Civil Disobedience

[Kat Kanning]

Sounds to me like you're in the wrong place.

I think he's in the right place to hear pro liberty ideas, or do you want to keep those from him? 
assuming he's a him...

And Dave chooses to attack me at every opportunity,  Good times.

[Russell Kanning]

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070103/58353868.html

Year of military setbacks shows futility of using force
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Viktor Litovkin) - Some of the most significant events of the outgoing year were in the military sphere - the defeat of the US-led coalition forces in Iraq, the Israeli army's setback in Lebanon, and the return of the Taliban to Afghanistan despite the presence of 20,000 NATO troops there.

Paradoxically, semi-guerilla units, armed at best with Kalashnikovs, grenade launchers, and explosives they plant in cars or use in suicide bombings, are winning wars against regular armies, equipped with state-of-the-art military hardware and high technologies. The latter have the most sophisticated satellite systems of control and communication, thermal imagers, radars, which can detect any moving or fixed objects, and even individuals, and means of radio electronic warfare. Regular armies have super modern tanks, fighters, bombers, and cruise missiles - everything the great designer minds of the late 20th--early 21st centuries have managed to develop; they are also equipped with most advanced military ideas, tactics and operational skills, and have amassed the experience of all the past wars; these armies have top professionals whose training and education costs astronomical sums.

For all that, regular armies, on which more than half a trillion dollars are spent every year (that is, more than on all other armed forces put together) cannot do anything against the mujaheddins, armed with 50-dollar weapons. Let's try to analyze why this is so.

The first and the main argument military experts quote when asked about "futile force" is that all modern regular armies are designed to fight against similar armies and states.  They are not meant to fight guerrillas, no matter how we call them - terrorists, mujaheddins, militants, or insurgents. Moreover, quite often guerrillas do not even have a single control center. They act in small groups which are not connected with each other in any way. In some cases, they rely on the wholehearted support of the sympathetic population. They recruit local people, who are farmers or road workers during the day, and resistance fighters at night. These people do not fight against well organized and equipped military units - they act furtively on the routes of approach, or lie in ambush and then attack small military units at rest. They also act as suicide bombers in occupied cities.

Their tactic is simple - a massive attack, and immediate retreat. They pelt away, and there is nobody to pursue. This is how Hezbollah fighters operate. Afghan mujaheddins, Taliban and al-Qaeda militants act in much the same manner. The same tactic was used in Chechnya.

Military experts have even coined a term for this tactic - "asymmetrical war." It is not yet clear what to do about it.

It is possible to defeat any regular army, or any state, all the more so if forces are incomparable - the 21st century U.S. army against Saddam's army, stuck somewhere in the middle of the past century and depleted by decades of economic sanctions. But it is impossible to rout a nation, be they Iraqis or Kurds, even if these nations, or clans are fighting each other. There is always a point when they join forces to resist the aggressor, sometimes even not realizing that they are united by a common goal.

This is what happened in Afghanistan, where the tribes which had fought each for centuries suddenly rallied against the Soviet troops. Now they are fighting NATO troops both together and in individual clans. This struggle is sporadic and disorganized. Tribes go into fighting when NATO coalition forces get too much in their way - interfere in their centuries-old traditions, or try to impose what radical Muslims will never understand - Western democracy. Their form of government is very different - all members of the tribe obey the chieftain without a murmur, and are ready to sacrifice their lives for him and traditions of their ancestors.

This brings to mind the almost forgotten Lenin's words: "Nobody will defeat a nation where the majority of workers and peasants have felt and realized that they are fighting for their own, Soviet power." If you replace "Soviet power" with "religion", or "national values," or "centuries-long traditions, you will see that, alas, Lenin was right. "Alas" applies to those who do not want to see the obvious, like the current U.S. Administration.

Moscow and other friends of the U.S. warned George W. Bush that a war against Iraq, particularly under a far-fetched excuse might turn into a misadventure with unforeseen consequences. But he did not heed the advice. Nor does he like the recommendations of the James Baker Study Group. The Republican defeat in the Congress elections has not prompted any radical conclusions, while the number of U.S. casualties in Iraq is rapidly approaching the 3,000 mark.

