Stew (09/10/03 1:32pm) MOVED
This news article is from the UWO Gazette the only University paper in Canada to be printed every day. The article is about the "Don't Attack Iraq" protest that both Luke and myself attended back in December of last year. Both Luke and I got to take to the reporter "Marshall Bellamy". We are both quoted in this article. Take a look at what we had to say.
Stew (07/04/03 4:46pm)
MUST READ
Well these three man might just be the first of many to die at the Guantanamo bay death camps
LONDON,
LONDON, England -- Two Britons and an Australian are among six detainees at Guantanamo Bay that U.S. President George W. Bush has ruled eligible to be tried before U.S. military commissions.
"The president determined that there is reason to believe that each of these enemy combatants was a member of al Qaeda or was otherwise involved in terrorism directed against the United States," the Pentagon said in a statement.
Senior defense officials, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, declined to discuss many details of the process.
They refused to identify the six individuals by name or even by nationality, saying no charges have yet been brought against them, and said their identities may never be announced.
However, a spokesman for the UK Foreign Office said two of the six detainees were British.
Moazzam Begg, 35, was said by his father to be one of the Britons involved. The other Briton was named by his solicitor as Feroz Abbasi, 23.
Australian national David Hicks is also in the group, Australia's Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams told The Associated Press.
Begg's father, Azmat, said he was concerned his son, a father of four, would not receive a fair trial.
He has been held at Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay for four months and was previously detained in Afghanistan for a year.
Begg's family have always maintained that he was a victim of mistaken identity.
Abbasi's solicitor, Louise Christian, said the tribunal plans were "victor's justice" and a breach of her client's human rights.
"We are horrified that the British government is allowing this to happen. It shows they have absolutely no influence over the U.S. and have been able to do nothing for their citizens.
"The tribunal's powers to impose the death penalty are completely barbaric and breach all international human rights laws."
Abbasi has been at Camp Delta for 18 months and has been in detention for nearly two years in total as he was held in Afghanistan before that, she said.
Hicks' lawyer, Stephen Kenny told AP his client faced "an American kangaroo court," where his fate will ultimately be in the hands of President Bush.
UK Foreign Office minister Baroness Symons told the BBC the British government was concerned about the use of a military commission to try the men, as well as about the way the commission would operate.
The government would press the United States hard to satisfy concerns over access to lawyers, standards of evidence and appeals in the case of a guilty verdict, she said.
Copyright 2003 CNN. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/04/security.commission.britons/index.html
Stew (06/26/03 10:02pm)
(CNN) -- A 22-year-old disabled Florida woman raped while under the state's care who is more than six months pregnant is now under a court order to carry her fetus to term.
In newly unsealed documents, Circuit Court Judge Lawrence Kirkwood in Orlando, Florida, signed off on a recommendation submitted by the woman's court-approved legal guardian.
Guardian Patti Jarrell had her client, known only by her initials J.D.S., examined by at least two doctors on June 5 and 12. At least one of the doctors specialized in high-risk pregnancies, according to the guardian's report.
J.D.S. reportedly suffers from autism and cerebral palsy. Police have said she has the mental capacity of a 1-year-old and has no family.
Oh wait it gets better, Jeb Bush sticks his nose into the story. To keep reading click here
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/25/court.ordered.birth/index.html
Stew (06/02/03 10:32pm)
I really don't know what to say. Please read and post your thoughts on the message board.
The US has floated plans to turn Guantanamo Bay into a death camp, with its own death row and execution chamber. Prisoners would be tried, convicted and executed without leaving its boundaries, without a jury and without right of appeal, The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported yesterday. The plans were revealed by Major-General Geoffrey Miller, who is in charge of 680 suspects from 43 countries, including two Australians. The suspects have been held at Camp Delta on Cuba without charge for 18 months. [...]
