Since then, I've grown up a bit. I haven't had time to overhaul my website as I should, but that's another story. My point is that I've tried to become a more "globally aware" person. I believe there are some horriffic events taking place, and I can do some small part to combat them.
Since the beginning Bush Administration's Propaganda campaign, I have known I am anti-war. I couldn't give exact reasons why. That's where my American Presidency and Legislative Process professor, David Canon, had a siginificant impact on my life. He was telling our American Presidency class that he felt like that, too. He was against a war with Iraq, but he didn't know why. After reading an editorial in the New York Times, he'd found an answer, and I adopeted it as my answer, too, because it made so much sense.
The Bush Administration has been painting this war as black and white...right and wrong....America against terrorists. That is such a small section of the spectrum of reasons for and against a possible war. I had found my answer.
A few days later, I happened to find an organization that I whole-heartedly believe in - one that is precisely the type of voice I was looking for to express my anti-war stance. Patriots for Peace is that voice. Their mission is remarkable, and I thank the founders for coming up with this and making it public.
A couple weeks after finding out about Patriots for peace, I received an e-mail from a high school friend. He is also strongly anti-war, but is currently more active in the cause than I have been. He sent this e-mail to many people he knew, and it inspired me to become more involved in the anti-war movement. I have provided his writing here, in hopes that more people will read it and will take action. The following paragraph begins Corey's e-mail. I have removed his last name, in the interest of his privacy. If you'd like to contact him, let me know, and I'll talk to him about it.
For those of you who haven't heard from me in a while, I'm sorry that my first contact is a mass mailing. For everyone, I'm sorry that this is a propaganda filled mass mailing. But the time has come again for me to dig out the soap box. As most of you know, I now live in New York. As many of you know, I am opposed to the war on Iraq, and the moves the Bush administration is taking in nearly every aspect of governmental policy. This past Saturday marks the 3rd time I have participated in an anti-war rally in 5 months, only missing the January march in D.C. because of extreme broke-ness. Anyone who wishes to remain uninvolved entirely in politics needn't read further, but I would recommend doing so for no better reason than educational value. What follows are my thoughts on the current state of the union, as well as certain parts of the rest of the world.
You have been warned.
(Please note that the views represented by this essay are not necessarily shared by the rest of Bedford-Stuyvesant)
First of all, I want to make everyone aware of the number of people, New Yorkers and protesters from as far as Denver, who were denied their basic civil liberties on Saturday. The rest of the world is greatly bemused by the "march that wasn't allowed to march." Even the right to assemble peaceably (check your local copy of the first amendment) was called into question as thousands of protesters were denied access by the NYPD to reach the rally point near the U.N. We were misdirected for blocks until we finally got fed up and politely asked for our streets back. I mean that. From first hand experience and word of mouth throughout the day, the only aggression towards the police was in response to their own reckless crowd control tactics. Anyone read Thoreau's essay on civil disobedience? Or remember a guy named Gandhi who was heavily influenced by it? Now would be a good time to check that one out.
The protester's response to police action was peaceful non-compliance. After being herded into a penned off intersection and then told to go a direction that would certainly NOT lead us to where we were going, we stopped and refused, chanting for them to "give us back our streets." We faced a line of NYPD officers with their clubs drawn. In an instant, the mood of the crowd shifted from amiable and defiant to severely apprehensive. We all knew the precedent that had been laid down by the police in past protests. My friend Eleanor suffered a bit of post traumatic stress syndrome when the crowd's mood changed, having been hit in the chest with a tear gas canister at a WTO protest in Seattle. We were ready for tear gas, ready to be shoved around, even arrested. What was not expected was the NYPD mounted units spurring their horses into a packed crowd of people with nowhere to go. When I say spur, I mean they were actually driving sharp metal implements into their horses' sides and tightly holding the reins to get the horse to go directly into a crowd. I am no equine expert, but it is my belief that running into a crowd of people is not something a horse will normally do, and that a conscious decision by the rider must be made to do what is described above. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Now, I am sure the NYPD spokespeople will claim some sort of training for the horses used in this exercise, but I am incensed with equal parts disbelief and anger at the idea that such a practice could be thought to be safe. Let me reiterate here that the only thing we were doing that could be considered "wrong" was occupying an intersection that was closed off to traffic by police anyway, and non-compliance with their demands that we allow ourselves to be lead astray by a misdirection effort poorly disguised as traffic control. Our peaceful civil disobedience was met with this dangerous exercise, and then it was kept up as the crowd was pushed against the barricades so tightly that we couldn't move; any tighter, in fact, and we would have had difficulty breathing. I do not exaggerate this fact, and I'm sure you could find many accounts by which to verify this. At this point we were held in by the NYPD as the mounted officers continued to charge the crowd and pull off with barely enough room to not seriously injure someone, while the frightened and still tightly packed crowd was slowly allowed to disperse down the sidewalk (attempts to disperse on the street, as far as I have heard, were met with force).