Director of the Institute of U.S. and Canadian Studies Sergei Rogov predicts that Washington's departure from Iraq, whether it takes place next year, or in three or four years, can only trigger off more chaos, this time not only in the Middle East, but also far beyond it.
One superpower or a coalition of countries, approaching this status, should realize the futility of their efforts when they forget about a sense of proportion, or political responsibility to their own and foreign citizens. Moreover, in this situation the use of force spells disaster for everyone. This is one of the sad conclusions brought by the outgoing year.

[Russell Kanning]

If insurgents with bombs can stop the us army, why coulld we not stop the feds with words and non-violent actions?

I love the fears the analysts have of chaos and lack of government controls.

[Russell Kanning]

I added a Keene Free Press article about this.

[Russell Kanning]

http://www.vcnv.org/project/the-occupation-project

Voices for Creative Nonviolence is organizing the Occupation Project, a campaign of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience aimed at ending the U.S. war in and occupation of Iraq. The campaign will begin the first week of February 2007 with occupations at the offices of Representatives and Senators who refuse to pledge to vote against additional war funding.

[TackleTheWorld]

I think a twinkle is forming in my eye.

[FTL_Ian]

Isn't there a certain military recruiting office that Caleb was interested in focusing on?   

[Russell Kanning]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAbL5hR0lCY
Woman will not pay war taxes

[FrankChodorov]

http://www.vcnv.org/project/the-occupation-project

Voices for Creative Nonviolence is organizing the Occupation Project, a campaign of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience aimed at ending the U.S. war in and occupation of Iraq. The campaign will begin the first week of February 2007 with occupations at the offices of Representatives and Senators who refuse to pledge to vote against additional war funding.

this has already been going on here in NH by the left...

[Russell Kanning]

Since the expulsion of the seven-to-eight thousand residents of Gush Katif at the behest of the Israeli government, by the IDF and the Israeli police force, two summers ago - an expression of the then-governmental policy of unilateral disengagement - an ideological battle has raged within the religious-Zionist camp regarding the right (or even obligation) of an Israeli soldier to refuse to carry out military orders if they conflict with his conscience or religious standards. When, if ever, does individual conscience override governmental authority? Will anarchy not reign supreme, and central governmental authority fall by the wayside, if every soldier of the IDF decides which orders are proper for him to carry out and when the authority of his Talmudic academy overrides the authority of his army commander?

This is a question with enormous ramifications for the future of our Jewish State. Some of these issues are touched upon by our Biblical portion of Shemot and are worthy of investigation.

The Book of Exodus opens with the cataclysmic change in the manner in which the descendants of Jacob-Israel are treated by a tyrannical Pharaoh "who did not know Joseph." The Egyptians embittered the lives of the Israelites with back-breaking slave labor - and they even attempted to commit genocide against the Jews by killing off the male babies: "The King of Egypt told (or ordered) the Hebrew midwives (or the midwives of the Hebrews), 'When you bring about the birth of the Hebrew women and you examine the birth- stool, if it is a male child you must slay him and if it is a female child, she may live.'" (Exodus 1:13-17)

The classical commentary Rashi interprets these midwives to be Hebrew women, whom Pharaoh wished to diabolically co-opt into his service against their own people, as an ancient form of Kapos, if you will. The arch-anti-Semites, like Hitler and Stalin, always attempted - by means of bribery, extortion and blackmail - to utilize Jews against Jews in their attempt to exterminate our nation.

The Abarbanel and Rabbi Shmuel David Luzzato, on the other hand, take the phrase to mean the Egyptian midwives of the Hebrew women - and since "these (Egyptian) mid-wives feared the Lord, they refused to follow the instructions of Pharaoh and allowed the (male) babies to live." (Genesis 1:18) These true heroines apparently understood that, despite the totalitarian laws of a despot Pharaoh of Egypt, there was a higher ethical law - that of the Creator of humanity in His Divine image, to whom one had to submit. This is the first case of civil disobedience in history.