The Mail on Sunday reported the move is seen as logical by the US [but] has horrified human rights groups and lawyers representing detainees. They see it as the clearest indication America has no intention of falling in line with internationally recognised justice. The US has already said detainees would be tried by tribunals, without juries or appeals to a higher court. Detainees will be allowed only US lawyers.
American law professor Jonathan Turley, who has led US civil rights group protests against the military tribunals planned to hear cases at Guantanamo Bay, said [...]: 'This camp was created to execute people. The administration has no interest in long-term prison sentences for people it regards as hard-core terrorists
Stew (05/05/03 10:30am)
Well Bad Religion was awesome. We got there but the guest list was not at the front desk yet so we missed out on Warsawpack. Warsawpack played in London the night before, and were the ones who got us on the guest list. Pete was talking to them and said that he wanted to go to the show with Bad Religion but he could not get tickets. So Warsawpack put Pete and 5 friends on the guest list. All I have to say is if you have listened to bad religion on CD it sounds the same live. They are on of the tightest bands live that you will ever hear.
Well I have been practicing everyday and thing are becoming a lot smother and a lot fast. In the next week or so I will be putting an EMG 81 and 85 into the explorer, so it should be fun.
I have also been reading Nome Chomsky's new book Power and Terror. All I can say is it's a must read. I'm not done it yet but dame the thing you never knew about will shock you. It's about addressing the abuse of power. It talks about the use of weapons of mass destruction. PICK IT UP.
Stew (04/25/03 1:15pm)
I'M OFF TO SEE BAD RELIGION TONIGHT IN HAMILTON. All thanks to Peter(aka Jesus). Luke will not becoming because he has exams. Sorry about your luck Luke. Give you all the updates tomorrow.
Later
Stew (04/21/03 1:00pm)
Well I know the fist thing you’re going to say is "Were the fuck are the updates." Well I'm sorry I have been playing and playing and I have not had a chance to update. So well I can tell you I now can make some fuck LOUD noise. About a week or two I pick up a TRIPLE MOTHER FUCKIN RECITIFER. You know it’s LOUD when in the first page of the manual it says WARNING: MAY CAUSE PERMANENT HEARING DAMAGE. I have been playing more then ever. Luke will be done school on the 26 and that mean more and more practicing. Last week Luke and I sat down and went over some song ideas that I had written down. I really got to get some more pictures up on here. Well I see what I can do. Again, sorry for that lack of updates.
Later
Stew (03/26/03 12:28pm)
Well last night I some good practice time in for about 3 hours last night. Tonight on the other hand is a vary important night because like every Wednesday I got and sit with Luke at his work we go throw all the thing that are happening in the world and talk about One Shot Kill. This is the best time for me to write lyrics. Right now we are discussing a schedule for practicing for the summer. He will soon bee finished school for another year which will free up a lot of time for us to get together. I'll update you all tomorrow on things we discussed.
Later.
Stew (03/24/03 5:00pm)
Well Some of you might have seen this somewhere else but I think it will be a great idea. We will try this out of a bit and see if we can get you all to keep coming back to see what's going on. I have moved Lukes post in here so that it dose not jam up the main page. This is a very important aritcal and I ask all of you to read it and post you thoughts on our message board.
We will be getting a digital camera soon so I will put pictures up with the posts.
Luke (03/23/03 7:00pm)
Hey guys and gals, this is Luke...the other member!
Just thought I would write to you guys about the current situation in Iraq.
Just to be clear, Stew and myself DO NOT SUPPORT THE U.S. LED WAR ON IRAQ! This is an unjust and illegal war with no justification. Here is a little article that explains things better and further elaborates on One Shot Kill's view.
No Ribbons, No Flags, No Fireworks
An Open Letter to Pro-War Americans
by Tim Wise
March 21, 2003
Dear neighbor,
Please spare me the lecture. Likewise, don't bother asking me why I refuse
to tie a yellow ribbon around the tree in my front yard, or put out a
flag, or slather my Honda Civic with "Support the Troops" bumper stickers.
