People Before Profit blog

War at age 11 -- Film review of 'Innocent Voices'

Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:57:00 +0000

Innocent Voices -- Directed by Luis Mandoki, written by Luis Mandoki and Oscar Orlando Torres. Based on a true story. In Spanish with English subtitles.

BB Entertainment, running time 120 minutes, Rated R (for disturbing violence and language) In El Salvador in the 1980s, little boys worried about girls, school, playtime and turning 12. On their 12th birthday, they expected the soldiers to come and take them away.

There were other problems, of course. Little Chava tried to help his mother through their terrible poverty. He had chores and responsibilities. For example, he pulled the mattress over the younger children when machine gun bullets whizzed through their tiny makeshift house at night. The next morning, he might have to politely step around dead bodies in the roads of his village.

Chava had to remember to play his little portable radio very low and to make sure that the soldiers never heard any banned music. If the cheerful American soldiers, who had come to teach the methodology of death, gave him one of their little personal gifts, he had to remember to get rid of it, whether or not he understood why.

Chava also had to worry about relatives and friends who were fighting with the peasants against the army and their //anglo// allies.

Other than those things and a few other inconveniences, little Chava was leading the same life as any other darling little boy. But Chava was nearly 12.

“Innocent Voices,” a gruesome story of war as seen and experienced by young boys, is probably the best war movie I have ever seen.

China steps up measures against bird flu

Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:40:00 +0000

As bird flu outbreaks continued among wild and domestic fowl in China, the government greatly expanded its poultry vaccination program along with large-scale culling of domestic poultry in affected areas. At the same time, Chinese scientists prepared to test the first human-use vaccine against bird flu.

Vice Minister of Agriculture Yin Chengjie told a Nov. 21 press conference that 21 outbreaks of bird flu have been confirmed in nine different regions. He said the outbreaks, linked to migratory and wild birds, had killed over 144,000 domestic poultry. Over 21 million more had been culled as a preventive measure, under a government program to kill all poultry within three kilometers of outbreaks.

Yin also noted that backward chicken farming methods and the large proportion of poultry raised by households were making prevention and control more difficult.

China is the world’s largest producer of poultry. On Nov. 15, the government announced a program to vaccinate all the country’s more than 14 billion farm birds.

Meanwhile, the first two cases of bird flu in humans on the Chinese mainland were confirmed — a 9-year-old boy in Hunan Province who recovered, and a 24-year-old woman in Anhui province who died Nov. 10.

Roy Wadia, World Health Organization spokesperson in Beijing, said China has provided regular information on outbreaks to the WHO and other international agencies. “Regular, open communication has been key in keeping the international community abreast of the situation,” he added.

Signaling government attention at the highest level, Premier Wen Jiabao and Vice Premiers Wui Yi and Hui Liangyu visited the Beijing Kexing Biological Product Company, also known as Sinovac Biotech, on Nov. 17. There, scientists have applied to the Chinese State Food and Drug Administration for clinical trials of human-use bird flu vaccine and are prepared to start production as soon as approval is granted.

Calling the bird flu situation “severe,” Wen urged stepped up progress in monitoring and prevention of the disease.

Besides allocating extensive subsidies for the nationwide vaccination program, the government is compensating farmers $1.20 for each bird killed. But Agriculture Vice Minister Yin said earlier this month that such compensation can’t make up for the huge losses suffered by farmers, some of whom make nearly half their income from raising poultry. Other government officials have noted that the success of efforts to speed the growth of farmers’ incomes depends on stamping out the bird flu epidemic.

In other measures, the government cut taxes of businesses and individuals who raise, process or sell poultry, and said it would refund value-added tax on all poultry products until mid-2006.

mbechtel @ pww.org

Starve the poor budget approved

Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:58:00 +0000

WASHINGTON – The Coalition on Human Needs (CHN) denounced as a “spectacle of greed” a House vote Nov. 18 to approve $50 billion in cutbacks to food stamps, Medicaid, and other vital benefits for the poor over the next five years even as the Republican leadership pushed for $70 billion in tax cuts for the rich.

The CHN mobilized an outpouring of letters, personal visits, telephone calls and e-mails from more than 750 organizations against the package of cutbacks that forced the GOP leadership to pull it from the floor for more than a week because they lacked the votes to ram it through. But just before adjourning for the Thanksgiving recess, they managed to ram their “starve the poor” package through by a razor thin 217 to 215 vote.

In a statement released to the media, CHN charged that the cutbacks will “kick people when they are down and block their efforts to pick themselves up.” The Urban Institute-Brookings Institute Tax Center charged that 53 percent of the tax cuts pushed by President George W. Bush and the GOP Capitol Hill leadership will go to the 1 percent with annual incomes above $1 million. “Are you as outraged as we are?” the CHN statement asked. “Tell your House member to vote NO on tax reconciliation.”

A day earlier, 22 Republican lawmakers stunned the GOP leaders by joining all 201 Democrats in voting 224 to 209 to kill a separate $142.5 billion spending bill for health, education, labor and other domestic programs in next years federal budget, the first revolt by GOP moderates since the Republicans seized majority control of the House in 1994. Here too the issue was draconian cuts in vital programs including $1 billion in cuts for healthcare and the elimination of $7 billion to prepare for a looming Avian flu pandemic. The package also slashed higher education funding by $14.5 billion, neatly offset by the $14 billion in tax giveaways for the profit-bloated oil and gas corporations. Yet one day later, the GOP leadership succeeded in reversing the votes of a handful of those same moderate Republicans, enough to squeak through the $50 billion cuts by a two vote margin.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) debunked Republican leadership claims that they had significantly reduced the cuts in low income programs. Those adjustments “are exceedingly minor and do not soften the House bill’s effects on vulnerable families to any significant degree,” a CPBB statement said. Ninety-nine percent of the cutbacks in vital low income programs remain, the CBPP statement continued. The House budget bill “would still deny food stamps to 300,000 low income people each month and would cut basic food aid by $800 million over five years. This is the same number of people who would have been terminated from food stamps as originally reported from the Agriculture Committee” which oversees the Food Stamp Program.

The bill would deny food stamps to 70,000 low income legal immigrants and 225,000 other low income families most of them with children.

The bill authorizes states to “impose new co-payments and premiums on millions of low income Medicaid beneficiaries.” The cuts in Medicaid would “exceed $29 billion over the next ten years,” according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, source of much of the CBPP documentation.

Child support enforcement and Supplemental Security Income would also be slashed by tens of billions. “As a result more children could be pushed deeper into poverty…”

Earlier this month, a delegation from the National Council of Churches led by NCC General Secretary Bob Edgar bumped into House Speaker Dennis Hastert as he hurried down a Capitol corridor. The religious leaders had come to protest the Republican budget cutbacks and tax gifts to the rich. The protestant, Roman Catholic and Jewish leaders told Hastert his plans are “appalling” especially in light of Hurricane Katrina.

“Congress has been actively targeting the poor and the middle class since the hurricane,” said Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. “At the very time when Congress should be increasing the number of social programs, we find they have been decimating them.”

Vets march 225 miles to nearest hospital

Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:57:00 +0000

SAN ANTONIO — Twenty veterans, mainly in their 50s and from the Vietnam War, observed Veterans Day by marching 225 miles from the Rio Grand Valley area in South Texas to San Antonio to protest the lack of medical care in their area.

Up to 80,000 vets living in South Texas lack access to a nearby hospital, and the march sought to dramatize the great distance they must travel for medical treatment.

The marchers walked in relays and took six days to reach the Alamo here. Along the way people cheered and saluted the group, whose members carried the brightly colored flags of their military units.

Though a clinic exists in McAllen, Texas, vets must travel to faraway San Antonio to obtain an X-ray or dental care. A bus provides transportation once a week to the VA hospital in here, but offers no return trip for a week.

The Bush administration has been cutting back on the number of VA hospitals nationally, resulting in veterans experiencing long delays, sometimes for many months, in getting appointments for treatment. As some veterans have observed, this is how the administration shows its gratitude for the soldiers who have fought and been injured in our past wars and even in the present war in Iraq.

Veterans for Peace campaigns against war profiteers

Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:55:00 +0000

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Around 100 Members of Veterans for Peace and their supporters began a campaign against war profiteers with a picket at the Radisson Hotel in Sacramento on Veterans Day, Nov. 11. As they arrived, some rowdy looking bikers holding signs saying, “If you like free speech, thank a Marine,” jostled with the veterans. But after an hour-long counter-protest, the pro-war bikers roared off into the horizon.

Why the Radisson? The hotel maintains a facility for the exclusive use of Sacramento MEPS, the Military Entrance Processing Station, said Cres Vellucci of Veterans for Peace (VFP). “Every individual who enters the military from Fresno to the Oregon border is indoctrinated and housed at the Radisson prior to testing and entrance into the military,” he said. The Radisson has denied VFP’s request to distribute informational literature that would help potential recruits make a more informed decision.

At 11 a.m., the veterans were joined by Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Families for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War and other organizations for a memorial tribute to the hundreds of Californians sacrificed in an illegal war based on Bush administration lies.

“The Radisson is a major player in the effort by the U.S. Armed Forces to recruit people for the war in Iraq,” said George Main, president of VFP Chapter 87. “Our organization is not allowed to bring the truth about the military to these young men and women before they go to Iraq.”

