A New Consensus on Iraq

This shows that it is really time to reveal what the democrats really are: liars who wave the flag of democracy and then turn around and commit the same crimes as the Republicans do.

Iraqi PM supports Timetable for Withdrawal

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has reversed his previous stance, and is now calling for a timetable for US troop withdrawal. And he's doing more than just calling for a withdrawal - Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation reports that he will likely attempt to link a timetable to the ongoing debates about the US "status of forces" agreement currently being discussed between US and Iraqi officials.

The UN mandate for the US in Iraq - what gives the US tentative legal authority to be in Iraq is set to expire in December, and US and Iraqi officials have been attempting to come to an accord that will keep US forces in Iraq after that time for a number of months now.

Initial US demands included total immunity for both US troops and private contractors, the construction of over 50 military bases (some permanent) and the ability to conduct military operations within Iraq without either informing or receiving the consent of the Iraqi government. In addition, the United States hopes to control Iraqi airspace up to 35,000 feet.

Iraqis understandably view many of these conditions as untenable, and a direct violation of their sovereignty. With only 5 months left until the end of the UN mandate, US officials are working overtime to try to maintain a lasting presence in Iraq, and craft an agreement which could conceivably limit future presidents' abilities to withdraw all troops from Iraq.

McCain Pastor: Islam Is a 'Conspiracy of Spiritual Evil'

I find it interesting that all of these "Pastor Problems" are arising. However, in the case of Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, he was wRIGHT! This Prejudiced Parsley Prick (note the alliteration) really is off his rocker. I find it to be strange that Obama doesn't support what Wright is saying, even though he is right, just because Obama takes what the mainstream media is feeding him without question (maybe he should pull in to focus that if the media portrayed his wife's "anti-Americanism" wrong, then maybe, just maybe, they could've gotten Wright wrong... but I guess it has to hit closer to home to actually matter). Also, Obama rejects to agree with Wright to keep up his image with the democrats that have also gotten the incorrect mainstream version of Wright's speeches. On the other hand, McCain's Pastor is completely wrong, yet McCain has not yet rejected what Parsley has said... Interesting. Maybe McCain isn't as lovey-dovey about Islam as he claims to be.

US House blocks Iraq war money, sets pullout plan.

I think this article is a good summary of how our executive branch will out-power any legislative branch power... WHICH IS WRONG! Stupid Bush.

Thoughts on Direct Action

I am convinced that the antiwar movement is at a stage in which we need to start thinking about how to use direct actions in a tactical sense.

The recent quietness of UFPJ and ANSWER due to the election season has caused a resurgence in grassroots activism, especially on college campuses, against the war. This can be seen from the recent success CAN has been having with new chapters springing up and larger and dedicated member turnouts at the 4 regional conferences. Because of this, there is a melding pot of different ideas and opinions. Ideas on how to organize and what methods of direct action to implement. Before I go on, I do want to mention that even through these organizational differences, CAN has been able to maintain a more radical (and in my opinion) comprehensive stance against the war than UFPJ or ANSWER. While CAN doesn't officially denounce the occupations of Afghanistan or Palestine and the impending wars with Iran and Pakistan, most of it's membership is dedicated to anti-imperialism which is necessary to make sure that these same wars don't start after another 40 years. That is why I believe that CAN is in a position to make a bigger difference than UFPJ or ANWER. With this massive potential for a real student antiwar movement, we need to debate the decide on the best method for direct action.


There are so many different definitions for "direct action" that it is confusing when talking to someone with a different definition than your own. For simplicity sake, I like to define "direct action" into these categories:

1) Tabling on your Quad or at an event to get your organization visible to the public. Only risk is a few angry looks and heated arguments with right-wingers.

2) Peaceful protest - this could be anything from a vigil, to a march with a designated route, to a die-in that does not disrupt the everyday. Only risk is some disgruntled looks by passer-bys.

3) Civil disobedience phase 1 - this is another form of protest. It could be a march that goes outside of it's designated area (if there was one to begin with). If the crowd is big enough and on a national scale the police may be involved, and so may police violence.

4) Direct Action phase 1 - I think this would be along the lines of stopping the flow of traffic of a major highway to something such as the RNC. While you are directly engaging in action to stop the meeting of the "warhawks," you are still not doing something to physically stop the war. This is more "active" than "passive." Being arrested is a possibility along with the possibility of some minor police violence.

