• No War Against Iran! Bush and Congress are The War Criminals!
• Hillary Clinton Votes for War Again
• U.S., NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes Directed Against Iran
• Iranian Academics Ask 10 Questions of the
President of Columbia University
• Udall’s Carelessness Regarding Iran
Anti-War Activists Stopped at Rainbow Bridge
• Reject Criminalization of Dissent! No to FBI Lists!
• Hands off Anti-War Organizers!: Letter in Defense of Alison Bodine
• Petition to Demand U.S. Stop Blacklisting Peace Activists
• Militant Resistance Frees Alison Bodine
• More than 2,000 Signatures Demand: Drop All Charges Against Alison Now!
• Collecting of Details on Travelers Documented
No War Against Iran! Bush and Congress are The War Criminals!
The U.S. is again committing the crime of promoting aggressive war against Iran. President George W. Bush has positioned nuclear weapons for use against Iran. Israel is being primed to launch attacks, to give the U.S. justification for coming to its aid when Iran defends itself. The recent bombing of Syria is also a part of these war plans.
Congress, which can declare its opposition to war against Iran, as well as pass legislation and refuse any funds for it, has instead again backed Bush. The Senate passed a non-binding resolution, attached to the Pentagon 2008 appropriations bill, calling on the government to target Iran. It includes branding the Iranian Army, known as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, as “terrorists.” It also includes the disinformation that the government of Iran is engaged in “violent and destabilizing” actions in Iraq and calls on U.S. troops to stop these actions. The large majority of Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, backed the amendment on a 76-22 vote. The House, for its part, voted 408-6 to pass the “Iran Sanctions Enabling Act,” which imposes sweeping sanctions against foreign companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector. The bill is being pushed hard by Israel. Neither the House bill nor the Senate amendment are yet law.
President George W. Bush and various government officials continue to insist that military action is very much on the table, as do the various Democratic presidential contenders. During the debate, Congresspeople also repeatedly engaged in promoting aggressive war against Iran. The threats include using nuclear weapons. The bombs planned are each 150 times larger than the bomb used against the Japanese people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
According to International law, including laws which are also the law of the land in the U.S., these are criminal acts by Congress and the President. How dare these gangsters threaten the world with nuclear holocaust! It must not pass!
The U.S. is stepping up its threats at a time when the Iranians have worked out an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to deal with all matters concerning their nuclear program. The head of the IAEA has repeatedly said Iran is not producing nuclear weapons, is not a threat and diplomacy is going forward. The United Nations recently agreed to provide more time for negotiations. Facing failure in Iraq and desperate to build its world empire, it is the U.S. that is the threat to Iran, the region and the world. All humanity is insisting, No War Against Iran! U.S. Must Disarm Now!
The U.S. can no longer sustain its claim that Iran is a nuclear threat. So now the claim most often used to justify war is that Iran is responsible for U.S. failure in Iraq, has a “terrorist” army and is thus fair game for U.S. military action. The Senate branding of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists was designed specifically to strengthen this claim of Iran as “terrorist.” This makes all those who voted in favor of the amendment as criminal and accountable as Bush for any attacks launched against Iran.
It is also the case that war against Iran will very likely be used as an excuse to impose a “national emergency” at home. President Bush and Congress have systematically been putting in place arrangements for executive rule, with the President as sole decision maker and Congress and the Courts reduced to consultative bodies. Arrangements for the military to take control inside the country are also in place.
The inability of the ruling class to organize elections that are legitimate in the eyes of the people is of great concern to the rulers and their parties. So too is the recognition among the people of the government failure in Iraq and failure with Katrina. Plans for war against Iran only further underline this failure and the complete inability of U.S.-style democracy to solve any problem. The rulers and their parties fear the growing resistance among the people, including the people’s efforts to reject the existing set-up and stand anti-war candidates.
The timing of war against Iran takes place within this context as well as within the framework of contention in the international arena. Bush could well act before the primaries for the 2008 elections get underway, so as to justify postponing or even eliminating them. No doubt Congress would go along. He could also wait until closer to the 2008 November elections.
The situation makes all the more urgent the necessity to step up organized resistance, including demanding and supporting anti-war candidates and standing firm against U.S. war plans. Let all be vigilant! No war against Iran!
No War Against Iran!