Pat Driscoll, founder of Sacramento VFP, pointed out that the picket signs are reusable, “so that after we get the Radisson to withdraw from war profiteering, we can go after Halliburton, Aerojet and other companies than profit from the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq.”

Joshua of Sacramento IVAW, who was in Iraq from February 2003 to February 2004, personally went through the MEPS Processing at the Radisson before he entered the military. While in Iraq, he saw three of his buddies die in combat. “I don’t want to support anybody like the Radisson who profits from the war,” he said.

Driscoll later reported that a tire on his vehicle was destroyed, apparently by a knife, following the confrontation with the motorcycle counter-demonstrators.

Vellucci said VFP plans to conduct regular pickets at the hotel until it agrees to stop profiting from the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq. Other Radisson hotels statewide may also be targeted for protest.

New York: Big bucks means big win for Bloomberg

Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:39:00 +0000

NEW YORK — Incumbent Republican Michael Bloomberg defeated progressive Democratic challenger Fernando Ferrer by 19 percentage points in the Nov. 8 elections, in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans five to one. The big question, as taken up in the news media and by democratic forces, is: Why?

A New York Daily News writer pointed out that Ferrer’s message was the most progressive in years, and that he spoke — more than any recent Democratic candidate — to the issues of greatest concern to New Yorkers: failing schools, high unemployment and out-of-control housing costs. Yet he was still defeated.

Some point to his campaign’s shortcomings. But others point to the influence of anti-Puerto Rican chauvinism, splits in labor and the traditional democratic coalition, the questionable ethics surrounding Bloomberg’s use of incumbency, and especially the issue of money.

Ferrer was vastly outspent. Bloomberg poured nearly $100 million of his $6.5 billion net worth into the race, while Ferrer had to struggle to raise about $9 million. Bloomberg’s spending, called “obscene” by various sources (including some of his own supporters), allowed Bloomberg to dominate nearly all the media. For example, according to Mediaweek, Bloomberg bought 996 radio advertisements, compared with Ferrer’s 143. The Times reported that Bloomberg had 10 times as many television ads as Ferrer.

Bloomberg’s billions allowed him to hire an army of campaign workers, many of them teenagers paid at an hourly rate higher than the salary of rookie policemen.

The British Daily Telegraph noted the 10-1 spending advantage, saying that Bloomberg was “floating to a second term on a vast cushion of his own money.”

The money issue hurt Ferrer in two ways: it allowed Bloomberg, not Ferrer, to paint a picture of who the Democrat was, as well as to portray his message in a skewed way. In addition, very early in the debates, when Ferrer was handily beating Bloomberg in opinion polls, much of the news media declared a Bloomberg victory inevitable, based on his huge reserves of cash.

The idea of inevitability grew throughout the campaign, and, many say, served to keep Ferrer’s supporters at home. Voter turnout was only 1.2 million, compared with 1.4 million in 2001. Accordingly, Bloomberg’s victory was won with only 15.4 percent of the electorate’s vote.

In addition to direct election spending, Bloomberg made personal “donations” totaling up to $182 million to community organizations — many of them Democratic-leaning, just prior to Election Day.

Democrats are usually outspent, one commentator wrote, but depend on an army of volunteers, often mobilized by labor, to win. Ferrer could not count on this either. Aside from the Transport Workers Union, the Civil Service Employees Association/AFSCME, SEIU 1199, and the Communications Workers, nearly all the city’s other unions endorsed Bloomberg, despite that fact that he had been battling with most of them for years.

For many union leaders the question became tactical: Support Ferrer and hope he wins, or support Bloomberg and hope that that support will count once he won, as most expected he would.

Also, just before the election, Bloomberg settled a number of contracts — with police, sanitation workers, teachers, and others — with cash bonuses up front. The question before labor leaders became whether or not to campaign for Ferrer and receive a better contract under his administration, or to assume Bloomberg would win, and take what they could get.

Because of his wealth, Bloomberg did not have to participate in the city’s progressive campaign finance law rules, including debate requirements. Bloomberg had the upper hand here, and scheduled only two debates, one of which was at 9 a.m. the Sunday before Election Day. Bloomberg was rightly worried about debates — Ferrer was declared the winner of both. Unfortunately, they were too close to the elections to change anything.

Also, the issue of racism cannot be overlooked. If it were just Latino and Black voters who decided the election, Ferrer would have won. However, Bloomberg received 70 percent of the white vote. Even in liberal, mainly white areas, Bloomberg handily defeated Ferrer. This suggests that racism played an important role in this election.

Looking at these trends, it seems that, at a certain point, Bloomberg’s money and unethical use of his incumbency became insurmountable problems for Ferrer, no matter how he ran his campaign. Progressive forces are now debating what needs to be done, and surely rules around campaign spending are on the agenda, as well as a fight against racism in general, and anti-Puerto Rican chauvinism in particular.

Why Murtha, and what it means

Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:15:00 +0000

PITTSBURGH — “Big John” Murtha, representative to the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania’s 12th District, which covers Johnstown and Washington, Pa., is a no-nonsense kind of guy from a gritty no-nonsense district.

In 1999, steelworkers in this district, most of whom are veterans, halted Sen. Rick Santorum’s helicopter from even landing in Johnstown because the state’s junior senator hadn’t done a thing to create jobs and had vigorously tried to destroy unions.

This is a district where people work hard, mining coal and making steel, and say what they think. This is a district that voted for Bush in 2004 because of the abortion and gun issues.

“Big John,” the local moniker, applauded the U.S. invasion of Grenada in1983. When the Reagan administration sought support for the Contras in El Salvador, “Big John” was there to shepherd support through Congress. He supported Gulf War I in 1990.

So when Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Committee and a retired Marine colonel and highly decorated veteran, took the floor on Nov. 17 to call for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq, it sent shock waves throughout Washington.

According to a spokeswoman in Murtha’s Johnstown office, calls and letters are running 2-1 supporting his call to end the Iraq war and 4-1, nationally. “I’ve worked for John since he was elected 30 years ago, and I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Ruth Vila, a volunteer in the Johnstown office and former steelworker. “He has always spoke for us and he is now. Bring the troops home. Bush lied. No one should die for a lie.”

Local union leaders here say that Bush has to go all the way to Korea to defend the Iraq war because there is only razzberries or no “rah rah” coming from his right-wing political base, even on military bases.

“Murtha speaks for the men and women in uniform,” says George Edwards, member of the retired steelworkers, Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees (SOAR), executive board. “They can’t speak out. But Murtha, a retired Marine decorated officer, can. This changes the entire national debate. I am optimistic. The Democrats in Congress first shut down the Senate to get an investigation on the use of Iraq intelligence and now, Murtha steps forward to bring the troops home. Things are changing. Bush’s endless war — it’s under debate, finally. Oil corporations’ profits, finally, on the front burner.”

Respect and overbearing are the words used by peace activists who lobbied “Big John” for his positions on Gulf War I and Iran-Contra. Murtha himself, not a member of the staff, meets with peace activists and he makes his arguments. It is plain speaking, full of Cold War rhetoric, but plain words. He thinks what he thinks and does what he does. Murtha is not a representative who wants constituents to feel good, he wants them to think and argue. It is steel and coal, not tea and pandering.

Then there is the connection to the military. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) takes advice from Murtha on military affairs because of his trusted connections to “boots on the ground.” Murtha was awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Metal and a Purple Heart for his service during the Vietnam War. In his biography, Murtha lists his job creation activities and awards for breast cancer research before the military honors. This is not your father’s Oldsmobile.

Murtha’s relationship to military contractors is well known in Western Pennsylvania resulting in some companies locating to the Johnstown area. His brother, Kit Murtha, owner of KSA lobbying, a firm devoted to corporations getting the inside tract to defense contracts, are moderately successful. Carmen Scialabba works for KSA, but worked in Murtha’s office for 27 years. That company received a contract for $20.8 million out of an appropriation of $417 billion (that’s billion with a ‘b’).

Murtha was caught up in the Absam scandal. Abscam was a sting by the FBI where eight members of Congress were invited to the Washington apartment of a phony Arab sheik to receive suitcases of money for favorable oil legislation. On FBI videotape, Murtha is seen rejecting the suitcases of dough for a deal investing Mideast oil profits in Johnstown. Every other member of Congress walks out bent over carrying suitcases. Murtha walks out tall. No suitcases filled with money.

This is tough for Bush — a politician who cannot be bought or intimidated and who has their own real military heroism in perspective. Murtha is the real deal, which has shaken Bush’s real base. No wonder the president is off defending Iraq policy on U.S. military bases in Korea and not Pennsylvania.

14,000 people rally at the gates of Fort Benning

Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:12:00 +0000

FT. BENNING, Ga. - Thousands of people converged Nov. 19 here for the vigil to close the School of the Americas. We heard powerful messages from Camilo Romero, an organizer with United Students Against Sweatshops, who helped to organize a protest at the Coca-Cola headquarters yesterday; from Patricia Isasa, an Argentinian torture survivor and Isabel Díaz-Ubillús, a Peruvian organizer and educator; from many unionists from the United Auto Workers; and from Brigida Gonzalez de Cartagena from the San José de Apartadó Peace Community, where another member of the community was tragically killed this week by a military brigade headed by an SOA graduate. Music by Francisco Herrera, Anne Feeney, Jon Fromer, Kuumba Lynx and the SOA Watch Musicians Collective kept the crowds inspired and dancing.