5) Civil disobedience phase 2 - this is another form of protest. I think of this to be like a sit-in at a senator's office. It is peaceful, but some criticize saying that you are still "asking someone to do it for you." The 1968 DNC protest would fit this category as would other civil rights actions throughout the 60's. It maintains a forceful voice while remaining non-violent. This remains more "passive" than "active" as opposed to Direct Action phase 1. Being arrested is a plausibility along with police violence and brutality.

6) Direct Action phase 2 - This is physically stopping the war machine from working by individual or mass effort. Stopping the transportation of war materials to port to be shipped to war would be a perfect example of this. There is a possibility of being arrested along with police violence and brutality as well as possible riots.


I am not claiming this to be a complete list, or even an accurate one. This is just how I perceive the different kinds of "direct actions" to break down into. Some people consider all of these actions to be "direct actions." I'm not here to debate that, because that is a pointless discussion. However, we, as movement organizers and activists, need to figure out how best to relate to these actions and when and how to implement them. I think that all of these actions are necessary and have a time and place. The problem is to find out which is the correct choice at any given time. This is usually difficult because we are so ingrained in our movement work, that it is hard for us to put ourselves in the potential antiwar activists' shoes.


The biggest question is how should CAN relate to the RNC Protest in St. Paul in September. Because there is such a large number of people congregating all for one protest, and possibly one of the largest grassroots organized protests of the year, there is huge potential that hasn't been seen in this country for about 30-40 years.

Direct action does need a tactic. You have to consider the political environment, what are you able to accomplish with however many people show up, what you want to achieve from the action, and how your direct action will play off to others who you want to join your movement. Although, this may change due to the environment or spontaneity of the protest or political climate. The trick is to be able to recognize this when it occurs.

There is an idea that CAN should engage in Direct Action phase 1 actions to shut down streets with the intention to shut down the RNC or shut down St Paul itself. My criticism of this is that this is a big overestimation of what is physically possible for the protesters to accomplish. Even beyond that, I do not think it is politically savvy for us to engage in that kind of action right now. Most people who will read about this will be upset if the protesters took this tactic. It will give more ammunition for the right-wing, moderate, and even some liberals to think that antiwar protesters are against "freedom of speech." They will reason that even if we disagree with the Republicans, that no matter how horrible and deadly their politics, that we should allow them to convene because they have the freedom of speech. Whereas the protesters know the Republicans have the right to convene, but are making a point and are protesting the ideas behind the Republican pro-war, anti-immigration, anti-gay policies. However, this message will get completely lost to anyone who does not attend.

It is on that basis that I think we need to engage in either Civil Disobedience phase 1 and if all is going great and we have the mass support, possibly even Civil Disobedience phase 2. Civil Disobedience phase 1 would be something like having protests that go outside the designated protest "free speech zones." Civil Disobedience phase 2 would be something along the lines of having a sit-in or die-in around the entrance of the center the convention will take place in, but not physically stopping them from speaking. Imagine the message it will send if people see politicians stepping over dead bodies to get to their convention! I think this would play out much more favorably for our movement because then we will be able to be seen as the victims of police brutality (if there is any). If there is no police brutality, then we will still be able to get our message across through peaceful means.

I have no disillusion that we will be able to stop the RNC from convening or be able to stop the war from this one action. Which is why I favor taking the route which will get us the best media attention that will be more inviting for the young liberals and radicals to join. We need to build the widest movement possible while not losing our clarity on opposing the war in Iraq on a moral basis, not as a tactical failure. I do not think that direct actions that have the intention of trying to "fuck shit up" or shut down the RNC or shut down St. Paul will be productive to building this kind of antiwar movement.

peace
Steven Wyatt

CAN Midwest Conference a resounding success.

On April 18th-20th, over 150 antiwar activists from across the Midwest traveled to Iowa City, Iowa to join the Campus Antiwar Network for a Midwest Antiwar Conference. One of several regional antiwar conferences hosted by the Campus Antiwar Network this spring across the nation, the Midwest Conference helped show that the Midwest is the breadbasket for antiwar activism!

The weekend featured numerous workshops and speakers. On the morning of Saturday, April 19th, two Campus Antiwar Network members and one Iraq Veteran Against the War member spoke about the need for immediate withdrawal, one of the main demands of the Campus Antiwar Network. The rest of the day was full of workshops, ranging from activist art (“Artivism”) to the issue of Palestine.