This happened to me at the intersection of 51st Street and 3rd Avenue in Manhattan, February 15th, at approximately 2:30 pm. In at least a dozen other intersections in the area, the same thing was happening. The thousands of people trying to get to the rally point, where a hundred thousand were already present to hear the speakers speak, were denied their right to join a peaceful assembly and to add their voices to a chorus of anti-war sentiment. The Raymond Kelly, the NYPD commissioner, reports 257 arrests (NY Times, 02/17/03, link listed below). He admits that they are mostly minor charges. Does it speak to any of you that 250 people were arrested, and thousands more misdirected, ill-treated, threatened, and some even injured (protesters who sat down in the street when charged with horses were actually trampled) because they wanted to speak out against war? Because they were occupying city sidewalks, and eventually city streets because that's where the NYPD directed us? Because when our rights were violated, we did our civic duty and resisted? The erosion of the Bill of Rights is not liberal overreaction, it is a very real thing, and should scare the Hell out of all of you. I have tentative plans to mail copies of 1984 to members of congress as they seem to have forgotten all about that book.
Before I go on (and I am going to go on), take the time to read the links listed below. There are things here you should know.
Now that you've got some more info from a source other than me, let's continue. As many people have asked already, I'm sure that you're now wondering what exactly I am protesting. I say "I" because I can only speak for myself for certain, though I'm sure thousands share the same view. I am not a believer that someone like Saddam Hussein should be in power. I am not someone who has any particular desire to be attacked by terrorists again (as you may remember, I was living in New York when the WTC towers were destroyed). I do not believe we can do nothing about the current geopolitical landscape. Maniacs are in power, nuclear weapons are being built by governments I don't personally trust with them, and people are being denied their basic rights, as far as I see basic rights going. Unfortunately, this is happening within our borders as much as it is without. Inflammatory statement? Yes, I do that. Keep reading, though, I have details to support such remarks.
One of the basic concepts of the anti-war movement, for me at least, is that Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and the boys are a bunch of evil bastards. Is Saddam Hussein someone who should be removed from power? Yes. Does the United States have the right to bomb the Iraqi people in a unilateral show of force? I'm going to say no.
First of all, the U.S. is acting in a completely transparent and dishonorable manner regarding the U.N. weapons inspections. The official statement is that the U.S. and Britain will attack Iraq if they do not comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. Hans Blix made his report to the U.N. on February 14th, and you can read the entire transcript here:
There is currently debate over the precise meaning of Blix's report, with the U.S. and Britain trying to use certain parts of the report to claim Iraq is failing to comply with security council resolution 1441. Most people, myself included, feel that a less than ideal compliance should be expected from Iraq. I am not defending any non-compliance by Iraq, only stating that "full compliance," the wording of resolution 1441, seems to me more of an ideal that is unlikely to exist in the real world. Is Iraq hiding weapons of mass destruction from inspectors? It's possible. The possibility does not condone a "pre-emptive strike," the most absurd idea in military and political history. Are we allowed to kill civilians because we want to do so? I remember there being a particular maxim in the American conscious, "Innocent until proven guilty." Being the idealist that I am, I like to believe that our great and noble American ideals, the very things that make this country great (and this country is great, wonderful, amazing- that is why I cannot stand by idly while the current administration works, even if unwittingly, to destroy for what so many brave men and women have fought and died), should apply to all people, not just us. As a hundred thousand people have already said, let the inspectors do their jobs. Do I go into the Oval Office and tell Bush how to choke on popcorn? No.