Over the years, the Vigil to Close the SOA at the gates of Fort Benning, Georgia has grown into a massive people-power convergence with many important side events taking place throughout the weekend.

As the weekend’s events were getting started, SOA Watch received sad news from our friends in the Colombian Peace Community of San José de Apartadó.

On Nov. 17, troops commanded by General Luis Alfonso Zapata Uribe attacked and killed Arlen Salas David, a leader of the peace community.

More than 10,000 Colombian soldiers have been trained at the SOA/WHINSEC. Colombia continues to send more soldiers to the SOA than any other country - with chilling results. Graduates of the school are consistently cited for human rights abuses. The U.S. is an active contributor to the war in Colombia, providing billions in military aid

and training to the Colombian military. Movements for justice in the Americas need to stand in solidarity with the people of Colombia, work to change U.S. foreign policy and close the SOA.

*General Luis Alfonso Zapata Uribe, who has commanded the 17th Brigade of the Colombian Army since May 2005, was trained in counter-insurgency at the School of the Americas. He attended the Small-Unit Infantry Tactics C-7 course to become familiar with small-unit operational

concepts and principles at the squad and platoon level, [to] receive training in planning and conducting small-unit tactical operations.

The San José de Apartadó Peace Community wrote today, Nov. 18:

“We make an appeal for national and international support, so that our extermination can be stopped; so that the inhabitants of the whole region of Arenas Altas are not forced to become internally displaced, which the Army has told us is their objective. The serious and committed work that Arlen was carrying out will guide us. Pain barely lets us talk but we will continue to cry ‘Dignity’ out loud, like he taught us to do during his daily chores and his commitment to the community. His two small children will continue to walk besides us, building a different tomorrow in which there will be respect for life. Arlen, our tears accompany this horror but you are with us, giving us life. Thank you for your leadership, your committment. Someday history will judge those who murdered you.”

Click here to read the entire message from the San José de Apartadó community in Spanish and English.

the Coalition of Immokalee Workers will present

Legislative updates: 122 Co-Sponsors to Close the SOA!

About the SOA/ WHINSEC:

The US Army School of Americas (SOA), based in Fort Benning, Georgia, trains Latin American security personnel in combat, counter-insurgency, and counter-narcotics. SOA graduates are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America.

In 1996 the Pentagon was forced to release training manuals used at the school that advocated torture, extortion and execution. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates are notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. Lower-level SOA graduates have participated in human rights abuses that include the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero and the El Mozote Massacre of 900 civilians.

In an attempt to deflect public criticism and disassociate the school from its dubious reputation, the SOA was renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in 2001. The name change was a result of a Department of Defense proposal included in the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 2001, at a time when SOA opponents were poised to win a congressional vote on legislation that would have dismantled the school.

The name-change measure passed when the House of Representatives defeated a bi-partisan amendment to close the SOA and conduct a congressional investigation by a narrow ten-vote margin.

Should the United States Harbor an International Terrorist?

Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:00:00 +0000

That's the headline of a wonderful, powerful, full-page appeal in the November 18th New York Times to the families of the victims of 9/11/01 from the families of the victims of 10/6/76 when the Cubana passenger jet was blown up, killing all 73 people aboard.

Please get this full-page appeal and show it to people and talk about it.

Go to and contact the families. Cuba has provided this opportunity to inform people about Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, et al.

Rep. Murtha calls for change in direction

Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:54:00 +0000

The following is the transcript of the news conference Thursday by Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, as provided by Federal News Service.

REP. MURTHA: I just spoke to the Democratic Caucus and told them my feelings about the war. And I started out by saying the war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It's a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress.

The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq. But it's time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

General Casey said, in a September 2005 hearing, the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency. General Abizaid said, on the same date, reducing the size of visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.

For two and a half years, I've been concerned about U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I've addressed my concerns with the administration and the Pentagon, and I've spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited.

A few days before the start of the war, I was in Kuwait.

The military drew a line -- a red line around Baghdad, and they said when U.S. forces cross that line, they will be attacked by the Iraqis with weapons of mass destruction. And I believed it, and they believed it. But the U.S. forces -- the commander said, they were prepared. They said they had well-trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

Now, let me tell you we've spent more money on intelligence than any -- than all the countries in the world put together and more on intelligence than most countries' GDP. And when they said it's a world intelligence failure, it's a U.S. intelligence failure. It's a U.S. failure, and it's a failure in the way the intelligence was used.

I've been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed, as some of you know, almost every week since the beginning of the war. And what demoralizes them is not the criticism; what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace. The devastation caused by IEDs is what they're concerned about, being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes -- and you've seen these stories about some of the people's whose homes were destroyed, and they were deployed to Iraq after it -- being on their second or third deployment, leaving their families behind without a network of support.

The threat by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must prepare to face all these threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say the Army's broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down even as the military's lowered its standards. They expect to take 20 percent Category 4, which is the lowest category, which they said they'd never take, but they've been forced to do that, to try to meet a reduced quota. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made, and we cannot allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away.

We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls in our bases at home. I've been to three bases in the United States, and each one of them were short of things they need to train the people going to Iraq. Much of our ground equipment is worn out. And I've told the COs -- (inaudible) -- you better get in the business of rehabilitating equipment because we're not going to be able to buy any new equipment because the money's not going to be there.

George Washington said to be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace. We don't want somebody to miscalculate down the road. It takes us 18 years to put a weapon system in the arsenal. And I don't know what the threat is, nobody knows what the threat is, but we better make sure we have what's necessary to preserve our peace. We must rebuild our Army.

Our deficit is growing out of control. The director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being terrified about the deficit in the coming decades. In other words, where's the money going to come from for defense?

I voted against every tax cut -- every tax cut I voted against. My wife says, 'You shouldn't say that.' I believe that when we voted for these tax cuts, you can't have a war, you can't have a tragedy like we had, the hurricanes, and then not have a huge deficit, which is going to increase interest rates and could cause real problems. This is the first prolonged war we've ever fought with three years of tax cuts without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. On the college campuses they always ask me about a draft: You're for a draft. I say yeah, there's only two of us voted for it, so you don't have to worry too much about it.

The burden of this war has not been shared equally. The military and their families are shouldering the burden. Our military has been fighting this war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty.

Our military captured Saddam Hussein, captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, and over 2,079 in confirmed American deaths, over 15,500 have been seriously injured -- half of them returned to duty, and it's estimated over 50,000 will suffer from what I call battle fatigue. And there have been reports that at least 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed.

I just recently visited Anbar province in Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. And last May -- last May -- we put in the emergency supplemental spending bill -- Moran amendment -- which was accepted in conference, which required the secretary of Defense to submit a quarterly report about the -- and accurately measure the stability and security in Iraq. Now -- we've now received two reports. So I've just come back from Iraq, and I looked at the next report. I'm disturbed by the findings in the key indicator areas.

Oil production and energy production are below prewar level. You remember they said that was going to pay for the war, and it's proved to (be) below prewar level. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situations. Only $9 billion of $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. And I said on the floor of the House, when they passed the $87 billion, the $18 billion was the most important part of it because you got to get people back to work, you got to get electricity, you got to get water! Unemployment is 60 percent. Now, they tell you in the United States it's less than that, so it may be 40 percent. But in Iraq, they told me it's 60 percent when I was there. Clean water is scarce, and they only spent $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects.

And most importantly -- this is the most important point -- incidents have increased from 150 to a week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over a time when addition of more troops -- when we had addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelation of Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. You look at the timeline. You'll see one per day average before Abu Ghraib. After Abu Ghraib, you'll see two a day -- two killed per day because of the dramatic impact that Abu Ghraib had on what we were doing in -- and the department -- the State Department reported in 2004, right before they quit putting the reports out, that -- they indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

I said over a year ago now, the military and the administration agrees now that Iraq cannot be won militarily.

I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is Iraqitize, internationalize and energize.

Now, we have a packet for you where I sent a letter to the president in September, and I got an answer back from assistant secretary of Defense five months later. I believe the same today. They don't want input. They only want to criticize. They -- Bush One was the opposite; Bush One might not like the criticism and constructive suggestions, but he listened to what we had to say.

I believe that and I have concluded the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress. Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists and the foreign jihadists. And let me tell you, they haven't captured any in this latest activity, so this idea that they're coming in from outside, we still think there's only 7 percent.

I believe with the U.S. troop redeployment the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted -- this is a British poll reported in The Washington Times -- over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces, and about 45 percent of Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice. The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target.

All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free -- free from a United States occupation, and I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process. My experience in a guerrilla war says that until you find out where they are, until the public is willing to tell you where the insurgent is, you're not going to win this war, and Vietnam was the same way. If you have an operation -- a military operation and you tell the Sunnis because the families are in jeopardy, they -- or you tell the Iraqis, then they are going to tell the insurgents, because they're worried about their families.

