Let’s Rally to Restore Peace
In their Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert effectively demonstrated how the media hypes fear. They brought out Kareem Abdul Jabbar to show that not all Muslims are terrorists. A couple of musical numbers dealt with the wars we are fighting. But neither Stewart nor Colbert mentioned Iraq or Afghanistan and how they are allowed to continue by the hyping of fear.
Like his predecessor, President Obama also hypes fear - by connecting his war in Afghanistan to keeping us safe, even though CIA director Leon Panetta recently admitted that only 50 to 100 al Qaeda fighters are there. Hoping to put the unpopular Iraq war behind him, Obama declared combat operations over, although 50,000 U.S. troops and some 100,000 mercenaries remain.
Tragically, both wars have largely disappeared from the national discourse. On October 22, Wikileaks released nearly 400,000 previously classified U.S. military documents about the Iraq war. They contain startling evidence of more than 1,300 incidents of torture, rape, abuse and murder by Iraqi security forces while the U.S. government looked the other way. During this time the Bush administration issued a “fragmentary order” called “Frago 242” not to investigate detainee abuse unless coalition troops were directly involved. U.S. authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of torture, rape, abuse and murder by Iraqi soldiers and police. Manfred Nowak, the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on Torture, called on Obama to order a complete investigation of U.S. forces’ involvement in human rights abuses.
Many reports of abuse are supported by medical evidence. Prisoners were shackled, blindfolded, and hung by their wrists and ankles. Some were whipped with cables, chains, wire and pistols. Some were burned with acid and cigarettes. Electric shocks were applied to genitals, fingernails were ripped off, and fingers cut off. Some were sodomized with hoses and bottles. Six died from their torture.
And there are reports of widespread killing of civilians by U.S. and other coalition forces. But after a couple of days of reporting about the largest incident of whistle blowing in our history, news of the Wikileaks revelations has disappeared from the news cycle.
Both torture and the targeting of civilians are war crimes. And, in spite of the reports of torture, Obama completed the handover of 9,250 detainees to the Iraqi government in July 2010. In so doing, he has violated the Convention Against Torture, which forbids a party from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe he will be in danger of being subjected to torture. This is called non-refoulement. The United States has ratified the Torture Convention, making it part of U.S. law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
The newly released documents show that between 2004 and 2009, at least 109,032 Iraqis died, including 66,081 civilians. More than 80 percent of those killed in incidents related to convoys or at checkpoints throughout Iraq were civilians. Pregnant women were shot dead, priests were kidnapped and murdered, and Iraqi prison guards used electric drills to get prisoners to confess.
A U.S. helicopter crew was granted approval to attack two Iraqis on the ground even though the pilots reported that the men were trying to surrender. Under the 1907 Hague Regulations, it is prohibited “to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion.”
Last year, 239 American soldiers took their own lives and 1,713 soldiers survived suicide attempts; 146 soldiers died from high-risk activities, including 74 drug overdoses. One-third of returning troops report mental health problems, and 18.5 percent of all returning service members have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or depression, according to a study by the Rand Corporation.
Jon Stewart spent a whole show last week interviewing Obama about everything from health care to the economy. But neither man mentioned the wars, even though the billions spent on them could go a long way toward fixing the economy and paying for health care.
It is time to put the wars back on the national agenda. Iraq Veterans Against the War issued a statement saying, “We grieve for the Iraqi and Afghan lives that were lost and destroyed in these wars. We also grieve for our brothers and sisters in arms, who have been lost to battle or suicide . . . We demand a real end to both wars, including immediate withdrawal of the 50,000 “non-combat” troops who remain in Iraq. The Iraq War Logs underscore the urgent need for peace, healing, and reparations for all who have been harmed by these wars. The first step is to bring our brothers and sisters home.”
We cannot rely on Obama to end the wars. It’s up to us to put sustained pressure on him to do it.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her latest book is “Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent” (with Kathleen Gilberd). Her anthology, “The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse,” will be published in December by NYU Press.





The limits of Stewart
By notme, at Nov 01, 2010 18:24 PM
But, one has to recognize that he's essentially a Democrat. Which means, he's going to be one of those that simple won't challenge the Democrats on issues where they really don't want to be challenged. Jon Stewart my tweak the Democrats a bit, but he's not about to suddenly start talking about the war with Obama on (taped) national TV. Certainly not if Obama doesn't want to be asked about the war.
Same with this rally, and the others like it. They run up against that stone wall of the Democrats not wanting to talk about the wars, so the spin machine around the Democrats won't talk about the wars either. They are happy to go after the Republicans for religious bigotry, but talking about how Obama has shifted from being supposedly anti-war to being the commander-in-chief giving the orders to escalate, surge and expand these wars is most definitely off the table for Jon Stewart.
So, why does the left want to sit back and wait for them to do what they'll never do?
The anti-war movement was ridiculously weak in this year's elections. How many anti-war challenges to pro-war incumbents were there in this election. I remember Winogram (CA-House) and Romannoff (CO-Senate) running in the Dem primaries. And there's a scattering of Greens on the ballots this fall, like Bob Kinsey running to be Colorado's US Senator. But, considering that 60% or more of the people tell pollsters that they want these wars to end, the anti-war movement has been amazingly absent from this election.
If the elections and the campaigns aren't talking about the war, then its because we aren't making them talk about the war. We know they do not want to talk about this. We need to make them.
One way is to have an anti-war candidate in the fall campaign. Put the Democrat in a position where he either has to defend the war or defend his campaign from an anti-war challenge, and you can then force the war to be discussed in the campaigns.
Another way is through protests and actions. Take these rallies for instance. If the anti-war movement on the east coast had decided to make these rallies about the war, then the war gets on the agenda.
And I'm not saying to ask Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert nicely before the rally. I'm saying show up with 100,000 antiwar protests singing songs and carrying signs. The anti-war movement supposedly did have the power to make these rallies about the war simply by showing up in numbers.
Which brings up the larger question ... why wasn't there a major anti-war rally scheduled in this time period right before the elections? If the anti-war movement wants the elections to be talking about the wars, wasn't that a rather obvious move? Try to organize a giant anti-war rally in early Oct? We've seen the comedians with their fake rallies. We've seen the Democrats with their fake rally. But the anti-war movement has been missing from the mall in DC this fall.
I'm less and less a fan of big protest rallies as a means for change. But one reason they are so ineffective is that they seem to be designed to do so. They occur on weekends in an empty city. Or, in this case, they don't occur in the time just before people start to vote (which is mid-Oct now). Someone will probably organize a worthless rally next spring. But why wasn't there a big rally this fall precisely to try to make the war an issue in these elections?
To me, if the antiwar movement doesn't like that the wars have been put out of the national discussion, then to me it should look in the mirror and ask itself why its allowed this to occur? Certainly we can't be sitting back and waiting on corporate America, their candidates and their TV commedians to put the war on the agenda for us. Its obvious they want the war forgotten.
If the war is going to be on the national agenda for discussion, we are the ones who need to put it there. Yet, there are few antiwar candidates on the ballots and no sizeable anti-war protests on the calendar before the elections. If the anti-war movement chooses to be silent about the wars before the elections, then we only have ourselves to blame for why the country isn't debating these wars in these elections.
Reply this comment
Re: The limits of Stewart
By Green, James at Nov 02, 2010 00:11 AM
http://www.onenationforpeace.org/
Reply this comment
Re: The limits of Stewart
By notme, at Nov 01, 2010 18:34 PM
My apologies for not doing a better job of spell-checking. Sorry for making you have to work harder to figure out what I was trying to say. :) Hopefully that comes through despite the typos.
Reply this comment