Second point:
Treaty of Westphalia: Full TextYes, that's right kids! You know it, you love it, your president (should you be an American citizen, anyway) insists on violating the spirit of it! It's the Treaty of Westphalia!! In brief, it was 1684 when the treaty ended 80 years of religious wars in Europe. That in itself doesn't hold much relevance today, but the important part is that the treaty established a new concept in the political game, the sovereignty of nations, i.e. the general rule is that one nation cannot interfere with the internal workings of another. This is the basis for the way the modern international politics functions. Four hundred years is a long time, but the precept has held up remarkably well until security council resolution 1244 in the summer of 1999, regarding the internal affairs of Kosovo and the use of force by the U.N., on the grounds that it posed a threat to international security. A-ha!, you might say, there is precedent for this sort of thing! Yes, there is. And one could apply a similar logic to the Iraqi situation. The important distinction here is that the Kosovo situation was a U.N. resolution, not unilateral U.S. action. And it took 400 years for something like that to happen. Once in 400 years doesn't make me feel comfortable with the current American government reshaping world politics as they see fit. Do we want another 400 years governed by ideas set forth by a man who can't even say nuclear?
Most pro war parties with whom I have spoken only give arguments of a relatively limited viewpoint. Yes, Saddam is a bad man. Yes, he has treated his people horribly. We put him there, but that's besides the point. Like many things in life, removing Saddam from power would be a simple matter if pesky things like consequences didn't exist. Unfortunately, this is not fantasy land, and any action taken by the U.S. government, or any government for that matter, is likely to have far reaching effects. Not only is this my country, this is my planet, and I will not abide decisions of such gravity to be made on suppositions and jingoistic policy, on a blanket statement about an "Axis of Evil." Mark that one down as an administrative classic, one that school children should be having a good laugh about in 50 years. Or now, preferably. Should we change the basic way nations act and interact? Perhaps we should. But the Treaty of Westphalia took four years to create. Sure, there was an absurd amount of bureaucracy, but it was a cooperative, mutually agreeable effort. If we're going to change the terms of geopolitics, let's do it slowly, carefully, and cooperatively. Let's not leave the U.N. to charter a rationalization for our administration's foreign policy blunders. This is not a fanciful ideal, this is about innocent people dying because of our irrationality. Our leaders may not mind that blood on their hands, but I do. And I don't think it would stop with Iraq. There is an Axis of Evil after all, and evil axes traditionally have 3 members. We would still need to go to war with North Korea. And after that I'm sure we could find some other state "harboring terrorists." Bush seems to wants a war with no end. He wants to fight a war not officially declared against an abstract concept (terror? who comes after N. Korea, the bogeyman?) with no clearly defined goals. Does anyone else have a problem with giving that kind of power to a man who thinks we can use "faith to solve the nation's deepest problems" (NYT, 02/18/03, see below for link)? Faith in a higher power is all well and good, but maybe if he'd come up with a better national plan than "trust in God," I wouldn't be developing an ulcer in regards to the fate of the nation.
Third, this intended action by the U.S. is so morally reprehensible that it boggles the mind. We're now going to bomb people that are starving because they have an evil dictator that we put in place? And to top things off, they're starving because of our economic sanctions? Who thought sanctions were going to do anything anyway? We've established that Saddam Hussein is not a nice man. Logically, who do you expect to starve because of sanctions-- the dictator, or the widow with 4 children in Baghdad? In 1995, the CIA encouraged Iraqi dissidents to wrongly believe that the United States wanted the overthrow of Hussein and would assist an Iraqi rebellion, then stood by as the revolution was violently quelled. On top of this, we're going to bomb these people now? And at home, a $400 billion defense budget when many cities and states are facing the worst financial crisis in a long time? Who thought that was a good idea? The propaganda coming out of Washington isn't even that good to merit such a waste of money. Couldn't they get by on $300 billion? Or even $200 billion? I'm using a 6 year old Mac, I think they should be able to make do as well. The economy is not in good shape right now. Hell, part of the reason I've got time to do this is that even the lousy jobs are hard to come by these days. How about a measly $10 billion for job creation? How about $5 billion to reduce dependence on foreign oil? And I mean to someone who would use it, not the people getting that money now. Hey, I know: feed some starving children! That would be nice! An increase in Peace Corps funding and similar ventures, so maybe developing nations would have less cause to hate us? How about that for a war on terrorism? I know, these are radical ideas, but keep up with me here. Yes, I'm saying we should stop terrorism by NOT creating more terrorists. If anyone would like to get high and mighty on that point, saying that the US is somehow right, please take the time to think about what you're saying. On both sides of this conflict, thousands of innocent people are going to be hurt, whether it be with bombs there or asinine fiscal policy here. And if you think war will stimulate our economy, I feel the need to point out that is most likely wrong as well as ghoulish. With the amount of automation available for manufacturing, I feel a war is unlikely to provide as many jobs as some seem to think it would. The only people I can see winning are those with weapons contracts.