[TOP]
Hillary Clinton Votes for War Again
Yesterday, September 27, by a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment in support of military actions against Iran. [The amendment is non-binding and attached to the as yet to pass 2008 defense authorization bill.] This is the second such endorsement of the president by a senate majority in just three months. In July, the Lieberman amendment to “confront Iran” passed with the far stronger majority of 97-0.
The original draft of Kyl-Lieberman had asked U.S. forces to “combat, contain, and roll back” the Iranian menace within Iraq. But the words “roll back” were all too plainly a coded endorsement of hot pursuit into Iran and the senators did not want to go quite so far. To assure a larger majority the language was accordingly trimmed and blurred to say “that it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hizbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies.”
The inclusion of Hizbollah deserves some notice. It is part of a larger attempt, already apparent in the Lebanon war of 2006, to manufacture an “amalgam” of all the enemies of Israel and the United States throughout the region, and to treat them all as one enemy. Those who believe in the amalgam will come to agree that many more wars by the United States and Israel are needed to crush this enemy.
More provocative is a secondary detail of the amendment, which received less notice from the mainstream media. Kyl-Lieberman approves the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard of Iran as a “foreign terrorist organization.” Now the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is the largest branch of the Iranian military. By granting Vice President Cheney’s wish (a distant dream in 2005) to put the Iranian guard on the U.S. terrorist list, the Senate has classified the army of Iran as an army of terrorists. The president, therefore, as he follows out the Cheney plan has all the support he requires for asserting in his next speech to an army or veterans group that Iran is a nation of terrorists.
It was said during the Vietnam War that “a dead Vietnamese is a Viet Cong.” It will assuage the conscience for U.S. bombers of Iran to know that a dead Iranian is a terrorist. The Senate, by this classification, has absolved the bombers in advance.
Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to press the army toward war with Iran. This was an important step, for her, and a vote as closely considered as her vote to authorize the bombing and occupation of Iraq.
Here are the senators who voted against Kyl-Lieberman: Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Dodd (D-CT) Feingold (D-WI) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Sanders (I-VT) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Wyden (D-OR). John McCain and Barack Obama did not vote. […]
Two of the votes against Kyl-Lieberman were issued from veterans with considerable experience and firsthand knowledge of war, Republican Chuck Hagel and Democrat Jim Webb. If these two men were now to sharpen their dissidence, if they could make their reasons articulate and see the present as a time that calls them to the sustained work of opposition — we might have the beginnings of a potent resistance that will never come from Harry Reid.
What of the absence of Barack Obama? In a speech in Iowa on September 12, he addressed by anticipation the matter before the Senate in Kyl-Lieberman: “We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven’t even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear—loud and clear—from the American people and the Congress: you don’t have our support, and you don’t have our authorization for another war.”
It is baffling that a man who spoke those words two weeks ago could not find the time or the resolve to cast his vote in a conspicuous test for authorizing war on Iran. This seems to be one more demonstration of Obama’s tendency never to take a step forward without a step to the side. […]
[TOP]
U.S., NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes Directed Against Iran
In late August, reported by the Military Times, a U.S. Air Force B-52 bomber flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana with six AGM advanced cruise missiles, each of which was armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead. “... Missiles were mounted on the pylons under its wings. Each of the warheads carried a yield of up to 150 kilotons, more than ten times as powerful as the U.S. bomb that leveled Hiroshima at the close of the Second World War,” (see article by Bill Van Auken, “Why was a nuclear-armed bomber allowed to fly over the U.S.?”)
The Military Times byline was “B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard.” The issue was casually acknowledged by the Washington Post and the New York Times. The reports quoted a U.S. Air Force spokesman. The matter was offhandedly brushed aside. The incident represented “an isolated mistake” and that “at no time was there a threat to public safety.”
Van Auken’s article continues, “As far as is known, the incident marked the first time that a U.S. plane has taken off armed with nuclear weapons in nearly 40 years… The transport of weapons from one base to another, however, is normally carried out in the holds of C-17 and C-130 cargo planes, not fixed to the wings of combat bombers…Someone had to give the order to mount the missiles on the plane. The question is whether it was a local Air Force commander—either by mistake or deliberately—or whether the order came from higher up.”
B-52s from Barksdale have been used repeatedly to strike targets in Iraq, firing cruise missiles at Iraqi targets in 1996 and 1998, and in the “shock and awe” campaign that preceded the 2003 invasion, carrying out some 150 bombing runs that devastated much of the southern half of the country. Moreover, the weapon that was fixed to the wings of the B-52 flying from Minot air base was designed for use against hardened targets, such as underground bunkers.