I don't feel like explaining it every time someone wants answers to these
questions, and anyway, you probably wouldn't like my reasons to begin
with.
You claim that we must now put aside our different opinions about the
propriety of war with Iraq, and rally 'round the President, the country,
and our men and women in uniform. But you are wrong, and I imagine that at
some level you know this to be true.
After all, do we really have an obligation to support the troops no matter
what they do as they prosecute this slaughter against a minor league
opponent? Would you indeed support the troops if their mission involved
nuclear incineration of Iraqi cities and villages? One, two, many My Lai
massacres?
Beyond hypotheticals, should we support the troops even as they carry out
the announced plan to launch nearly a thousand cruise missiles into Iraq's
major population centers within forty-eight hours of war? With the UN
estimating that upwards of a half-million Iraqis might die as a result of
this war, can you really say without any sense of misgiving that we should
"support the troops" come what may, and that failure to do so should be
branded un-American?
Don't misunderstand. I guess one could say that I too support the troops,
but surely not in the way that you and other flag-wavers intend.
I support them being able to make a living and get an education without
having first to subordinate their consciences to a military establishment
that vitiates critical thought, reflection and free will, so as to create
more efficient killing machines. How about you?
I support them not being lied to about the chemicals and depleted uranium
to which they will likely be exposed. How about you?
I support them refusing to fly their planes, refusing to bomb civilian
infrastructure, like water treatment facilities, the destruction of which
will create mass epidemics and cause the deaths of thousands of children.
How about you?
I support them refusing to move their tanks against civilians. How about
you?
I support them deserting, going AWOL, and disobeying the unlawful orders
that are the hallmark of modern warfare--unlawful because they almost
always violate international law, such as Article 54 of the Geneva
Conventions, which makes it a certifiable war crime to target any facility
the integrity of which is necessary to the functioning of civilian life.
I support the troops as fathers and mothers; as children; as brothers and
sisters; as human beings and free moral agents, all of which they were
long before they became the foot soldiers of a swaggering empire, led by a
functionally-illiterate cowboy with no knowledge of history, who couldn't
find Iraq on a map if it wasn't labeled first, and whose drive to mass
murder seems motivated as much by a desire to win the love of his daddy as
anything more substantive.
I support the troops arresting any American solider who they see killing
an Iraqi civilian, or ordering the same. They should turn their guns on
their own in such a situation, in the name of defending the innocent and
in regard to a higher law to which they are bound.
But I do not support the troops following orders that will kill scores of
innocent people. I will not cheer the light show over Baghdad, the
bulldozing of Iraqi soldiers beneath desert sand, burying them alive as
was done in the first Gulf War; nor will I support the strafing of Iraqi
soldiers as they retreat or seek to surrender, as was also done in the
first Gulf War, in what was described at the time as a "turkey shoot."
Any soldier that engages in those kinds of actions deserves not support
but rather prosecution under accepted standards of international law for
the commission of war crimes. Following orders was no excuse at Nuremberg
and it will be no excuse in Basra either.
Indeed, military personnel are sworn to obey orders only when those orders
are lawful, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. What's
more, in their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, all members of
the military are bound by Article VI of that document which makes
international treaties and agreements the highest law of the land. As
such, following orders to prosecute this war violates the oath taken by
the troops, since Article 51 of the UN Charter allows war only in
immediate self-defense or when the Security Council has directed or
authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and
security, neither of which condition applies here.
And since Article 2 of the Charter makes clear that war is not legitimate
for the purpose of regime change, the attack underway is by definition a
criminal act, in violation of international law and thus the Constitution.
It is an impeachable offense, far more serious than getting a blow job and
lying about it.
And saying this is not giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as you
suggest. What gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States is
the prosecution of an unjust war itself. It is this war that will aid our
enemies, by giving them yet another issue around which to rally
terrorists, suicide bombers, hijackers and other assorted fanatics.