They had a magnificent model, none other than Bitya, the princess daughter of Pharaoh himself. Baby Moses had been concealed in an ark (teyva, the very same word used for the boat that had rescued humanity in the earlier days of Noah) left floating along the Nile; when the princess of Egypt came down to the river to bathe and saw this ark on the waters, she sent her maid-servant and - contrary to her father's orders - rescued the Hebrew child. She named him Moses, or son (in Egyptian), because since she drew him forth from the waters of the Nile - and by so doing certainly risked her life in the face of the wrath of Pharaoh should he learn of her willful and traitorous deed - she certainly deserved to consider him her son (Exodus 2:5, 10).

To the best of my knowledge, the first historical record of citizens risking their lives against an unjust governmental law to follow a higher law of G-d and conscience are the Biblical verses I have just commented upon. This is the tradition of non-violent, peaceful resistance followed by Socrates in his famous trial, enunciated by Henry David Thorese in the middle of the nineteenth century, and successfully carried out by Dr. Martin Luther King on behalf of civil rights for African-Americans in the 1960s.

Biblical law, as delineated in the Book of Deuteronomy and explained by the Talmudic Tractate Sotah (45a), distinguishes between an obligatory war (chiefly defined as a war in self-defense, wherein the future life the Israelite nation is at stake) and a voluntary war, which - although sanctioned and perhaps even initiated by the Great Sanhedrin Court - does not have the urgency of a war fought on behalf of the very life of the new nation. Such a voluntary war allows for exemptions: an individual who has just built a new home but has not yet lived in it, who has just planted a vineyard but has not yet tasted of its fruit, who is betrothed but not yet married, as well as one who is fearful or tender-hearted (Deuteronomy 20:5-8). Rabbeinu Bahiya and the Ibn Ezra, commenting on the latter two categories of exemptions, interpret the one who is "fearful" as he who does not wish to harm anyone not hell-bent on murdering him, and one who is "tender-hearted" as he who is paralyzed by fear and will thereby reduce the morale of his fellow soldiers. The exemption of one "who is fearful" is an exemption for reasons of conscience.

In terms of the IDF, I do not believe that a democratically-arrived-at decision of the government that is not absolutely counter to Jewish law - such as "land for peace," about which there is a legitimate Halakhic difference of opinion - should engender the refusal of an individual soldier to follow the orders of his army officer. Our State is too fragile, our army too precious, and democracy too vital of a Jewish unifying ideal to allow for such factional separatism.

But if law-abiding citizens of Israel are asked to leave their homes and jobs by the Israeli government, and that government does not provide for them suitably parallel dwelling places and suitably parallel means of employment, then such an expulsion is inhumane, it is removing from those individuals their most basic human rights. Even soldiers must have the right to follow their conscience and refuse to carry out orders of evacuation in such an instance. Even the most lofty and crucial of government institutions must have a humanity conscience check-and-balance if the ideals of our nation are to endure.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=6841

[Russell Kanning]

King, Gandhi agreed, acted on power of love to vanquish evil

The Rev. Frederick Douglass Jefferson
Guest essayist

Post Comment

(January 15, 2007) — If the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were living, he would be 78 today. He was born into a middle-class African-American family: his father, the Rev. Martin Luther King Sr.; his mother, Alberta King; sister, Willie Christine; and brother, A.D.

Considerable celebration will swirl today in Rochester and nationwide concerning Martin Luther King Jr.'s life and achievements. However, I feel very strongly that the world needs to know or remember that King's greatest legacy was that he was an inimitable practitioner of nonviolent love, especially in the United States.

At Crozer Theological Seminary, King listened to a lecture delivered by Mordecai W. Johnson, then president of Howard University, on the accomplishments of the great Mahatma Gandhi in India. To many critical intellectual observers, "Gandhi seemed to offer a cogent alternative to appeals for brotherhood which fell on deaf ears. It was a way that seemed compatible with Jesus' teaching of Christian love," according to William Robert Miller in his book Martin Luther King Jr. King was deeply impressed with Johnson's lecture, so much so that he immediately purchased many books dealing with Gandhi's career and philosophy.

At the core of Gandhi's philosophy was the concept of satyagraha (nonresistance), which has also been interpreted as soul force or the power of truth. Gandhi strongly believed in truth — whether intellectual, practical or moral.