Given the ratcheting up of the threats against Iran and the previous reports of plans for the use of “tactical” nuclear weapons against Iranian nuclear installations, there is a very real possibility that the flight to Barksdale was part of covert preparations for a nuclear strike against Iran.
If this is indeed the case, the claims about a “mistake” by a munitions officer and a few airmen in North Dakota may well be merely a cover story aimed at concealing the fact that the government in Washington is preparing a criminal act of world historic proportions by ordering — without provocation — the first use of nuclear weapons since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than sixty years ago.
In recent developments, Wayne Madsen (September 27) has suggested, based on U.S. and foreign intelligence sources, that the B-52 carrying the advanced cruise missiles with bunker buster nuclear warheads was in fact destined for the Middle East.
Is the B-52 Barksdale incident in any way related to U.S. plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran? Madsen suggests, in this regard, that the operation of shipping the nuclear warheads was aborted “due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community,” which was opposed to a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear warheads.
Without downplaying the significance of the Barksdale incident, if Washington were to decide to use nuclear weapons against Iran, they could be launched at short notice from a number of military bases in Western Europe and the Middle East, from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, from a submarine or from a U.S. Aircraft carrier. Turkey has some 90 B61 nuclear weapons which are fully deployed.
To grasp the seriousness of the “Barksdale incident,” it is important to understand the broader context of nuclear weapons deployment respectively by the U.S., NATO and Israel. We are not dealing with a single aborted operation of deployment of nuclear weapons to the Middle East. There are indications that a large number of U.S. made nuclear weapons are currently deployed in Western Europe and the Middle East including Israel.
Coordinated Military Operation
We are dealing with a coordinated military operation in which U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) plays a central role. The main coalition partners are the U.S., NATO and Israel. There are four interrelated “building blocks” pertaining to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater:
1. CONPLAN 8022 formulated in 2004. CONPLAN integrates the use of conventional and nuclear weapons;
2. National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 35, entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization issued in May 2004;
3. The deployment of Israeli nuclear weapons directed against targets in the Middle East;
4. Deployment of Nuclear Weapons by NATO/EU countries, directed against targets in the Middle East […]
[TOP]
Iranian Academics Ask 10 Questions of the President of Columbia University
Chancellors of six Iranian universities and academic centers expressed indignation at the aggressive tone and degrading behavior of the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, in hosting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [Bollinger, in introducing Ahmadinejad, among other disinformation, referred to Ahmadinejad as a “petty and cruel dictator.”]
They forwarded a protest letter to Bollinger to voice outrage at his ignorance of the principle of hosting the president of Iran, a country of great civilization and a 7,000-year history. “It is a shame for an academic center that such hateful and impolite words are uttered by its president. It is regretful that the media owners easily elicit what they want the president of a reputable university to say in his lecture,” they said in the letter. “Your statement about Iran was full of undocumented charges brought by the media and some of which were the outcome of misunderstanding, which needs dialogue and closer study,” it said.
The Iranian academics posed 10 questions to Bollinger in return for the 10 questions he asked President Ahmadinejad.
1. Why did the U.S. media exert pressure on you to cancel President Ahmadinejad’s lecture at University of Columbia and why did the U.S. TV networks broadcast programs for several days against the Iranian president and did not allow him to respond to the allegations? Does this not run counter to freedom of expression?
2. Why did the U.S. come to the aid of Iranian dictator (deposed Shah) in 1953 and launch a military coup against then Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq?
3. Why did the U.S. back Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in 1980 and supply him with chemical weapons to attack both the Iraqi people and Iranian soldiers?
4. Why does the U.S. Administration not recognize the democratically elected government of Palestine in Gaza and why does it oppose the Iranian proposal to hold a referendum in Palestine to end the 60-year old occupation?
5. Why did the U.S. Army with its advanced weapons not capture Bin Laden? How do you respond to the long-standing family friendship of President George W. Bush and Ben Laden and the oil deals with Bush and the sabotaging of the inquiry into September 11 by the U.S. president?
6. Why does the U.S. administration support the terrorist Mujahideen Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that it has carried out terrorist operations in Iran since 1981?
7. Was there an international consensus when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003? What is the aim of killing several thousand Iraqis and where are the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) for which the U.S. unleashed the war?
8. Why does the U.S. Administration always support non-democratic and military governments?
9. Why did the U.S. Administration give a negative vote to the resolution of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) general conference calling for making the Middle East a nuclear-weapons free zone?