My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

Now let me personalize this thing for you. I go out to the hospitals every week. One of my first visits, two young women. One was 22 or 23, had two children, lost her husband. One was 19. And they both went out to the hospitals to tell the people out there how happy they were -- or how happy they should be to be alive. In other words, they were reaching out because they felt their husbands had done their duty, but they wanted to tell them that they were so fortunate, even though they were wounded, to be alive.

I have a young fellow in my district who was blinded and he lost his foot. They did everything they could for him at Walter Reed, then they sent him home. His father was in jail. He had nobody at home. Imagine this. A young kid that age, 22, 23 years old, goes home to nobody. VA did everything they could do to help him. He was reaching out.

So they sent him -- to make sure that he was a blind, they sent him to Johns Hopkins. Johns Hopkins started sending bills. Then the collection agency started sending bills. Well, when I found out about it, you could imagine they stopped the collection agency and Walter Reed finally paid the bill. But imagine, a young person being blinded, without a foot, and he's getting bills from a collection agency.

I saw a young soldier who lost two legs and an arm, and his dad was pushing him around.

I go to the mental ward; you know what they say to me? They got battle fatigue. You know what they say? 'We don't get nothing. We get nothing. We're just as bruised, just as injured as everybody else, but we don't even get a Purple Heart. We get nothing. We get shunted aside. We get looked at as if there's something wrong with us.'

Saw a young woman from Notre Dame. Basketball player, right- handed, lost her right hand. You know what she's worried about? She's worried about her husband because he lost weight worrying about her. These are great people. These soldiers and people who are serving, they're marvelous people.

I saw a Seabee lying there with three children. His mother and his wife were there. He was paralyzed from the neck down. There were 18 of them killed in this one mortar attack. And they were all crying because they knew what it would be like in the future.

I saw a Marine rubbing his boy's hand. He was a Marine in Vietnam, and his son had just come back from Iraq. And he said he wanted his brother to come home. That's what the father said, because the kid couldn't speak. He was in a coma.

He kept rubbing his hand.

He didn't want to come home. I told him the Marine Corps would get him home.

I had one other kid, lost both his hands. Blinded. I was praising him, saying how proud we were of him and how much we appreciate his service to the country. 'Anything I can do for you?' His mother said get me a -- 'Get him a Purple Heart.' I said, 'What do you mean, get him a Purple Heart?'

He had been wounded in taking care of bomblets, these bomblets that they drop that they have to dismantle. He had been wounded and lost both his hands. The kid behind him was killed.

His mother said, 'Because they're friendly bomblets, they wouldn't give him a Purple Heart.'

I met with the commandant. I said, 'If you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine.' And they gave him a Purple Heart.

Let me tell you something. We're charged -- Congress is charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, and it's our responsibility, our obligation to speak out for them. That's why I'm speaking out.

Our military's done everything that has been asked of them. U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily; it's time to bring the troops home.

Yes, ma'am?

Q Congressman, Republicans say that Democrats are calling for withdrawal, are advocating a cut-and-run strategy. What do you say to that criticism?

REP. MURTHA: It's time to bring them home. They've done everything they can do. The military's done everything they can do. This war has been so mishandled from the very start. Not only was the intelligence bad, the way they disbanded the troops, there's all kinds of mistakes that have been made. They don't deserve to continue to suffer. They're the targets. They have become the enemy! Eighty percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. The public wants us out of there.

Yes, ma'am?

Q Democrats have called for an exit strategy in the past, but Republicans have said that it's a non-starter. Is there anything -- do you think that the climate has changed in Congress that would give your legislation a chance?

REP. MURTHA: I don't know whether the climate's changed or not. But I know one thing: It's the right thing to do. And setting an exit strategy with some kind of event-driven plan doesn't work because they always find an excuse not to get them out. There's times you just got to -- you got to change your mind about this thing, you got to change your direction.

There's times when you just got to say what's the right thing to do? The right thing to do -- our troops are the enemy, they're the targets. When I went to Anbar province, General Huck said to me, you know, the thing that's so discouraging, we got all this armor and everything, and the snipers are shooting right below the helmets. They're blowing the turrets off tanks, no matter how much armor that we put out there. We're the targets. We're uniting the enemy against us! And there's terrorism all over the world that there wasn't before we went into Iraq.

Yes, sir?

Q Mr. Murtha, you say -- your first point about bringing them home consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. You know about these matters; what is your sense as to how long that would be?

REP. MURTHA: Well, I think they can get them out of there in six months. I think that we could do it -- you know, you have to do it in a very consistent way. But I think six months would be a reasonable time to get them out of there.

Q And could you tell us also --

REP. MURTHA: See, one of the -- let me add something else. Let's say you wanted to go the other way, you wanted to put 500,000 troops over there. Now, we can't even meet the goals of 512,000; we're going to be 10,000 short in recruitment right now. Unless you have a draft, there's no way that you can have more troops. And where are most of the attacks coming? On the roads, on the roads to logistics. General Huck said every convoy is attacked. I had a young Marine that -- I went to a young group that just came back, and he said he'd been hit five times. Now, he wasn't wounded five times, but his vehicle was hit five times, and people all around him were killed.

And -- but what was the question?

Q My other question. What do you mean exactly by a Quick Reaction Force in the region?

REP. MURTHA: Yeah. Well, the Marines in Okinawa -- you remember in Somalia, we came back from Somalia and then we went back in. It only took us a couple of days to take care of the Iraqi army, and now we're not talking about an army. What I'm talking about is a terrorist camp that may affect our national security or the security in the region, we could go back in. But not a civil war or something like that, I mean, you know, that's up to the Iraqis to settle that. So I think the Marine force could be in there momentarily, within a couple of days, within 48 hours they could be in there. And if the Kuwaitis would agree and they wanted to put a force in Kuwait, that would be a good place to have them. They could go right down the road.

Yes, ma'am?

Q Mr. Murtha, what about the goal of having an oasis of democracy in the Middle East and the idea that leaving now would leave a breeding ground for terrorists right in the middle of the least stable parts of the --

REP. MURTHA: Let's talk about terrorism. What the State Department said; there's more terrorism now than there ever was, and it's because of what? Is it because of our policy? I would say it's a big part. We have become the enemy there. We have united them against us. So when they say that they want democracy, what was the first goal? The first goal was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. The second goal was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Well, they did that. And the third was to -- well, I guess the third was destroy the enemy and then get rid of Saddam Hussein. We've done our job militarily. It's time for us to get out.

Q You said that you had spoken with the caucus earlier today. What was their reaction, and are they willing to stand with you on this, specifically the leader?

REP. MURTHA: Well, you'll have to -- you'll have to talk to them about that. I got a standing ovation. But you'll have to talk to them. (Laughter.)

Q The president and the vice president are both saying it is now irresponsible for Democrats to criticize the war and to criticize the intelligence going into the war because everybody was looking at the same intelligence.

REP. MURTHA: I like guys who've never been there to criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there, and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what need(s) to be done. I resent the fact on Veterans Day he criticized Democrats for criticizing them.

This is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion! The American public knows it. And lashing out at critics doesn't help a bit. You got to change the policy. That's what's going to help with the American people. We need to change direction. The troops -- what hurts the troops are the things that I listed before.

Yes, ma'am?

Q How did you come to this decision now? Obviously it's something you've been thinking a lot about, but could you just talk us through a little bit --

REP. MURTHA: Yeah.

Q -- how you got here?

REP. MURTHA: I'll tell you, I supported -- I led the fight to go to war in '91. I was one of the few people that believed that Bush -- Bush One was absolutely right about not going into Iraq. You know why he didn't go into Iraq? He said I don't want to rebuild it, and I don't want to occupy it. That's why he didn't go to Iraq -- into Iraq after the '91 war.

I supported Reagan all through the Central American thing.

This was a decision that came because the troops and the target -- they become the target, and the lack of progress that I see. When I go over there I see commanders that are discouraged; even though they say what they're supposed to say, you can tell the difference.

And when I come back here and look at what's called the criteria for success -- and the incidents have increased, even though we've increased the number of troops -- when the unemployment is 60 percent, and we're the target, and our kids are being killed because of that, it's time to redeploy them from Iraq.

Q Mr. Murtha, based on your meeting this morning, I assume you have Ms. Pelosi's endorsement of this --

REP. MURTHA: You have to talk to her. You know, I was very careful not to say this was a caucus position. I -- a lot of people suggested it should be, but I was very careful about this. This is my own position, my own conclusion that I've reached.

My long years in the Marine Corps, my long years in defense, in reading -- I'm frustrated because in the first war President Bush -- we made some suggestions to him. What did he do? He collected $60 billion -- and I was chairman of the committee at the time -- $60 billion from all the world in order to fight the war. We paid about $60 billion. There were coalition troops, a legitimate coalition.

And I remember calling General Scowcroft, saying, 'Get these things moving! Get this war over with! There's 250,000 troops out there.' He said, 'We will not move until we got whatever Schwarzkopf wants.'

And that's what they did. And they followed the U.N. resolution to a T. He didn't want a resolution, you remember. This was a very controversial thing, the '91 thing. People forget how controversial it was. And it only passed the Senate by two votes. And -- but he listened to us. He had a meeting every week and listened to what we had to say. And sometimes he took the advice. Sometimes he didn't.