And as an added note, I think it's about time the American people said something about this wonderful double standard we have with the rest of the world. We can have weapons of mass destruction. We can defy U.N. charters (see: the last of the small pox). We can do whatever we want, because we have the biggest and bestest military in the world, because we're innovators, because we're free, because of whatever excuse you want to give. Please, if you don't see that as a complete load of bullshit please meet me face to face so I can explain this in small words to you. What would happen if the U.N. decided that the U.S. should disarm? Would we allow weapons inspectors in?
Well, that's a good laugh.
How do those work out for reasons not to go to war with Iraq? If the precedents of such an action don't scare the living shit out of you, does the blatant bullshit of our administration bother you? Doesn't the idea of children getting blown up in the Middle East and starving in Middle America bother you? For Christ's sake, think of the children! And for everybody that's been coasting along, watching our political decline from a distance, I think now is a good time to stand up and issue an emphatic, "What do you think you're doing?!?" to our government. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty fed up with their crap. To use a question posed by a Mr. P. Byfield, what would happen if everyone went to the polls and voted "NO?"
It is now the time in the manifesto when I'm sure many of your are referring to me by any number of derogatory names, which doesn't bother me, and/or questioning my loyalty to my country. This is a point that gets under my skin quickly.
Ladies and gentleman, I am a patriot. I love this country; I love what it stands for. I love the inherent potential of this land, its people, its ideals. I love interstate highways and back roads, rocky mountains and mile wide rivers. We have a Final Frontier. We have some of the most creative people ever born. We have blues, we have jazz, we have Bob Dylan and Tom Waits. We have history-- things of which to be proud, things of which to be ashamed-- but enough that we should have learned something either way. We are descended from brave immigrant stock, dirty hopefuls, as well as bastards, drunks, and thieves. We are a nation with a backbone of working class heroes.
I know that many of you are fed up with our government to the point where you see this country as wrong-- Hell, some of you may be reading this from Prague, having already given up-- but I refuse to let go. I can see why Americans could give up on America, but I feel it is important to remember this: I believe that any overweight investment banker with a nice house in the suburbs and two SUVs who doesn't vote often and does only when a new tax break is on the line, yet calls himself a patriot because he stands behind our president, is as much a patriot as I am a fish. And fish can't type. A patriot is someone fighting to oppose the government because of what he or she believes is right, not what is cool, popular, neat, or interesting. On the other hand, a patriot is also someone with rational arguments FOR military action, not someone who can do no more than call the opposition names that don't even apply (my own stance against this war does not, in any way, make me a communist). Yes, I am saying that both sides are patriots, because that's what democracy is. If you can't rub two brain cells together for either cause, get the fuck off my doorstep. A true patriot on either side shouldn't be accepting this flimsy propaganda coming out of Washington. Everyone all over the world knows to take what governments say with a grain of salt. How did that message get lost on the way to so many Americans? A true patriot should be fighting in any way he or she can to make this country a better place for all who live here, and fighting to make this world a better place as well. Does that sound a little too idealistic? It might be, but I'm too young to accept less than ideal. And I'm too old to believe that things are going to work out for the best without me.
And now on to the point of this good fight that we are fighting: hope. It's a good thing to have. It is the hope that we can make this country, and by extension this world, into a better place, if not an ideal place, through individual action. And I don't think we are losing this fight. Here is something of interest:
I don't know all of Kucinich's policies. I already don't agree with his pro-life stance. But looking at the bigger picture, I am gratified that there is already a presidential candidate running on a platform that is against war in Iraq, and the proliferation of Bush's war with no end. And I am glad there is a Senator speaking out with common sense about this situation, even if the news won't pick it up. Someone in Washington is listening, or maybe even thinking, and that gives me hope.