10. Why is the U.S. administration dissatisfied with Iran-IAEA agreement to resolve the outstanding issues about the Iranian nuclear program?
The Iranian academics extended an invitation to Bollinger to visit Iran and talk with intellectuals and ordinary people to see the realities of Iran for himself.
[TOP]
Udall’s Carelessness Regarding Iran
Representative Mark Udall, in a recent letter, repeats two familiar canards about Iran. First, “Iran has defied the international community by continuing to work to advance” its nuclear program. Second, “Iran’s president has publicly stated his intention to ‘wipe Israel off the map.’” The first of these statements is misleading, the second false. The following addresses both.
Iran, like the United States, is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Article IV of the NPT affirms “the inalienable right” of all the parties to the treaty to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The same technology that can enrich uranium to the low level required to generate electricity can also enrich uranium to the much higher level that will produce bomb-grade material.
Iran insists that it is enriching uranium for the former purpose, not the latter. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has repeatedly inspected Iran’s nuclear facilities, says it has no evidence that Iran’s nuclear program is intended for military purposes.
The Bush administration, which dissembled about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to justify going to war, is now using a similar but more insidious approach regarding Iran. It asserts that Iran poses a nuclear threat and thus warrants the imposition of sanctions or even an attack to destroy its nuclear capability. It has persuaded the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment activity that is permitted under the NPT. Moreover, as part of its cynical effort to criminalize Iran, it has managed to get the Security Council to require the IAEA to certify that Iran has halted its perfectly legal uranium enrichment activity.
Both the United States and Israel have drawn up plans for a possible nuclear strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, India, Pakistan, north Korea and Israel have all developed nuclear arsenals in violation of the NPT. And the United States and all other nuclear weapons states continue to violate their NPT Article VI obligations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Iran is permitted under Article IV to pursue a nuclear program provided it doesn’t develop weapons. The United States is obliged under Article VI to move toward complete disarmament.
Udall’s second canard is the one that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad “has publicly stated his intention to ‘wipe Israel off the map.’” In fact, Ahmadinejad never said such a thing. His original statement, according to Iranian artist Arash Norouzi, who is no admirer of Ahmadinejad, does not mention “Israel,” “map” or “wiping off.” Here is her literal translation: “The Imam said the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” (see www.antiwar.com)
From Norouzi’s translation it is obvious that Ahmadinejad is citing the views of someone else, “the Imam” or Ayatollah Khomeini, the deceased former ruler of Iran. The Imam’s words refer not to the state of Israel, but to the “regime occupying Jerusalem,” that is, the regime that in 1967 conquered foreign territory and now holds it as an occupying power. It is this occupying regime, not the state of Israel, which “must vanish from the page of time.” Norouzi says that, in his speech, Ahmadinejad cited three examples of regimes that have vanished from the page of time: the Shah of Iran, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Ahmadinejad referred to regime change, not war.
Nourizi demonstrates that the wipe-Israel-off-the-map statement was a media mistranslation that quickly spread around the world. Though corrections were made by various parties, the erroneous passage with all its dangerous implications took on a life of its own. But the most shameful folly occurred on June 20, when the U.S. House of Representatives, by an overwhelming majority, passed a resolution calling on the United Nations to indict President Ahmadinejad for inciting genocide. Only two members of the House showed that they were well enough informed to vote “no.”
There are many reasons for concern about the government of Iran. But Iran does not pose a nuclear threat. And its president has not threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Udall’s carelessness provides fuel for another unnecessary war. In 2003, Iran offered to meet with the United States to discuss all issues of concern between the two countries, including nuclear matters. It was rebuffed. The United States and Iran should now discuss the whole range of issues that concern both countries, without preconditions. The world needs a diplomatic resolution of this concocted crisis, not another unnecessary war based on misrepresentations. We need Udall, who aspires to the Senate, to take the lead in fostering such discussion.
LeRoy Moore, Ph.D., is a consultant with the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Boulder, Colorado.
[TOP]
Anti-War Activists Stopped at Rainbow Bridge
Reject Criminalization of Dissent! No to FBI Lists!
Two well-known women anti-war organizers were blocked from entering Canada on October 4, based on an FBI blacklist. Their names have been made part of the FBI National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, which is supposed to have people convicted of felony offenses and violent crimes. There are eight official categories, and being an anti-war activist is not one of them. Even so, the women organizers are on the list for what the FBI brands a crime – organizing against the war in Iraq and engaging in civil disobedience to do so.
