politics, today's headline in their online political section is 'Lovin' Mouthfuls' in which "Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom recently shared steamy details about hubby Gavin's sexuality, prowess and much more...". I'm sorry, but is that really newsworthy? Jon Previtali Bring Our Troops Home Now, Vote Yes on N! www.yesonn.net Chron (10/21/04) "Bring the supes home now" (No on Prop N) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/21/EDGD99CLKK1.DTL Examiner (10/19/04) "No on Prop N" http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/101904op_editorial ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 2) Yes on N Lowell coverage/photos "Jeff Paterson" Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:57:11 -0700 Hi folks, Here is the IMC coverage with photos from yesterday's "Yes on N" rally at Lowell I filed today. Feel free to use the photos for anything related to the campaign. High school students organize rally against the war, for SF prop N. http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1700635.php Jeff for Not in Our Name ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 3) MWM Meeting Sunday October 24th 5:30PM !!! From: "Douglas MacDonald" To: All MWM supporters and Committee Memebers (NOTE: The Date for the Report Back on the MWM is SUNDAY October 24th! (not the 22nd) Dear Brothers and Sisters; The SF MWM Committee voted at our last meting to have a report back to describe and discuss what occurred and what will come from the MWM on Washington . Please make certain to attend this Million Worker March Meeting on SUNDAY Oct 24 th at 5:30PM, 400 North Point, the ILWU Local 10 Hall. Proposed Agenda includes: Report Back on March and Evaluation Report Back on Regional Meeting and Proposed Organizing Campaigns/Activities (see below) Discussion on Division of Labor/Structure and Membership of the SF MWM Committee Old Business Telephone Workers Solidarity Event Update on Hotel Workers Struggle Update on Bricklayers Struggle with Valero Refinery Outreach to Local Endorsing Unions and Organizations The following activities and actions were proposed to be brought back to the regional committees in order to gain grass roots input. Some, none or all of the activities can be executed, changed and modified. The next Regional MWM conference call will develop an action plan based the input gathered from the members of each regional committee. The proposed actions and activities are listed below: _ 11/7 - Support rallies for the National Japanese Day of Protest _ November - Develop local workers boards to take testimony on the harassment of workers organizing drives, the difficulty in obtaining workers compensation and the general attack on workers rights in each region of the nation. _ November - Contacting UNITE/HERE to determine what the MWM regional committees can do to support the national struggle of the hotel and restaurant workers. Propose a National Day of Solidarity with these workers struggle for a fair contract. _ 12/3-12/10 - Support the National week of anti-war protests. _ 12/4 - 12/5 - Attend the US Labor Against the War Conference in Chicago and advocate for the cooperation of the MWM movement and USLAW. _ December - Send representatives to the Labor Party Meeting to advocate for cooperation between the MWM movement and the Labor Party. _ 1/20/05 - Participate as a delegation in the anti-inauguration activities _ 3/20/05 - Support International Women's Day activities. _ 5/1/05 - (International Labor Day) Promote a global demonstration against privatization while building international solidarity for workers rights. _ 6/23/05 - Organize protests against Taft-Hartley, the slave-labor law that undermines union organizing and strikes. 6/23 is the anniversary of the creation and adoption of Taft-Hartley. _ 7/7/05 - Send representatives to the national AFL-CIO convention in Chicago to promote the MWM movement and advocate for cooperation between the organized labor movement and community organizations on the demands of the MWM. _ 7/16/05 - Convene a National MWM Conference in order to promote the MWM demands and the independent movement of working people mobilizing in their own name to advance their own needs in their own voice. _ Encourage ongoing regional actions and organizing around the MWM demands by building labor-community alliances and coalitions in each region. Solidarity; Douglas MacDonald 925-890-6430 ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 4) Just Say No to More Cops! This special Education not Incarceration announcement is being sent out as the No on Measure Y campaign goes into its home stretch. Hi Friends, Please join me at the fundraiser for the No on Measure Y campaign (just say no to more cops) in Oakland this Friday night, 8pm, Humanist Hall, 390 27th Street, downtown Oakland, and at the following events Saturday and Monday. The movie "Every Mother's Son" is a powerful documentary on three victims of police murder in New York City and the mothers' quest for justice and accountability, and the panel afterwards with the mothers of Idris Stelly, Cammerin Boyd, and Malaika Parker of Bay Area Policewatch will bring it home to the Bay Area. Californians for Justice is the latest endorser of No on Y; let's keep working to build a movement for peace and justice in Oakland. Thank you, Aaron Shuman 510-938-0654 mobile 510-428-9417 home From: "Education Not Incarceration" Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:38:00 -0700 (PDT) To: ednotinc@riseup.net Subject: Special Announcement for No on Measure Y NO ON MEASURE Y!!!! This special Education not Incarceration