In the context of social existence, he believed that even a severely oppressed minority must always stand firm for truth. Such a stand could be rightfully taken on the basis of love for the oppressor, acceptance of punishment in the attempt to motivate the oppressor to embrace the way of truth. Gandhi led several nonviolent campaigns in India and South Africa. In these campaigns, such diverse techniques as fasts, boycotts, mass marches, general strikes and massive civil disobedience were used. He was especially successful in breaking the stranglehold of British rule on India.

Much to his own surprise, King became enthralled with Gandhi's philosophies of nonviolent love in interpersonal relations and nonviolent direct action toward achieving social justice in group conflicts.

Gandhi's influence was not total. Gandhi was a devout Hindu. He admired Jesus' teachings, but was not Jesus' follower.

King, on the other hand, was a born-again, committed Christian, an ordained Baptist minister. He had a doctorate in theology from Boston University, among several other accomplishments.

King's creative genius lay in the fact that he fused Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence with Jesus' love ethic and led millions of his followers toward making enormous constructive civil rights changes for people in the United States and other parts of the world. The practice of nonviolent love can be just as effective today. Think how many injustices could be eliminated if each individual practiced nonviolent love. The result would be more prosperous, safe and peaceful families and communities.

Jefferson, of Brighton, is a retired Presbyterian minister.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/OPINION02/701150301/1039/OPINION

[Jim Johnson]

Here is something new for the future protester.   

January 25, 2007
Military Shows Off New Ray Gun
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:45 a.m. ET

MOODY AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. (AP) -- The military calls its new weapon an ''active denial system,'' but that's an understatement. It's a ray gun that shoots a beam that makes people feel as if they are about to catch fire.

Apart from causing that terrifying sensation, the technology is supposed to be harmless -- a non-lethal way to get enemies to drop their weapons.

Military officials say it could save the lives of innocent civilians and service members in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The weapon is not expected to go into production until at least 2010, but all branches of the military have expressed interest in it, officials said.

During the first media demonstration of the weapon Wednesday, airmen fired beams from a large dish antenna mounted atop a Humvee at people pretending to be rioters and acting out other scenarios that U.S. troops might encounter in war zones.

The device's two-man crew located their targets through powerful lenses and fired beams from more than 500 yards away. That is nearly 17 times the range of existing non-lethal weapons, such as rubber bullets.

Anyone hit by the beam immediately jumped out of its path because of the sudden blast of heat throughout the body. While the 130-degree heat was not painful, it was intense enough to make the participants think their clothes were about to ignite.

''This is one of the key technologies for the future,'' said Marine Col. Kirk Hymes, director of the non-lethal weapons program at Quantico, Va., which helped develop the new weapon. ''Non-lethal weapons are important for the escalation of force, especially in the environments our forces are operating in.''

The system uses electromagnetic millimeter waves, which can penetrate only 1/64th of an inch of skin, just enough to cause discomfort. By comparison, microwaves used in the common kitchen appliance penetrate several inches of flesh.

The millimeter waves cannot go through walls, but they can penetrate most clothing, officials said. They refused to comment on whether the waves can go through glass.

The weapon could be mounted aboard ships, airplanes and helicopters, and routinely used for security or anti-terrorism operations.

''There should be no collateral damage to this,'' said Senior Airman Adam Navin, 22, of Green Bay, Wis., who has served several tours in Iraq.

Navin and two other airmen were role players in Wednesday's demonstration. They and 10 reporters who volunteered were shot with the beams. The beams easily penetrated various layers of winter clothing.

The system was developed by the military, but the two devices currently being evaluated were built by defense contractor Raytheon.

Airman Blaine Pernell, 22, of suburban New Orleans, said he could have used the system during his four tours in Iraq, where he manned watchtowers around a base near Kirkuk. He said Iraqis constantly pulled up and faked car problems so they could scout out U.S. forces.

''All we could do is watch them,'' he said. But if they had the ray gun, troops ''could have dispersed them.''

[Lloyd Danforth]

Here is something new for the future protester.

Perzactly what I thought when I saw this.  The new watergun.

[Russell Kanning]

http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?articleid=145486&zoneid=35

Ilze Petersons: Civil disobedience a vehicle for change

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - Bangor Daily News


The Bangor Daily News editorial "Protest by Ballot" of Jan. 17 suggests that individuals can best affect the outcome of the war in Iraq by voting, and questions the efficacy of civil disobedience in influencing the Bush administration. While we agree voting is essential, we believe a vibrant and effective democracy is a multifaceted process and involves much more than people simply stepping into the voting booth on Election Day.