This outfit doesn't want to hear any suggestions. It's frustrating, and the troops are paying the price for it. Yes, ma'am?

Q Sir, so you're effectively saying that this war should end, beginning as soon as possible, and that all these troops can be brought home within six months. So that's your hope.

REP. MURTHA: It's what -- I say they could be brought back. I'm saying within the safety of the troops -- but I project it could be six months.

Q Six months to start or six months to have them all back?

REP. MURTHA: I think in six months you could have them all back.

Q Also, on a related subject, what's your plan for the Defense conference coming and the anti-torture and --

REP. MURTHA: Well, we thought it was going to be today, but it doesn't look like it.

Q But do you intend to fight to keep the anti-torture language that the Senate passed in the bill?

REP. MURTHA: Absolutely.

Q (Off mike) --

REP. MURTHA: I think you'll see a big vote. Republicans -- many Republicans come to me -- nobody's for torture, you know. And for us to send the signal to the world that we're for torture -- I mean, this is what caused a major part of the change in minds in Iraq and the United States, is Abu Ghraib. And some of those are my constituents that were at Abu Ghraib.

One young fellow, who was the ringleader, at least they said he was a ringleader, this guy was under a court order not to be allowed to see his family because he abused his family. He couldn't carry a gun in the United States, yet they put him in charge of this group that got out of hand. He told them, and they still -- they were so short-handed. No supervision. No training.

You need strict -- Captain Fishback came to see me five, six months ago. He said, 'We don't know what to do. We don't know what the guidelines are. I'd ask a lawyer and he'd say one thing; I'd ask the commanding officer, he'd say something else. Were you guys complicit in this? Were you guys in Congress part of this? Did you wink and say, Yeah, go ahead and torture these people.`?' He said, 'They're not following the Geneva Convention.'

We need to clarify exactly what the standards are. We need to make sure that the world knows we do not treat prisoners inhumanely or detainees inhumanely. We can't -- Fishback said, I'd rather die than lower the moral standards of the United States. He said that in the letter to John McCain. And I believe that. I believe this is the thing that we have going for us in this country.

Q Do you believe that any House Republicans support your position on the torture amendment?

REP. MURTHA: I do.

Q (Off mike) -- keep it in?

REP. MURTHA: I do. He's not going to veto that bill over torture, I'll tell you that, not a defense bill, when we got troops in the war.

Q Mr. Murtha, could you respond directly to what Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld say, that saying that we're going to get out in six months is giving the insurgents exactly what they want in Iraq; they just can outlast us?

REP. MURTHA: I can only tell you this: Incidents have increased, and there's no economic progress. And we have become the enemy. And 80 percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. Saying it -- you know, the president said it's tough to win a war. You know, it's tough to wage a war. That's where the fallacy's been. To WAGE this war is where the problem's been.

Yes, ma'am?

Q Do you have any co-sponsors or congressmen --

REP. MURTHA: I didn't ask for any. I'm not sure that -- I think I'll just sponsor it myself. I feel very strongly about this thing, and I'm not sure whether I'll ask for co-sponsors.

Yes, ma'am?

Q What's your political strategy, though, going forward? Because you would have to convince some Republicans to get on your side, and there doesn't seem to be any that are wiling to go out on a limb on this and buck the leadership. Do you have private conversations with any Republicans who have conveyed to you quietly, 'I'm behind this'?

REP. MURTHA: I have not yet, because obviously, anything I said before this time would have leaked out.

You folks are so hard-working, so dedicated, so -- have such an ability to get words out of people that I knew better than to say anything.

Q Do you have a political strategy now moving forward to try to get more support on this? REP. MURTHA: Well, I'm just -- I'm just starting to think about that.

Q Will you introduce your bill today?

REP. MURTHA: Yeah.

STAFF: Okay, folks, one more question.

Q Have you had any discussions with anyone in the administration prior to coming out with this, the idea that you were coming all the way around to having troops come back immediately? Have you had any discussions prior to coming out --

REP. MURTHA: My experience goes back to the letter I sent to them as the former chairman, as the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee. Five months later, I get a letter from the assistant secretary. So I didn't have much chance to speak to the administration about it. And I don't -- I don't know -- I know it wouldn't have made any difference. I mean, what they're saying is rhetoric. It's easy to sit in these air-conditioned offices and talk about what the troops are doing, send the troops to war.

Let me tell you, these young folks are under intense activity over there, I mean much more intense than Vietnam. You never know when it's going to happen.

One young commanding officer -- I just met with him the other day, went out to the hospital to see him; he's from Johnstown. He actually was a commanding officer unit in Johnstown. Three days before he's supposed to go home, he walked up to this IED and it blew up and blew him apart. Luckily, he had the glasses on that we have provided for them and it didn't blind him, or he'd have been blinded.

And I remember one young fellow -- and this is the last story I'll tell -- is -- he had pock marks all over his face, shrapnel all in his face, all over his body, arms, everyplace. But he wasn't blinded. And I was so pleased because he had glasses on that we had made sure he'd got, and I patted him on the hand and the vibration was so severe, he almost screamed. And he turned his arm over and it was split the whole way up and his nerves were showing.

It's -- it's -- we've got to address -- and these are long-term problems. This is not something you just put them out of the hospital. You've got long-term problems with these guys and the intensity that they have been through.

Thank you very -- Q Senators Warner and Stevens just talked with reporters on the other side of the Capitol, and they said that they had yet to meet a single soldier in Iraq or at the hospitals here who thought it was time to pull out of Iraq --

REP. MURTHA: Is that right?

Q -- and that --

REP. MURTHA: What do you think they're going to tell you? We're here to talk for them. We're here to measure the success. The soldiers aren't going to tell you that. I told you what the soldiers say. They're proud of their service. They're looking at their friends.

You folks are so hard-working, so dedicated, so -- have such an ability to get words out of people that I knew better than to say anything.

Q Do you have a political strategy now moving forward to try to get more support on this?

REP. MURTHA: Well, I'm just -- I'm just starting to think about that.

Q Will you introduce your bill today?

REP. MURTHA: Yeah.

STAFF: Okay, folks, one more question.

Q Have you had any discussions with anyone in the administration prior to coming out with this, the idea that you were coming all the way around to having troops come back immediately? Have you had any discussions prior to coming out --

REP. MURTHA: My experience goes back to the letter I sent to them as the former chairman, as the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee. Five months later, I get a letter from the assistant secretary. So I didn't have much chance to speak to the administration about it. And I don't -- I don't know -- I know it wouldn't have made any difference. I mean, what they're saying is rhetoric. It's easy to sit in these air-conditioned offices and talk about what the troops are doing, send the troops to war.

Let me tell you, these young folks are under intense activity over there, I mean much more intense than Vietnam. You never know when it's going to happen.

One young commanding officer -- I just met with him the other day, went out to the hospital to see him; he's from Johnstown. He actually was a commanding officer unit in Johnstown. Three days before he's supposed to go home, he walked up to this IED and it blew up and blew him apart. Luckily, he had the glasses on that we have provided for them and it didn't blind him, or he'd have been blinded.

And I remember one young fellow -- and this is the last story I'll tell -- is -- he had pock marks all over his face, shrapnel all in his face, all over his body, arms, everyplace. But he wasn't blinded. And I was so pleased because he had glasses on that we had made sure he'd got, and I patted him on the hand and the vibration was so severe, he almost screamed. And he turned his arm over and it was split the whole way up and his nerves were showing.

It's -- it's -- we've got to address -- and these are long-term problems. This is not something you just put them out of the hospital. You've got long-term problems with these guys and the intensity that they have been through.

Thank you very --

Q Senators Warner and Stevens just talked with reporters on the other side of the Capitol, and they said that they had yet to meet a single soldier in Iraq or at the hospitals here who thought it was time to pull out of Iraq --

REP. MURTHA: Is that right?

Q -- and that --

REP. MURTHA: What do you think they're going to tell you? We're here to talk for them. We're here to measure the success. The soldiers aren't going to tell you that. I told you what the soldiers say. They're proud of their service. They're looking at their friends. We are here -- we have an obligation to speak for them.

Thank you very much.

.... END

CITGO to Distribute Heating Oil at Discounted Prices

Sat, 19 Nov 2005 09:26:00 +0000

HOUSTON - CITGO Petroleum Corporation plans to begin distributing heating oil at discounted prices next week as part of an initiative aimed at helping poor communities in areas of the country most affected by cold winters.

The initial program is scheduled to be launched coinciding with the Thanksgiving Holiday. It will benefit communities in the Boston area and in the Bronx, in New York City.

The first phase of the program, in Boston, will offer up to 12 million gallons of heating oil with discounts from market prices. The value of these discounts is nearly $10 million at current market prices.

“With this initiative, CITGO is showing its commitment to the U.S. marketplace and to communities where we have a presence,” said CITGO President and CEO Félix Rodríguez. “As good corporate citizens, we are making an effort to help those in need.

“In this endeavor, CITGO has the full support of our corporate parent, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), the state oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, who is deeply aware of the concerns that have prompted this initiative.”