Ann Wright, former diplomat and military colonel and now anti-war organizer, and Medea Benjamin of CodePink and Global Exchange, denounced the FBI and demanded that their names and all those of activists be removed from the list. They had been on their way to join anti-war activities in Toronto. Explaining what happened, Benjamin said, “In my case, the border guard pulled up a file showing that I had been arrested at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York City, where, on International Women’s Day, a group of us tried to deliver a peace petition signed by 152,000 women around the world.” Wright added, “The FBI’s placing of peace activists on an international criminal database is blatant political intimidation of U.S. citizens opposed to Bush administration policies.” The list clearly is not simply one of convicted violent criminals, but one representing profiling by the government of people resisting, particularly organizers.
Both Wright and Benjamin were also pressured to submit to what the FBI calls “rehabilitation.” This includes agreeing to not engage in any similar “crimes” in the future. Wright emphasized, “We will never be criminally rehabilitated since we intend to continue to engage in non-violent peaceful protest of Bush administration policies, particularly the war on Iraq and we intend to peacefully and nonviolently protest all of these wars until they end. This can lead to arrests for civil disobedience, like refusing to move from the fence in front of the White House or standing up and speaking at congressional hearings.”
Local activists in Buffalo, including those from the New York Civil Liberties Union, organized a press conference to oppose this criminalization of dissent and defend the right to conscience. They expressed the anti-war stand of the people of Buffalo and the U.S. and stood with Canadians who also overwhelming oppose the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.
Voice of Revolution vigorously denounces the U.S. government for this criminalization of dissent and the targeting of organizers. We also reject this effort to try to create antagonisms toward Canadians by forcing Canadian border authorities to do the U.S. government’s dirty work. The U.S. government is the one promoting and imposing use of the list in Canada and elsewhere. The fact that the FBI is illegally and unjustly profiling and criminalizing activists – something it is notorious for – and now including them on an international database, is the crime.
The Buffalo-Toronto corridor is well known for many joint anti-war actions, including those in support of war resisters among the troops and opposing Bush’s visit to Buffalo. The peoples of both countries are demanding that war criminal Bush be the one refused entry into Canada, and that all those opposing the war and repression be welcomed on both sides of the border.
The attack on these two women organizers is not an isolated event. In September, another anti-war organizer, Alison Bodine, was arrested at the Peace Arch border crossing near Vancouver, Canada. The Seattle-Vancouver area is also known for its joint actions and Bodine is representative of that. She is a recent graduate of the University of British Colombia and a political organizer and social justice activist on campus, in Vancouver, and in the U.S. (see below). In addition, the U.S. is pushing for war resisters who refused to serve in Iraq and went to Canada, to be handed over to U.S. officials.
Broad resistance on both sides of the border is defending all those under attack and strengthening the fighting unity of Americans and Canadians. It is this fraternal unity in defense of the rights of all that represents the will of the people, and their fighting call, An Attack on One is and Attack on All!
[TOP]
Letter in Defense of Alison Bodine
Hands off Anti-War Organizers!
Buffalo Forum salutes the determined actions in defense of Alison Bodine and joins in demanding that all charges be dropped (see below). Alison Bodine, like the two women anti-war organizers stopped at the Rainbow Bridge crossing near Buffalo, and like the many who organized and recently participated in two major anti-war actions in DC, is taking up social responsibility to defend rights and build another world fit for humanity. All are rejecting U.S. empire-building and all the crimes against humanity this has brought. They are to be saluted for their resistance and defense of humanity, not criminalized.
An FBI blacklist was used against Benjamin and Wright, showing the role of the U.S. behind this incident. The blacklist, much like the no-fly list, will no doubt be used against many others. We expect the U.S. is also playing a role in the charges against Alison Bodine. The fact that she was allowed into Canada and only stopped again when claiming her possessions is indicative that the U.S. is acting behind the scenes to impose this criminalization of dissent. These actions are part and parcel of U.S. efforts to force the Canadian government to submit to its imperialist empire-building efforts that include use of Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan, use of Halifax as a port, criminalizing anti-war actions and outright annexation.
We, here in Buffalo, know well the importance of Americans and Canadians standing as one and fighting in common for the rights of all. We will continue to build this united resistance and applaud the defense of Allison Bodine as an expression of this fight. We say it is George W. Bush who is the war criminal. He should be charged and punished!