I don't have all the answers to all the world's problems. I will readily admit that. What should we do about Saddam? It seems to me that gassing his own citizens would probably qualify him as a war criminal. How about that for a foot in the door in Iraqi affairs, rather than carpet bombing?
I don't have all the information regarding this situation. But I know bad when I see it, and what is going on in our government is quite simply bad. I will also admit my apathy regarding politics in the past, but it's gone too far for me to ignore it any longer. I don't have the answer to the question, "What do we do now?," but I have some ideas. First off, anyone who hasn't written to their congressional representatives should do so, as well as every other political figure representing you to whom you can write. I say Congress first, because only Congress has the constitutional right to declare war. After that, I'd make sure the governor and mayor are aware of your feelings. I will be advising NYC Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly of my feelings on their crowd control tactics, and I suggest all New Yorkers and anyone else who wants to participate do so also. The addresses for each are as follows.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg City Hall New York, NY 10007 fax: (212) 788-2460
Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly 1 Police Plaza New York, NY 10038
Letter writing is a start. It's probably the first thing you should do, this being a democracy, at least in theory. The next thing you can do is, like me, be an annoying bastard to all your friends and try to get them into this movement. I'm not the kind of guy who gets politically involved at the drop of a hat, but I feel this is much too important to ignore. Get informed, don't shy away from debate, even if you don't have all the answers. An informed public with an open dialogue on the situation is the worst threat to the Bush administration. The government has had 30 years to think about dissenters in wartime and have changed their tactics accordingly. They are doing all they can to ignore us. Don't let them. If that's too much work for you, at least put up some anti-war stickers. The more visible we are, the better we're doing. Those are my suggestions. The links at the end of this letter will point you to some organizations with more. And, as I mentioned before, you should ALL read "Civil Disobedience" by Thoreau. Is this movement going to stop the war, change the world? I don't know, but I'm going to do what I can. All I want to know is whether you're in or out.
Here's some late breaking news from Bush himself, in response to the millions of people protesting his war. "Evidently, some of the world don't view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace," Bush said. "I respectfully disagree." He also claims that leadership sometimes involves bucking public opinion See below for the Times article.
If this does not infuriate anyone calling themselves an American, they should really reevaluate what exactly it is they like about this country. The very nerve of Bush to shrug off the will of the people as if it were a "focus group" should be grounds to haul him out of office. The blatant hypocrisy of going to war in the name of freedom (already a maddeningly stupid idea) while ignoring the will of the people in his own nation should sicken every last one of you. And his pathetic attempt to spin the antiwar sentiment into misinformed well-meaning is the cherry on top. We shouldn't impeach him. We should exile him.
So that is that. If you've made it this far, I applaud your perseverance. If you want to ask me questions, reply to johnny_pensive@gmx.net, or use the aol screen name johnnypensive. If you agree with any of this, or at least find it interesting, please pass it on to your friends. I only ask two things: first, please either cut and paste into a new document before forwarding or forward without adding greater-than signs to cut down on clutter. Second, please leave my name and contact information, so that anyone who wishes further clarification of my points can get it from me directly. I am more than happy to continue debate on this subject. Plain text and Word versions of this document will be available soon, as well as a hard copy in the near future.
Corey *****
Brooklyn, NY
Editorial Assistance by Sue Dennis and Eleanor Moonier. Thank you both.
Thank you Corey, for lots of stuff. I'm very glad you're one of my friends.
And following is some information complied by your truly.
Feingold, Russell - (D - WI) 506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5323 E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Kohl, Herb - (D - WI) 330 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5653 E-mail: senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov
WISCONSIN OFFICE 10 East Doty Street, Suite 405 Madison, Wisconsin 53703 (608) 258-9800 (608) 258-9808 Fax
WASHINGTON OFFICE 1022 Longworth Building Washington DC 20515 (202) 225-2906 (202) 225-6942 Fax
US Senate
US House of Representatives