The logistics of the program are being arranged in coordination with non-profit organizations which will be helping with the selection of beneficiaries, fuel distribution and final invoicing reflecting the discounts agreed upon. CITGO, based in Houston, is a refiner, transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals, refined waxes, asphalt and other industrial products. The company is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. For more information visit www.citgo.com.

Democrats Have Proof Pre-War Intel Was Manipulated

Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:39:00 +0000

Senate Democrats have dug up additional explosive evidence over the past week that they say will help prove the Bush administration deliberately manipulated pre-war Iraq intelligence that was used to convince Congress and the public to support a pre-emptive strike against the Middle East country in March of 2003.

Specifically, Carl Levin, the senior Democrat who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is interested in permanently debunking the administration's assertion that it 'mistakenly' included the 16-word reference in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address claiming that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium - the key component to building an atomic bomb - from Niger. Levin's aides said the administration knew months before that the veracity of the allegations was dubious because it was based on forged documents.

Many critics of the war cite those 16 words in the State of the Union address as the silver bullet that convinced Congress and the American public to back the war against Iraq. The Niger uranium allegations are also at the heart of a federal probe into the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, whose husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was the envoy sent to Niger in February 2002 to investigate the uranium rumor and reported back to the CIA that there was no truth to it. The leak of Wilson's wife's identity and undercover CIA status was an attempt to muzzle Wilson, a vocal critic of the war, who had accused the Bush administration of citing the phony Niger uranium documents to dupe Congress into supporting the war.

The probe has so far resulted in a five-count criminal indictment against I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, who resigned from his position last month following the indictment for lying to prosecutors about his role in the leak.

Since Libby's indictment, the Bush administration has launched a full-scale public relations campaign to shore up Bush's sagging poll numbers. In doing so, senior officials at the White House and the National Security Council have publicly attacked Democratic critics of the war, as well as the bipartisan investigation into pre-war intelligence, claiming Democrats saw the exact same intelligence as those in the White House and voted in favor of military action.

On Wednesday, Cheney called critics of the war 'dishonest' and 'reprehensible' and said Democrats accusing the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence were 'opportunists.'

But aides to Sen. Levin rebutted that, saying they have smoking-gun proof that they were lied to by Bush and Cheney about not only the existence of weapons of mass destruction but also claims that Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger.

In building their case against the administration, Levin, with the help of Congressman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has obtained the December 2002 letter sent to the White House and the National Security Council by Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warning that the Niger claims were bogus and should not be cited by the administration as evidence that Iraq was actively trying to obtain WMDs.

Waxman had written ElBaradei in March 2003, inquiring about the Niger documents and the allegations that Iraq tried to purchase uranium there in order to determine if the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence it had relied upon. Waxman received a three-page response from ElBaradei on June 20, 2003, around the same time that Joseph Wilson had started to publicly question the Bush administration's rationale for war and around the same time White House officials had disclosed his wife's CIA status to a handful of reporters. Baradei's response letter lays out in full detail the play-by-play in his attempt to get to the bottom of the Niger uranium story.

ElBaradei said, when the Niger claims were included in the State Department fact sheet on the Iraqi threat in December 2002, 'the IAEA asked the U.S. Government, through its Mission in Vienna, to provide any actionable information that would allow it to follow up with the countries involved, viz Niger and Iraq.' ElBaradei said he was assured that his letter was forwarded to the White House and to the National Security Council. ElBaradei added that he and his staff were suspicious about the Niger documents because it had long been rumored that documents pertaining to Iraq's attempt to obtain uranium from Niger had been doctored.

The evidence that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from an African country was first revealed by the British government on September 24, 2002, when Prime Minister Tony Blair released a 50-page report on Iraqi efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This report ultimately became a significant part of the US case against Iraq.

ElBaradei had said he repeatedly requested copies of the Niger documents prior to Bush's State of the Union address but never received anything. When he finally did receive the documents - six weeks later - on February 4, 2003, a week after Bush's State of the Union address, his suspicions turned out to be on the money. He was the person who first revealed that the Niger documents cited by the Bush administration to win support for the war were crude forgeries.

ElBaradei told Waxman that the White House had turned over the Niger material 'without qualification' and provided no specific comments on whether US intelligence considered the documents to be authentic.

In conversations and correspondence with Waxman, ElBaradei said he personally had tried to contact Stephen Hadley, then Deputy National Security Adviser, and aides to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, warning them not to rely on the Niger documents as evidence of the Iraqi threat, but was continuously rebuffed. He said the White House officials pledged to cooperate with United Nations inspectors but repeatedly withheld evidence from them.

Cheney did the rounds on the cable news outlets, and tried to discredit ElBaradei's conclusion that the documents were forged.

'I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong,' Cheney said. '[The IAEA] has consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past.'

Four months later, Hadley, as well as former CIA Director George Tenet, took responsibility for allowing the Niger uranium claims to be included in Bush's speech. Aides to Levin said that when the bipartisan investigation is complete there will be ample proof that the Bush administration, specifically, Hadley, Cheney, and other top officials, knowingly manipulated intelligence to fit their agenda in launching a war.

Lawyer Richard Klugh explains aspects of the Cuban Five appeals process

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 06:22:00 +0000

Richard Klugh is an appeals process expert with the Public Defender's Office in Miami. A graduate of Harvard University, he has more than 25 years of experience as a jurist which has led him to determine that this case (of the Cuban Five) is very different.

He belongs to the defense team of the five Cubans arrested in Miami on September 12, 1998, who, after a bizarre trial, had charges attributed to them that carried combined sentences of four life and 75 years of imprisonment.

Klugh is very careful in the manner in which he expresses himself, as if when he speaks each word must find its rightful slot – no more, no less. Those who have dealt with him affirm that he is a true professional, a man who is proficient.

'He is someone who exudes great peace,' says Rosa Aurora Freijanes, the wife of defendant Fernando González.

Richard Klugh consented to speak with Juventud Rebelde by phone in relation to the disposition of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which by a simple majority vote has agreed to hear an appeal by the U.S. Attorney representing the government of the United States to reconsider a ruling rendered by a panel of three judges on August 9.

Q: You are a man of law. What is your opinion of the August 9 verdict?

'I believe it was a magnificent decision. The opinion by the three judges takes on international legitimacy.

'It was an act of courage. It was what was expected from people of honor, from people who don't avoid the truth of a situation, even though the ruling was unpopular in the Cuban-American community in Miami. 'This interests me a lot, because it is part of the set of values that we should expect from the judges in this new phase, but it is the obligation of the lawyers to now find a way to take these values to the full court and use them well in the application of the law.

'In the period that is approaching we will direct our arguments in that sense, so that the judges' decision will also honor justice. For that reason we continue with our work of making the truth even clearer in this case.

'The work of the three judge panel was major and the important thing is that they took their time to make their ruling. They read the arguments in their entirety and were able to see the reality in every aspect of the case.

'They analyzed the selection of the jury, the media... and they realized that everything pointed in the same direction: that one cannot have a fair trial in Miami for people like the Five Heroes.

'After this 93-page decision, if they change it or try to take it beyond the truth, this would be more than a legal tragedy, but a defeat for both the peoples of Cuba and the United States. For that reason we have to put all our efforts into winning.'

Q: Is it usual that a unanimous decision of three judges be taken for reconsideration by the full Eleventh Circuit?

'It is very unusual that an en banc or full court hearing is granted for reconsideration of a unanimous decision that is based on an analysis of the individual facts of the case.

'The U.S. Attorney announced to the press this reconsideration is very important `for the community'. The acrimony in which he presented the reconsideration petition was also very unusual.

'I have personally spent 25 years participating in these cases and I have never seen any appeals court accept a case like this en banc.'

Q: How will the Eleventh Circuit now treat the situation?

'We will see, because they still have to meet again to decide which will be the point or the points that they want to debate or what are the facts they have to resolve. They will have other meetings before telling us which are the arguments that we have to present.

'As to what will occur, we will have to prepare new briefs or reports to the court explaining the case once again with all the important data; afterwards the prosecution will respond. We will then have the opportunity to present a brief response to the prosecutor, and finally we will have an oral hearing before the whole court.'

Q: You have said that this truth that the world now knows must be reaffirmed. Would you elaborate?

'Well, I believe that everybody understands the situation that exists in Miami. The fundamental thing for us as lawyers is to avoid any procedural rule that can prevent that truth from being part of the decision.

'We as citizens know the reality. Everybody can see that Miami has become a community in which any decision involving important matters for the people of Cuba will be affected by prejudice. It is very clear, there were dozens of Cuban-Americans called in to testify and they acknowledged this. Therefore we should underline what everybody knows: that prejudice exists in that city with any topic linked to Cuba.

'The U.S. Attorney's office has never tried to contradict this because it is unable to do so. It will try to convince the court to close its eyes to reality regarding the prejudice within the community.

'Our battle, as defense lawyers, is to convince the court that it is not acceptable to proceed in a case in which the accused are innocent and been given excessive sentences - three of them life imprisonment.'

Q: What should the people of the United States know about this case?

'Given the nature of the press and television in the United States it is difficult to present a serious debate with important views.