[TOP]
Militant Resistance Frees Alison Bodine
At 8:30pm on the evening of Friday, September 14, a rousing standing ovation of over 60 Vancouver political activists greeted fellow activist Alison Bodine, freed just minutes before by immigration officials who had arrested her at the Peace Arch Park Canada-U.S. border crossing 16 hours earlier. Alison, a U.S. citizen and student in Vancouver, is an organizer with the Vancouver social justice, anti-war and Cuba solidarity movements and supporter of immigrant and refugee rights in Canada and the U.S. The situation began on September 10, when Alison, traveling from the U.S. into Canada, was stopped by the Canadian Border Services Agency. The border guards, ascertaining that she was an anti-war and political activist proceeded to harass Alison, questioning her, searching her vehicle and seizing political literature she was carrying, before allowing her to proceed. Near midnight on Thursday September 13, 2007, upon returning to the border crossing to claim her literature and enter the U.S., Alison was arrested by RCMP and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Her passport was confiscated and she was detained, handcuffed and denied any information about the basis for her arrest.
This victory of Alison’s release is a direct result of the militant action taken by over 80 political activists who responded on short notice to demonstrate on Friday afternoon outside the Citizenship and Immigration offices in downtown Vancouver. Although Alison was freed from the immigration and customs holding cell, she must appear before an Immigration and Refugee Board on Monday to determine whether the bogus charges being brought against her by the border officials will be upheld.
Among the many different organizations that attended and spoke at the rally was local broadcaster and representative of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) Charles Boylan, who also attended and addressed a meeting of activists called together Friday evening to make plans to broaden the movement to free Alison from detention. While the meeting was beginning, it was learned the pressure brought by the demonstration and media attention had compelled the immigration officials to release her.
Previous to the “discovery” of political material in her car, Alison had never been stopped from coming and going between her family home in the U.S. and her Canadian residence. On several occasions during her harassment and arrest late Thursday night, border officials contradicted themselves and the case has emerged as a strictly political attack on a bona fide Canadian student of U.S. citizenship because of her political involvement against the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and other issues.
The arrest of Alison Bodine comes at a time when the state is increasingly acting with arbitrariness and impunity with the aim of criminalizing the growing dissent to Canada’s participation in U.S.-led imperialist adventures. The U.S. and Canada are attempting to normalize and codify in legislation impunity and rule by exception in order to have recourse to the law to justify their actions. It is a manifestation of Canada’s annexation to the U.S. where on July 17, U.S. President George W. Bush issued an executive order entitled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq.” This order criminalizes the U.S. anti-war movement and grants the president authority to seize the assets of individuals or organizations “determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.” (Just a day later on July 18, the Canadian government announced its intention to renew legislation for various anti-terrorism measures whose use in practice has also been to deny rights and criminalize dissent, see TML Daily, September 11, 2007)
The timely and militant action of the activists in Vancouver indicates the necessity of remaining on guard to oppose this agenda…As one of the spokespersons for MAWO stated in summing up the victory in freeing Alison, the state is stepping up its attacks and testing the resolve of the resistance movement. “The fact that we were not defensive, and that our call for unity in action to free Alison was answered by over 80 people from a wide variety of -organizations, representing various tendencies and organizing methods, in just a matter of hours shows that Vancouver has the political strength necessary to repel this assault of the state.” […]
TML Daily is the on-line newspaper of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist).
[TOP]
Petition to Demand U.S. Stop Blacklisting Peace Activists
On October 4, 2007, CodePink Women for Peace cofounder Medea Benjamin and Retired Colonel/diplomat Ann Wright were denied entry to Canada because they have engaged in acts of non-violent civil disobedience against the war in Iraq. The Canadian border officials said the women’s names appeared on an FBI criminal database and that anyone convicted of a criminal offense, including a minor misdemeanor for peace and social justice, was “inadmissible.”
We call on the FBI to stop including minor non-violent offenses on a database meant for serious crimes. We call on the Canadian government to reverse its policy and extend a warm welcome to U.S. peacemakers and other social activists who use the time-honored tradition of engaging in civil disobedience as a way to change unjust policies.
[TOP]
More than 2,000 Signatures Demand: Drop All Charges Against Alison Now!