The editorial correctly points out that in the last election: "It was clearly a case of the people getting far ahead of their leaders. The country may have been slow to see the mistakes, deceptions and mismanagement in the Iraq war, but when the tipping point came, the people were ahead of the politicians, the press and the entire public establishment."

Had the politicians, the press and the entire public establishment listened to the people who held public hearings, signed petitions, wrote letters, visited congressional offices, held vigils, demonstrated and were willing to face arrest for the past four years, the deaths of more than 3000 of our troops might have been prevented. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis might still be alive and we would not have lost respect for our country around the world. It is true that no one action by itself led to the tidal wave of protest culminating in the last election. However, thousands of protest actions around the country helped to make that election result possible.

Those of us who chose to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience prior to the election did so after four years of petitioning our elected representatives to no avail. We chose to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience in the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, who believed civil disobedience was necessary when elected representatives failed to act to stop extreme injustice. As part of a national Declaration of Peace Campaign, we were willing to face the consequences of our actions with the hope that others would take whatever steps they could to put an end to the occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home safely.

For the past four years, Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snow and Rep. Tom Allen have consistently voted for funding the Iraq war. Only Rep. Michaud voted against funding the war. While Allen did attend a hearing organized by peace activists, Collins and Snowe refused to attend any such public hearings. We applaud Collins, Snowe, Michaud and Allen for recently refusing to support the troop surge now proposed by President Bush. Now we urge them to provide the leadership to bring an end to the occupation of Iraq and reject the foreign policy of domination that has led us into this quagmire.

Today we call on our elected representatives to reassert the authority they abrogated when they gave President Bush a blank check to wage an endless war in Iraq. We call on our congressional representatives to stop funding the war and to allocate funds only to bring our troops home and for humanitarian reconstruction in Iraq. We call on our elected representatives to hold this administration accountable for misleading and lying to the American people about the dangers posed by Iraq and for waging a disastrous, pre-emptive, unnecessary, illegal, endless war that has been so destructive of innocent human life and of the well being of Mainers and other U.S. citizens.

It will take many more vigils, letters, hearings and rallies to ensure our elected representatives respond to the will of the people and stop the occupation of Iraq. Join the thousands who will be in Washington on Jan. 27 to call for an end to the occupation.

Help plan for a major statewide action on March 17 — www.everyvillage-me.us. Sign a petition calling for an investigation of this administration at www.maineimpeach.org.  Let's not wait until the next election to make our voices heard.


Ilze Petersonsis a member of the Peace & Justice Center of Eastern Maine.

 

[FrankChodorov]

there have been at least three separate CD acts committed at the NH congressional delegation over the same 4 year period...activists went to the public offices of their representatives (a place specifically designed to have citizens petition their representatives for redress of grievances) to ask for a meeting and when no one responded they stayed in the offices after business hours and were arrested.

one of those arrested was long-time NH Green Party activist Guy Chichester who ran for governor as a Green in '92 and was once arrested for cutting down a speaker outside of a nuclear power plant (meant for broadcasting evacuation orders) with a chainsaw...

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20051230&Category=REPOSITORY&ArtNo=512300335&SectionCat=NEWS04&Template=printart

excerpt:
Jennifer Jones, an attorney who represented the group at the hearing, asked the judge if the bail conditions could be clarified. When the protesters were arrested, they were released on personal recognizance bail ranging from $300 to $1,000. But the bail conditions also restricted the group's access to Gregg's office, which Jones said limited political speech and was unconstitutional.

City Prosecutor Scott Murray said the state did not mean to restrict the activists' right to call or write to Gregg. The bail conditions are standard for charges of criminal trespassing, he said.

But Jones said the group should not be restricted to e-mails, letters and phone calls to Gregg. They should be allowed to go to the office in person.

"This isn't an ordinary criminal trespass," she said. "We are talking about the local office of an elected official."

The judge said he would take the issue into advisement and asked Jones to suggest wording for the bail condition. Jones said yesterday she will ask the court to allow the activists to go to the office provided they do not harass or threaten anyone.