'The people of the U.S. don't know much about the case. It is my intention in the next few months to take this theme and try to position it more in the media to increase knowledge about this injustice.'

Q: In your 25 years of professional experience and making a comparison with other cases in which you have been involved, has there been any other resembling this?

'Not really. But I have confidence that we attorneys will be able to present the truth of this case. We will dedicate our time and all our efforts to argue it in an understandable and irrefutable manner. It will be difficult, but can be done. This is a case that is different than any other one that could be called a criminal case, because the Five are not criminals by any means. This is something everyone understands.

'We are speaking of ideas, of an ideological battle. In the United States what we have is the politicization of criminal law, and in this case the criminalization of the political and attempting to bring a political battle before a criminal court.

'This is the only case in which I have participated with such a situation, because the Five are not criminals and they did not cause any harm to my country. What they attempted to do was to protect Cuba from terrorist actions planned in Miami by extreme right groups of Cuban origin. In my experience there is no other case in the USA that you can compare with that of the Five.'

The document issued by the Court appears in its website

House Democrat calls for immediate withdrawal from Iraq

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 06:16:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) - An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called for the United States 'to immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.'

'With a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentified to take control,' Murtha said in remarks prepared for delivery.

The decorated Vietnam War veteran is a close adviser to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. For months, Pelosi has pushed for the Bush administration to outline an exit strategy, although she has stopped short of calling for a pullout troops.

Some Senate Democrats have called for immediate or phased withdrawal.

Murtha's comments came just two days after the Senate voted to approve a statement that 2006 'should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty' to create the conditions for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Murtha voted to give the president authority to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002. In recent months, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee defense panel has grown increasingly troubled with the direction of the war and with the Bush administration's handling of it, particularly following the disclosure of purportedly secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe.

'The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion,' Murtha said.

National Security Adviser was Woodward's source, attorneys say

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 06:14:00 +0000

Reprinted from Rawstory.com

Get Rich Or Die Tryin looks beyond rappers image

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 04:45:00 +0000

As an actor, 50 Cent has zero charisma. As a rapper, he’s electrifying.

That’s the dilemma director Jim Sheridan faces in “Get Rich Or Die Tryin,’” starring 50 Cent and loosely based on his life — how to flesh out the “gangsta” image and reveal the emotion that makes 50 Cent such a powerful musical artist. It’s a tribute to Sheridan’s talent that he’s crafted a film that reveals the heart behind the horror that shaped the rapper.

50 Cent told one interviewer, “I spent so much time conditioning myself not to cry when bad things happen in my life, that I kind of suppress my feelings.” That’s probably a big reason he doesn’t show much promise as an actor, but the fact that he’s willing to show vulnerability and gentleness in “Get Rich Or Die Tryin’” says that there’s more here than meets the eye.

At first, it might seem strange that Sheridan, the Academy Award-winning Irish director of “My Left Foot” and “In the Name of the Father,” would be telling the story of a Black American rapper. But Sheridan saw a connection between his own tough childhood in Dublin, and his struggle to “make it” in this country chronicled in the award-winning “In America,” and 50 Cent’s life as the son of a drug-dealing mother murdered when he was 8. Sheridan understands that you can’t change where you came from but, if you get lucky, you can control where you end up.

“Get Rich Or Die Tryin’” generated controversy with its poster showing 50 Cent with his arms outstretched, a microphone in one hand and a gun in the other. Black community activists in Los Angeles protested billboards for the movie because of the destruction that gun violence has brought to their neighborhoods. Not to diminish their outrage nor claim that my opinion is the right one, but my take on the poster is that it was supposed to convey that choice. 50 Cent, who took up drug dealing himself after his mother’s death, could stick with drugs, violence and death or he could use his talent to take another path.

There’s plenty of murder and mayhem in “Get Rich Or Die Tryin,’” so much so that film critic Roger Ebert said the title should have been “I Got Rich But Just About Everybody Else Died Tryin.’” That’s a funny line and the movie itself has a lot of humor despite its grim story, “75 percent” of which is true, according to 50 Cent (whose real name is Curtis Jackson).

In the end, the director and the rapper, no strangers to the hardscrabble life, seem to be saying there’s a better way if you have the courage to look for it.

Speaking truth through poetic activism

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 04:44:00 +0000

I wonder if the sky gets tired of being everywhere at once, if the sun debates dawn. I wonder if sunrise and sunset respect each other, if rainbows get shy backstage and if the snow wants to be black. I wonder if waves get discouraged, if land feels stepped on or if sand feels insignificant.

CHICAGO — As these beautifully written words speak to the audience, Naima Penniman, 24, poetically captures her listeners. Naima and Alixa Garcia, 24, are weaving their words as a spoken word duo called “Climbing PoeTree” during a performance on this city’s South Side.

Based in Brooklyn, N.Y., Alixa and Naima are teaching truth through their powerful spoken word acts, headlining shows across the country on their second national tour called “Migration.” Their mission: to use art “to expose injustice, heal from violence, and generate vision to help us all imagine a more just and compassionate world.”

They spoke to the World during their recent visit to Chicago.

As artistic and social activists, they deliver their revolutionary, “firearm poetry” through single and two-voiced presentations that explore diverse themes like state and personal violence, civil rights and racism, sexuality, immigration and the African Diaspora, the drug war, mass imprisonment, global politics and women’s empowerment.

Their web site sheds further light on their credo: “Creativity is the antidote for violence and destruction. Art is our most human expression, our voice to communicate our stories, to challenge injustice and misrepresentations of mainstream media, to expose harsh realities and engender even more powerful hope, a force to bring diverse peoples together, a tool to rebuild our communities, and a weapon to win this struggle for universal liberation.”

Both Alixa and Naima come from politically active backgrounds. In addition to their performances, they also co-teach poetry workshops to prisoners and young people through the East Harlem Tutorial Program, the Youth Leadership Project of the Incarcerated Mothers Program, and the New York public schools.

Alixa, who was born in Colombia, said her first love as a child was roller-skating. Naima, originally from Massachusetts, remembers a childhood that included making music with pots and pans, puppet shows and doing dance routines. Both liked to climb trees, hence the name of their web site, climbingpoetree.com.

The two women met in May 2002, yet feel they have known each other all their lives.

Inspired by her hardworking abuelita (grandmother), Alixa wants people to “do what you dream, and put intention behind your dream, so that the universe will conspire to make sure that it happens. Just do what’s passionate so that you can grow letting yourself shine and be powerful.” Naima also draws inspiration from her grandmother, an organizer, activist and artist who serves as her role model.

At a performance at the Spoken Word Café on Chicago’s South Side, Alixa and Naima expressed how freedom comes from within: “Don’t let them cut out your tongue, women, self love is not found in another, you are that diamond,” they said in the interplay of their words. Naima went on to say, “The free things in life are the best things. Deep is the hunger, go on and get it.”

Alixa explained to the audience how she encountered stories in Pittsburgh about police corruption, criminalization of youth and brutality, and the impact they had on her art.

After the very inspiring set, Jeanine Holmes, a 35-year-old artist and fan, told the World, “These are young gifted beautiful women who make me want to do something. They are educators telling their stories and I’m really glad I know them.”

On their coast-to-coast tour, Alixa and Naima are also collecting stories, giving the audience a chance to share their experiences, their feelings, confessions and testimonies. People are asked to write on colorful individual cloths that will later be stitched together, “cross-pollinating stories and manifestos to cover the White House with a new American flag of justice.”

They are also involved with a collective of artists and activists working in collaboration with prisoners across the U.S. to create a portable mural called the Prison Poster Project. The idea is to use an intricate collage of images explaining how the criminal justice system affects people, families and communities.

“We will expose some of the myths that sustain widespread injustices in prisons and in the communities most affected by mass imprisonment, and most importantly, we will inspire and motivate people to take positive action against the system of mass incarceration and for prisoners’ human and civil rights,” they write on their web site. Visitors to the site will also find how to order their “Ammunition CD,” poetry books and even their own designer shirts.

“Art is a weapon, a tool in the struggle, our songs will never die, it’s up to us. Become the change you wish to see,” Naima told the World.

Venezuela defends against assaults, lies

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 04:42:00 +0000

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez spoke to French industrialists on Oct. 26: “Fidel and I are conspiring ... against death, against hunger, against misery, against diseases, against that poverty that grinds down our people. We are helping as many people as we can, not only in America, but throughout the world.”

Those words must have set nerves on edge among Washington’s rich and powerful. In fact, plans are already in place there for war with Venezuela, according to the Washington Post. The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review lists five nations as possible strategic threats to the United States in the post-Iraq era. Venezuela, a “rogue nation,” is one of them, and “full-spectrum contingency planning” is in full gear. Venezuela’s ties with China, Iran and Russia are worrisome to the Pentagon, and Venezuela is seen as supporting revolutions in Bolivia and Ecuador.

The Chavez government earlier this year activated its 2-million-member reserve force and over the past three months has carried out joint military civilian maneuvers. In December 2004, Venezuela agreed to buy 110,000 rifles, 33 helicopters and 50 fighter-bombers from Russia, and to buy naval aeronautical material, 10 transport planes, and four coast-guard cutters from Spain. The nation is buying 50 training and combat jets from Brazil.