One of the most pressing questions on the minds of Midwest activists, and antiwar activists across the nation, is the issue of direct action. With the Republican National Convention coming to Minneapolis/St-Paul in September, and the work that groups like RNC Welcoming Committee are putting into protesting the event, many antiwar activists are questioning the best tactics to use to effectively protest. This debate was manifest at the Midwest Conference, where three workshops were dedicated to talking about Direct Action and the RNC Protests. The workshops were marked by excellent, engaging debates about the definition of Direct Action and its place in the antiwar movement as a whole, as well as the tactics that the RNC Welcoming Committee and other organizations plan to use to “Crash the Convention.” Many in CAN, and unaffiliated activists, came away from the weekend with a better idea about when and where to use Direct Action, and discussion has already begun regarding CAN’s plans at the RNC protest, and to a lesser extant at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Sunday April 20th was a powerful day. 13 Midwest members of Iraq Veterans Against the War held a mini-Winter Soldier hearing during the morning. Their testimony was incredibly powerful and engaging, and was covered by numerous local and state news papers. That afternoon, the was an antiwar rally and march through Iowa City with the more than 150 antiwar activists chanting slogans such as “Whose Streets? Our Street! Whose War? Their War!” and “No Justice, No Peace! US out of the Middle East!” The march culminated in a die-in in Iowa City’s pedestrian mall, and an energetic rally.

In all, the conference was a huge success. A number of new CAN chapters are expected to form out of the event, and Midwest CAN chapters were able to form strong bonds with other antiwar organizations, such as Students for the Democratic Society.

In the past year, we have seen a huge resurgence of the Campus Antiwar Network across the nation. This conference has shown that in the Midwest, the antiwar movement is growing by the day, and shows no sign of stopping!

To close, UIUC CAN proudly presents a new CAN-specific chant, developed by Tim Kooy of Cincinnati:

"Bombs, Sanctions, Bullets they all hurt.
Rectify, we try we try -
CAMPUS ANTIWAR NETWORK!"

Torture, Revisted.

I have written about torture before, and (surprise!) my position has not changed. Torture is never defensible. The “ticking bomb” scenario is fallacious scare-mongering, and the act itself is not only morally and ethically indefensible, but both nationally and internationally illegal. Tyrants are prosecuted at The Hague for torture.

Which puts into perspective President Bush’s recent disclosure that he approved of his national security team meeting, discussing, and formulating what can only be described as a torture policy – what kinds, how many times, and how often torture was acceptable. Present at these meetings were Vice President Dick Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Conspicuously absent: President Bush himself. His team did a good job of keeping him isolated, so that if asked under oath (not that the president would ever lower himself to be put under oath!) he could deny that he was at the meetings.

The fact that this story has not received a great deal of media play – Obama’s “elitist rhetoric” has been the major news story – stems from two causes.

The first is that the Bush media team did a good job. They released the information on a Friday afternoon – the perfect time to allow White House press releases to slip under the radar. Instant damage control, and every administration does it.

The second reason is far more insidious. The Bush Administration, in its effort to push their agenda of the Imperial (or dictatorial) Presidency – the Strong Unitary Executive, as they call it – has stated repeatedly that it should not be confined by international law, nor national law, nor checks and balances. Not in so many words of course, but by refusing to allow senior staff to testify before Congress, by using signing statements to completely undermine bills that the President signs, and by showing what can only be described of as contempt to the Congress and the American People, the Bush Administration has never stepped down.

They do the same with torture. They do not quibble whether torture is legal or not – they discuss the minutia of “Which torture IS legal? What counts as torture?” Unfortunately, the media and Congress have accepted Bush’s position that some torture is legal by engaging in the debates as he shapes them. By shaping the discourse from the outset, the Bush Administration is able to slowly turn the conversation away from the illegal nature of torture –all torture – to a legal semantics debate about what is torture, how often it can be done, and to whom.

I am reminded of a famous quote by the master of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

The Bush Administration had told the big lie, and they told that lie at the outset. There was furor over it, but that died down soon enough as the next Bush lie was told, smaller this time. As more lies were told, people became more bogged down in the mass of small lies, tacitly accepting the Big Lie that underlies the entire conversation. Instead of discussing if Water Boarding is legal, we should be discussing how long Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the others will be spending in The Hague.

Which, of course, will be no time at all. America does not acknowledge the International Criminal Court for just this reason. It would prevent our officials, elected or appointed, from committing torture or genocide, or continuing an illegal occupation. And America can’t have that. It would be… Un-American.

Or so another Big Lie goes.

“Impeach the Bastards!”