Bombing a nation like Iraq, especially after eviscerating it for over a
decade with sanctions, can serve no purpose but to enhance the likelihood
of terrorism, and even the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
since only being in clear possession of such materials (as with North
Korea) seems capable of deterring attack by the U.S.
And no, it is not my job to fall in line, just so the morale of soldiers
can receive a boost. I want the morale of soldiers to plummet. I want them
to question the propriety of their assignments, and I want them to be so
conflicted about that mission that they simply refuse to do their jobs. If
criticism of this war harms troop morale and can create internal dissent
and divisions among the U.S. military, then we need more of it, not less.
Lives are worth more than morale; worth more than self-image; worth more
than soldiers' feelings.
And since it is with my money and in my name that any killing of Iraqis
will proceed, I have not just a right but an obligation to speak out
against the war if I consider it unjust. When my nation kills, I kill, and
I don't take the thought of collaboration lightly. Collaboration puts my
soul in jeopardy. So while the troops may use my money to do their dirty
work, don't expect me to say amen. My soul is more important than their
morale. So is yours.
As a father, I believe that this war will endanger the life of my daughter
(and my daughter to be) down the line. That by creating even more
embittered Muslims--embittered towards my nation because they can, after
all, read the markings on the bomb casings that say, "Made in the
USA"--this war will lay the groundwork for a form of payback that will
make 9/11 look like a global fender-bender. Survivors have long memories,
and the truth be told, we simply can't kill them all. It is those long
memories that will haunt my children and their children, for as James
Baldwin reminded us, "There is no creation of any society more dangerous
than the man who has nothing to lose."
So no, I can't support the troops in the traditional sense, because if
they do their jobs, they contribute to the menacing of my family in years
to come, and my family's safety is more important than their morale. So is
yours.
But I do support the troops in the ways that truly matter. Do you?
I support those troops of color in their continuing quest to be treated as
equals at all times, and not merely when they are picking up a gun to kill
for America: that means that I support the struggle against the racism
that those same troops too often face in their homeland. How about you?
I support those troops who are women in their continuing struggle against
sexual assault and harassment, in general and specifically at places like
the Air Force Academy, where some of their male counterparts apparently
think it their duty to abuse them as sex objects. How about you?
I support those troops who are gay or lesbian in their quest for equitable
treatment and the right to be true to themselves and not have to hide
their sexual orientations so as to pander to another soldier's bigotry.
How about you?
I support those troops who are poor; specifically I support their right to
health care, and a college education and a job and shelter, and a living
wage. And I support these things for them whether in or out of uniform.
And I support these same things for the families of the troops back home.
How about you?
It is not the anti-war movement whose concern for the troops should be
questioned, but rather that of the men who send them to battle, to face
weapons that those same men (or their fathers) sold to the other side in
the first place.
Those men who never faced war themselves--and in the case of the President
went AWOL to avoid even a stateside National Guard assignment during
Vietnam--but who are quick to use others as the fighting, bombing
appendages to their own shriveled manhoods.
Those men who think that respect for international law can be instilled by
disregarding international law, international opinion and the primary
international decision making body on the planet.
Those men who think it appropriate to build up monsters around the globe
and then criticize those monsters for doing exactly what we knew they
would do all along.
Those men who believe they are entitled to say which nations can have
certain types of weapons and which cannot; which nations can ignore UN
resolutions and which must follow them; which nations are allowed to
oppress their own people and which must be held to a higher standard.
Those men who believe that "our vital national interests" like the free
flow of oil at market prices outweigh the right of Iraqi children to walk,
laugh, play, or simply breathe.
For it is these men who view the troops as expendable, and who see them as
one-dimensional tools for destruction, rather than as human beings. It is
these men who are putting the troops in harm's way so as to satisfy their
own ambitions.
And it is we who oppose this war who seek to bring them back in one
piece--physically and emotionally.
So please, spare me the lecture.
Tim Wise is a writer, antiracist activist and father. He can be reached at
timjwise@msn.com
| 