Washington is currently attacking the Chavez government through the back door, from Colombia. Interviewed on Telesur on Nov. 2, President Chavez accused Colombian intelligence agencies of instigating plots against his government, a charge denied by Colombia’s President Alvaro Uribe.

On Oct. 27, a military court in Venezuela sent three Venezuelan military officers and 27 Colombian soldiers to jail for their part in an anti-Chavez plot in April 2004. Observers have repeatedly accused U.S. military forces in Colombia of close ties with paramilitary groups there.

And the U.S. government was allegedly involved in the Nov. 18, 2004, assassination of Danilo Anderson, who as prosecutor was investigating the April 2002 abortive coup against Chavez. In a deposition for the trial of Anderson’s killers, witness Giovani Jose Vasquez de Armas claimed that at meetings in Panama, Sept. 3-6, 2003, the plotters “discussed the plan [for assassination] with the help of the FBI and CIA.” The witness stated that in early 2004 they decided to target Anderson, rather than Chavez.

U.S. threats and unsubstantiated claims have become commonplace, with none more spectacular than highly placed evangelical clergyman Pat Robertson’s call on national television for Chavez’s murder.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had set the stage a few months earlier when she referred to “democratically elected leaders who govern in an illiberal way.” U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, briefing reporters traveling to Argentina recently with President Bush, said that with record oil prices, “One would expect to see a lot of progress on poverty” in Venezuela, which he alleged was lacking. Hadley added, “We’re concerned about ... the status of democracy within his country.’’

Recently released data contradict Hadley on both points. Figures from the Venezuelan National Institute of Statistics indicate that poverty went down during the first years of the Chavez government and then shot back up after the 2002 coup attempt and subsequent management oil industry shutdown. Since then, however, poverty has dropped to levels significantly below those of the pre-Chavez era. The data are confined to monetary income and do not include food subsidy benefits and free health care.

And Venezuelans do identify their government as democratic. A poll undertaken by Latinobariometro, based in Chile, and reported in The Economist, surveyed 20,000 people in 18 South American countries. More Venezuelans described their government as “totally democratic” than citizens of other nations. They demonstrated the second highest level of satisfaction with how democracy functions. Polling carried out before Chavez became president showed that Venezuelans were far less satisfied with the workings of democracy then than they are now.

President Chavez has another line of defense against a U.S. invasion. “Millions of U.S. citizens would oppose the war,” he said during his visit to France. “There is a lot of poverty in the USA. ... These people have no proper health care, no jobs. They understand what we are trying to do in Venezuela, and they support us.”

Peace rings out in nations distant corner

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 04:41:00 +0000

PORT ANGELES, Wash. — Every few weeks Erika Hamerquist performs a grim duty. She crosses the hayfield on her family’s farm a few miles outside this town and with a paintbrush revises the big sign that records the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.

At the moment it reads: “2,051 U.S. troops dead. How many more? Uncounted Iraqi dead. U.S. out of Iraq!” It stands starkly by the side of Woodcock Road in rural Clallam County on the Olympic Peninsula, a mountainous, forested region in the Pacific Northwest.

“When I first put the sign up, it was vandalized several times,” Hamerquist said. One irate motorist even flattened it with his vehicle. “But it’s been a long time since anyone defaced it. It may be an indication that people who once supported the war now think it was a bad idea after all.”

When the toll of U.S. war dead reached 2,000 a few weeks ago, Hamerquist, a leader of the local Green Party, not only revised her sign, she helped organize a vigil at the War Memorial in this old paper mill town. A good-sized crowd turned out, holding candles in the chill darkness and singing “I ain’t gonna study war no more” and other antiwar songs. The Peninsula Daily News featured a big photo of the vigil under the headline, “Honoring the Fallen.”

Peace activists have been holding regular Saturday antiwar vigils at the memorial, and the response from passing motorists and pedestrians has grown more and more friendly, with a clear majority waving or giving a thumbs-up salute.

The Green Party and Veterans for Peace sponsored a forum Oct. 29 at Peninsula Community College featuring Michael Hoffman of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), Sue Niederer, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, and Rahul Mahajan, author and antiwar activist. The moderator was Elizabeth Rivera Goldstein, national chairwoman of the Network Opposing Militarization of Youth and a founder of Teen Peace in nearby Port Townsend.

Goldstein recounted her struggle to defend students in Washington state’s public school system from unscrupulous military recruiters or private corporations acting on their behalf. “It’s outrageous how much they hound our families,” Goldstein said. “And I can tell you I have given them an earful.”

IVAW, Hoffman said, “is trying to minimize the damage caused by this war by bringing the troops home. End this war and end it now!”

Hoffman praised those working on antiwar protests and urged the crowd to reach out to the labor movement. “My father worked at Bethlehem Steel and was a member of the United Steelworkers. My wife is a teacher, a member of NEA. It’s really underestimated by the peace movement. The Steelworkers have come out strongly against the war. Keep organizing. It’s the street protests that make it possible for the soldiers to resist.”

A collection was taken up for Sgt. Kevin Benderman, a soldier at Fort Lewis now imprisoned on desertion charges for refusing to deploy to Iraq.

Niederer said she will always mourn her son, Lt. Seth Dvorin, who died in the early weeks of the war. “What’s the mission?” she demanded. “What was accomplished? As far as I’m concerned, my son died in vain.”

“Bush is definitely not my president,” she said. “Organize, organize, organize. And vote out the people you don’t like. Our votes count!”

Goldstein said the peace movement must build on its success in bringing 300,000 or more people to the nation’s capital Sept. 24. “I think those protests are important but we must go beyond them, one-on-one education of people in our communities, working to bring pressure on our legislators.”

She pointed to the success of the United for Peace and Justice-organized “Lobby Day” on Sept. 26. “There were more than 1,000 people there, the largest number of peace lobbyists in history. We got the message through loud and clear. And one of the messages was for the Democrats. They can’t rest on their laurels because too many went along with the funding of this war. If they don’t show some backbone and oppose this war, they aren’t going to make any gains in the upcoming election.”

Bringing common sense back to school discipline

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 04:39:00 +0000

In March of this year, many of us watched in horror a nationally broadcast videotape of 5-year-old Ja’eisha Scott being handcuffed by police officers and tearfully taken away for throwing a temper tantrum at school. Far from being an anomaly, Ja’eisha, a kindergartener at Fairmount Park Elementary School in St. Petersburg, was yet another casualty of Florida’s policy of criminalizing children for an overly broad range of conduct at school.

Throughout Florida, children are being arrested and funneled into the criminal justice system for minor incidents at school. The entry of law enforcement into schools is visible at every turn: police officers, metal detectors, tasers, canines, drug sweeps, SWAT teams, biometric hand readers and surveillance cameras are as common as books in our schools today. Though many of these measures are implemented in the name of school safety, the reality is that a large number of the incidents now handled by police and a trip to jail are minor age appropriate behavior that could be — and were once — handled by a trip to the principal’s office or a call home to a parent. While a safe school environment is a necessity, many concerns about school safety are often misplaced.

Heavy media coverage of the rare instances of school violence has played into the public’s worst fears and prompted a law-and-order approach to dealing with children of all ages. But between 1992 and 2002, nationwide violent crimes at schools against students ages 12 to18 dropped by 50 percent. In addition, between 1994 and 2002, the youth arrest rate for violent crimes declined 47 percent nationally.

Just as schools are turning to law enforcement to remove “problem” students from the school environment, so too have schools increasingly utilized internal discipline methods that focus on isolation and removal. The use of suspensions and expulsions has reached staggering levels. Statewide, over 15 percent of Florida’s public school students were suspended during the 2003-2004 school year. In some school districts, the numbers are even more damning. In Pinellas County, for example, 1 in every 5.8 students received an out-of-school suspension during the same school year.

The harm posed by these policies cannot be overstated. Suspensions and expulsions take children away from their education and thrust them out into a world that they are ill prepared to navigate. Since many parents cannot take time off from work to stay home with their children, suspensions and expulsions actually lead to an increase in juvenile crime as these children spend their time unsupervised and hanging out with other children who are out of school.

Moreover, removing a child from school does nothing to address underlying causes of behavioral problems. Ironically, schools often turn to suspensions or arrest because they are not given the resources — experienced guidance counselors, after-school programs, and early intervention programs, to name just a few — to deal with the resulting behavioral issues in any other ways. Lest we are willing to sacrifice an entire generation of children to a life of crime and marginalization, we must find a way out of this vicious cycle.

In October, the Florida branches of the NAACP, Advancement Project and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund conducted public hearings throughout Florida to ignite a dialogue on the over-reliance on law enforcement and harsh disciplinary tactics by schools, and to encourage efforts toward reform. Students, parents, school staff, law enforcement, city and state officials, and community members were invited to participate.

The inappropriate mistreatment of Ja’eisha Scott is another painful wake-up call to the priorities and policies that have gone disastrously astray. Five-year-olds are not criminals. Schools need to handle the trivial, provide counseling to those who need it, coach youth in changed behaviors and only remove students from schools as a last resort. Our children need our help, not handcuffs.

Judith Browne is co-director of Advancement Project. Olga Akselrod is assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. This article is reprinted with permission from www.advancementproject.org.