announcement is being sent out as the No on Measure Y campaign goes into its home stretch. First is a list of 3 upcoming No on Measure Y events. Following that is a powerful essay written by a high school student at Oakland Tech HS about being racially profiled in the hallway of his school. Please endorse the No on Y campaign and share this with your friends. No on Measure Y: Jobs, Housing, Education and Health Care, Not 63 More Cops 1. Fundraiser for No on Measure Y A screening of the film, "Every Mother's Son," which is about victims of police violence in New York City. There will be guest speakers following the film, including mothers of the victims. The event is happening this Friday, October 22nd, from 8pm-10pm at the Humanist Hall in Oakland, which is located at 390 27th Street (near 27th and Broadway) Suggested Donation of $5-10, but no-one will be turned away for lack of funds. 2. Saturday, October 23rd: Stop America's Other War. March for Social Justice and Against Measure Y, beginning at 11AM at Lake Merrit (Macarthur and Grand) 3. Monday, October 25th, No on Measure Y: Rally Against Police Brutality, Racial Profiling and Harrassment: 10:30AM at the Oakland Police Headquarters, 7th Str. and Washington St. Make a Donation... If you can't make it to the fundraiser or the other events, you can still help out by donating money to the No on Measure Y campaign. Any amount of money would be appreciated! Checks can be made payable to No on Measure Y.org and sent to: No on Measure Y, 3746 39th Ave, Oakland, CA 94619 A BLACK OAKLAND YOUTH SPEAKS OUT AGAINST MEASURE Y Please pass this on to your friends (not to other listservs). Please sign it at the bottom with your name and organization to show that you are endorsing No on Measure Y. If you are signature # 5,10,15 etc. please also send the e-mail to noonmeasurey@yahoo.com http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/1703950.php What Are You Doing in the Hall? by Laurence Ashton/PoorNewsNetwork Youth in Media One Black youth speaks out against Measure Y and the march toward a whiter, richer more militarized Oakland " What are you doing in the hall?" A mechanical voice shot through the cavernous hall of Oakland Technical High School. It couldn't have been for me, I thought, I had a hall pass and wasn't causing no trouble for noone "  did you hear me what are doing in the hall?" And then it hit me , it was for me and this time it was accompanied the dreaded click click noise of police heels studded with metal tips for that almost like-a-gun sound. "I have a pass," I turned around and faced two Oakland Police Officers who by this time were now fingering their guns and coming toward me, clicking in unison. "Let me see it" They had reached me now and one of them was less than five inches away from my face" I fumbled for my jacket pocket, as I did 'the other cop began whispering into his shoulder, "code call for back-up" Suddenly before my nervous hands could find the pass, I was against the wall and they were patting me down. Within seconds instead of weapons, they found the pass and after a short cough, one of them helped me up and said, "you should of spoke up sooner, next time keep your pass in your hand" With that, they both walked on down the hall ready to harass the next unsuspecting student who happened in their path. Later that day I found out that the Oakland Police Department had been called on campus for "a disturbance" which turned out was nothing, so I figured just to make their day not a complete waste of time, they decided to get me on a casual WWB (Walking While Black) violation. But of course what they failed to differentiate was the fact that I wasn't just "walking" I was a 16 year High School student walking through The Halls of my school and, in my opinion, they had absolutely no right in there in the first place. This disgusting experience, one of many I have encountered as young African Descendent male living in Amerikka, happened almost 3 years ago, and it all came back to me in living sickening color when my editor at PNN asked me to write about the proposed legislation Measure Y, which aims to put at least 63 more cops on the streets in Oakland funding it with a new flat tax on Oakland homeowners. Measure Y will go on November's ballot because it was approved by a majority vote of the Oakland City Council, and instead of funding the already poverty stricken Oakland schools will direct 60 percent of the newly raised taxes to hire more police officers in Oakland. Education Not Incarceration reported that just like in my case, cops don't prevent violence, they cause violence, they instigate problems where there aren't any. When there were less cops on Oakland's streets such as between 1995 - 1996 when there approximately 100 less cops on the streets, homicides decreased from 152 to 102 and a similar situation occurred from 1999 to 2000, when homicide rates decreased when the number of Oakland police officers decreased. Those of us who deal on the frontline of racism and poverty have known all of this for a long time, in my case, not only is it my situation but my fathers' who is a houseless, mentally ill Black man. He lives homelessly in LA and the Bay Area and gets harassed, abused and profiled by cops every day. He doesn't get accepted into over-filled supportive housing or access to scarce mental health treatment just because he is arrested for sleeping in a park at night. And similarly, I don't get a better public education because I get harassed in my school's hall. Police don't get at the root causes of poverty and racism; they just make life harder for the poor folks