The campaign demanding that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) drop all charges against Alison Bodine is gaining momentum during the fourth straight week of actions. The campaign has been ongoing since September 13th, when Alison was targeted and arrested by the CBSA as an anti-war and social justice activist [Alison was required to appear before the CBSA twice before, with the hearings cancelled each time. She has been required to stay in Canada, without her car and passport, for that period. She and the ABDC and many others have resisted this legal limbo and uncertainty and persisted in demanding that all charges be dropped]
On Tuesday, October 9, the Alison Bodine Defense Committee (ABDC) held a successful petition drive and forum at the University of Victoria, collecting more than 500 signatures. In just two weeks of the “Drop All Charges Against Alison Bodine!” petition campaign, the ABDC has collected more than 2,000 signatures. The campaign has received support letters from Members of Parliament Libby Davies, Bill Siksay, and Alex Atamanenko the Hospital Employees’ Union of British Columbia, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators, MLA David Chudnovsky and the U.S.-based Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization/Pastors for Peace in a strong show of support for this case of democratic and human rights.
The campaign has made many gains within the last month. One week ago, the campaign achieved the victory of receiving the full disclosure of evidence from the CBSA. Thursday’s hearing will finally give Alison the chance to fully defend not only herself but the human and democratic rights of social justice activists, immigrants, refugees and all people without residency or status in Canada.
We need your support. It has been clear from the beginning that Alison was singled out for harassment, arrest, detention and this extended period of uncertainty and legal limbo because of her involvement in the anti-war movement and social justice organizing. The campaign is in its fourth week of fighting for democratic and human rights of all people.
Now, Alison’s hearing is just one day away. The ABDC is repeating the call for all peace-loving and humanist people, all allies of oppressed people fighting for their rights to get involved and support this important campaign. The ABDC is collecting letters of support and petition signatures from grassroots organizations, labor and student unions, politicians, professors and academics and people from all walks of life to unite in defense of civil liberties. Please send a letter, sign a petition, and come out to one of the many rallies in defense of Alison!
Alison Bodine Defence Committee
http://alisonbodine.blogspot.com
defendalisonbodine@hotmail.com
(778) 891.1470 - (778) 882.5223 - (604) 339.7103
[TOP]
Collecting of Details on Travelers Documented
The U.S. government is collecting electronic records on the travel habits of millions of Americans who fly, drive or take cruises abroad, retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried, according to documents obtained by a group of civil liberties advocates and statements by government officials.
The personal travel records are meant to be stored for as long as 15 years, as part of the Department of Homeland Security’s effort to assess the security threat posed by all travelers entering the country. Officials say the records, which are analyzed by the department’s Automated Targeting System, help border officials distinguish potential terrorists from innocent people entering the country.
But new details about the information being retained suggest that the government is monitoring the personal habits of travelers more closely than it has previously acknowledged. The details were learned when a group of activists requested copies of official records on their own travel. Those records included a description of a book on marijuana that one of them carried and small flashlights bearing the symbol of a marijuana leaf.
The Automated Targeting System has been used to screen passengers since the mid-1990s, but the collection of data for it has been greatly expanded and automated since 2002, according to former DHS officials. Officials yesterday defended the retention of highly personal data on travelers not involved in or linked to any violations of the law. But civil liberties advocates have alleged that the type of information preserved by the department raises alarms about the government’s ability to intrude into the lives of ordinary people. The millions of travelers whose records are kept by the government are generally unaware of what their records say, and the government has not created an effective mechanism for reviewing the data and correcting any errors, activists said.
The activists alleged that the data collection effort, as carried out now, violates the Privacy Act, which bars the gathering of data related to Americans’ exercise of their First Amendment rights, such as their choice of reading material or persons with whom to associate. They also expressed concern that such personal data could one day be used to impede their right to travel.
“The federal government is trying to build a surveillance society,” said John Gilmore, a civil liberties activist in San Francisco whose records were requested by the Identity Project, an ad-hoc group of privacy advocates in California and Alaska. The government, he said, “may be doing it with the best or worst of intentions.... But the job of building a surveillance database and populating it with information about us is happening largely without our awareness and without our consent.”
Gilmore’s file, which he provided to The Washington Post, included a note from a Customs and Border Patrol officer that he carried the marijuana-related book “Drugs and Your Rights.” “My first reaction was I kind of expected it,” Gilmore said. “My second reaction was, that’s illegal.” DHS officials said this week that the government is not interested in passengers’ reading habits, that the program is transparent, and that it affords redress for travelers who are inappropriately stymied. “I flatly reject the premise that the department is interested in what travelers are reading,” DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said. “We are completely uninterested in the latest Tom Clancy novel that the traveler may be reading.”