and the folks of color unlucky enough to be on their radar screen that day. Now I am not saying that all cops are bad, only most of them, but the idea that getting more cops will solve Oakland's' problems is just more Jerry Drowning of our scarce resources and services to supposedly make life better for scared rich folks who want to move foreword with the march towards a whiter, richer, more militarized Oakland. www.poormagazine.org I ENDORSE NO ON MEASURE Y: *Organization Names are for identification purpose 1. Jonah Zern, Education not Incarceration and Oakland Education Association 2. Zachary Runningwolf, Native American Leader 3. Tommy Escarcega, Proyecto Common Touch 4. Alice DoValle, Justice Now 5. Wilson Riles Jr., Oakland Community Action Network 6. David Laub, Oakland Education Association 7. Desley Brooks, Oakland Citycouncilwoman 8. Greg Hodge, School Board Member 9. Patricia Loya, Centro Legal de la Raza 10. Lisa Gutierez Guzman, Teachers for Social Justice 11. Fannie Brown, state co-chair, ACORN 12. Heath Maddom, Education not Incarceration 13. Cici Malin. Education not Incarceration 14. Jumoke Hinton Hodge 15. Dwayne Wiggins 16. Ricardo Barba Benefit , Film Showing And Music For San Francisco Unite-HERE Local 2 Locked Out Hotel Workers Hotel Workers Battle For Justice A series of films/videos celebrating the struggle of hotel and restaurant workers. Friday October 29, 2004 6:30 PM New College Of California rm 4 777 Valencia St. San Francisco Sliding Scale $5.00-$10.00 Join labor supporters and activists when LaborFest will screen hotel worker videos from 1946 Hotel Workers Strike with striking workers "Beauty Pageant" at the Mark Hopkins "Walking Out" a video of the Zim's restaurant workers strike "Union Town" of the 1980 hotel workers strike Sponsored by LaborFest P.O. Box 40983 San Francisco, CA 94140 (415)642-8066 laborfest@laborfest.net Co-sponsored by Labor Video Project P.O. Box 425584 San Francisco, CA 94142 (415)282-1908 ---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* 5) A Call to Action: The following Call to Action was raised from the stage at the Million Worker March on Sunday, and supported by a meeting of the Million Worker March Committee on Monday, October 18. We forward this to you in lieu of a full report of this historic and important event, which has formed a new level of unity between the antiwar movement and the workers' struggle. We encourage activists across the country to begin discussing December 3-10. Send us your ideas and feedback as soon as possible. There has been a suggestion that Friday, December 3 might be a perfect day for student walkouts--this is something that student activists will know best. In the coming days, this web page will report on the specific proposals for action on the various days, Dec. 3-10, including actions planned by labor activists and unions, by students and youth, and by community organizers. Please contact us to endorse, to offer feedback, and to share your ideas: stopthewar@antiwar4themillionworkermarch.org ***ENOUGH! A Call to Action Dec 3 - Dec 10 "The War Must Stop Now!" Week Not one more life - or U.S. bullet or bomb - or new war to pacify Iraq. It is with a shared sense of seriousness and urgency that we appeal to all antiwar forces, including: those of us who are based in the union/workers movement; organizations that are fighting for jobs, health care and housing; youth and student organizations; veterans; military families; military resisters; solidarity movements; and all the other progressive movements - to make the week of Friday Dec. 3 - Friday Dec. 10 (International Human Rights Day) a time for truly mass action across the country to Stop The War Now! including job actions, student walkouts, boycotts, and business closings. The U.S. has started a new war to conquer Iraq - It Will Not Work - But it will be deadly - UNLESS we say, "No More!" The bombing raids on Falluja and other Iraqi cities have been intensifying, and after the U.S. presidential elections, the occupation forces are preparing a full-scale new war to "pacify" Iraq in preparation for phony U.S.-controlled elections in January. This assault will not subdue the Iraqi people; they have made it clear that they want the U.S., and U.S.-led occupation forces to leave immediately. However, this new desperate and deadly plan to conquer a people who refused to be conquered will cause enormous death and destruction unless we make it clear that the war will no longer be tolerated. The War & Occupation must end now! And the People can end it! Our challenge, especially for those of us who have marched against the war, and those of us who have worked hard to organize those marches, to remind ourselves that the election is not going to stop the war, and that waiting for something beyond our control to stop the war only weakens our movement. The majority of the people want the war and occupation to end immediately. It is up to us to act with a sense of urgency, immediacy, passion, and determination. It is time to say ÂNo More! Jobs - Unions - Healthcare - Education - Housing - Bring the Troops Home Now! stopthewar@antiwar4themillionworkermarch.org Million Workers March Audio and Video by Ryme Katkhouda, Fred Nguyen and the dc-radio-coop http://dc.indymedia.org/feature/display/107031/index.php Read the Washington Post article about the Million Worker March: http://www.antiwar4themillionworkermarch.org/washingtonpost.htm http://www.antiwar4themillionworkermarch.org To Donate: http://www.peoplesrightsfund.org Other Upcoming Actions: Dec. 4 - No Draft, No Way Conference in New York in NYC Dec. 5 - Indoor Solidar | |