But, Knocke said, “If there is some indication based upon the behavior or an item in the traveler’s possession that leads the inspection officer to conclude there could be a possible violation of the law, it is the front-line officer’s duty to further scrutinize the traveler.” Once that -happens, Knocke said, “It is not uncommon for the officer to document interactions with a traveler that merited additional scrutiny.”
He said that he is not familiar with the file that mentions Gilmore’s book about drug rights, but that generally “front-line officers have a duty to enforce all laws within our authority, for example, the counter-narcotics mission.” Officers making a decision to admit someone at a port of entry have a duty to apply extra scrutiny if there is some indication of a violation of the law, he said.
The retention of information about Gilmore’s book was first disclosed this week in Wired News. Details of how the ATS works were disclosed in a Federal Register notice last November. Although the screening has been in effect for more than a decade, data for the system in recent years have been collected by the government from more border points, and also provided by airlines — under U.S. government mandates — through direct electronic links that did not previously exist.
The DHS database generally includes “passenger name record” (PNR) information, as well as notes taken during secondary screenings of travelers. PNR data — often provided to airlines and other companies when reservations are made — routinely include names, addresses and credit-card information, as well as telephone and e-mail contact details, itineraries, hotel and rental car reservations, and even the type of bed requested in a hotel.
The records the Identity Project obtained confirmed that the government is receiving data directly from commercial reservation systems, such as Galileo and Sabre, but also showed that the data, in some cases, are more detailed than the information to which the airlines have access.
Ann Harrison, the communications director for a technology firm in Silicon Valley who was among those who obtained their personal files and provided them to The Post, said she was taken aback to see that her dossier contained data on her race and on a European flight that did not begin or end in the United States or connect to a U.S.-bound flight. “It was surprising that they were gathering so much information without my knowledge on my travel activities, and it was distressing to me that this information was being gathered in violation of the law,” she said.
James P. Harrison, director of the Identity Project and Ann Harrison’s brother, obtained government records that contained another sister’s phone number in Tokyo as an emergency contact. “So my sister’s phone number ends up being in a government database,” he said. “This is a lot more than just saying who you are, your date of birth.”
Edward Hasbrouck, a civil liberties activist who was a travel agent for more than 15 years, said that his file contained coding that reflected his plan to fly with another individual. In fact, Hasbrouck wound up not flying with that person, but the record, which can be linked to the other passenger’s name, remained in the system. “The Automated Targeting System,” Hasbrouck alleged, “is the largest system of government dossiers of individual Americans’ personal activities that the government has ever created.”
He said that travel records are among the most potentially invasive of records because they can suggest links: They show who a traveler sat next to, where they stayed, when they left. “It’s that lifetime log of everywhere you go that can be correlated with other people’s movements that’s most dangerous,” he said. “If you sat next to someone once, that’s a coincidence. If you sat next to them twice, that’s a relationship.”
Stewart Verdery, former first assistant secretary for policy and planning at DHS, said the data collected for ATS should be considered “an investigative tool, just the way we do with law enforcement, who take records of things for future purposes when they need to figure out where people came from, what they were carrying and who they are associated with. That type of information is extremely valuable when you’re trying to thread together a plot or you’re trying to clean up after an attack.”
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in August 2006 said that “if we learned anything from September 11, 2001, it is that we need to be better at connecting the dots of terrorist-related information. After September 11, we used credit card and telephone records to identify those linked with the hijackers. But wouldn’t it be better to identify such connections before a hijacker boards a plane?” Chertoff said that comparing PNR data with intelligence on terrorists lets the government “identify unknown threats for additional screening” and helps avoid “inconvenient screening of low-risk travelers.”
Knocke, the DHS spokesman, added that the program is not used to determine “guilt by association.” He said the DHS has created a program called DHS Trip to provide redress for travelers who faced screening problems at ports of entry.
But DHS Trip does not allow a traveler to challenge an agency decision in court, said David Sobel, senior counsel with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued the DHS over information concerning the policy underlying the ATS. Because the system is exempted from certain Privacy Act requirements, including the right to “contest the content of the record,” a traveler has no ability to correct erroneous information, Sobel said.
Zakariya Reed, a Toledo firefighter, said in an interview that he has been detained at least seven times at the Michigan border since fall 2006. Twice, he said, he was questioned by border officials about “politically charged” opinion pieces he had published in his local newspaper. The essays were critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, he said. Once, during a secondary interview, he said, “they had them printed out on the table in front of me.”
[TOP]