ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n133

Internet Message Format | 1999-05-26 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #133
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest      Thursday, May 27 1999      Volume 01 : Number 133




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 21:17:44 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Peace Organizations Set to Take On Clinton

In a message dated 5/24/99 3:31:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,=20
[e-mail] writes:

<< Subj:=09 Peace Organizations Set to Take On Clinton
 Date:=095/24/99 3:31:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
 From:=[e-mail] (JJ)
 To:=[e-mail] (JJ), [e-mail] (McReynold, David ),=20
[e-mail] (Michael Randle), [e-mail] (Tor Brostigen),=20
[e-mail] (Majken_Jul_S=F8renseno>), [e-mail],=20
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=20
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=20
[e-mail] (Roar)
=20
 From the Los Angeles Times
 Friday, May 21, 1999
 Peace Organizations Set to Take On Clinton
 By NORMAN KEMPSTER, Times Staff Writer
=20
 WASHINGTON--Eighteen peace groups, many of them allies of the young Bill
 Clinton in the antiwar movement three decades ago, announced Thursday a
 coordinated campaign to pressure the president into ending the bombing
 of Yugoslavia.
=20
 The organizations--including such long-established groups as the
 American Friends Service Committee and the Roman Catholic Pax
 Christi--vowed to follow Clinton around the country with noisy
 demonstrations,
 a tactic that was used with devastating impact against President Lyndon
 B.
 Johnson in the 1960s during the Vietnam War.
=20
 "We demand an end to the NATO bombing, and we will act on those
 demands until they are met," Gordon Clark, executive director of Peace
 Action,
 the nation's largest grass-roots antiwar organization, told a Washington
 news conference. "This is a wide and broad coalition of peace and
 religious
 groups."
=20
 The groups also called for "an end to ethnically targeted violence"
 and for deployment of an international peacekeeping force in Kosovo,
 demands
 aimed at Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and his military.
 Participants said they had no magic formula to induce Milosevic to stop
 "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovo Albanians and accept peacekeepers in the
 province, but they insisted that the bombing campaign has failed to
 protect civilians targeted by Yugoslav troops.
=20
 "We can't force Slobodan Milosevic to do anything, but it seems to
 us that if [nearly] 60 days of bombing and civilian casualties did not
 force him to act, it is time to try something else," Clark said.
=20
 Although there have been a few scattered protests since the NATO
 bombing campaign began March 24, Thursday's news conference marked the
 opening of an organized national effort.
=20
 Asked in an interview later Thursday why it had taken so long for
 groups with well-developed pacifist ideologies to react to the bombing,
 Clark said some peace organizations were concerned about alleged
 Yugoslav atrocities in Kosovo that "made some of us think twice about
 what to
 do."
=20
 Besides, he said, the Clinton administration has used force so
 often that "the peace movement is stretched thinner by President Clinton
 than
 we were even during the Reagan years."
=20
 The coalition plans to hold demonstrations Saturday in Washington
 and several other cities, including Sacramento, leading up to a rally in
 the
 nation's capital June 5 that organizers hope will draw thousands of
 protesters. Other demonstrations are planned for June 12, when Clinton
 gives a commencement address at the University of Chicago, and June 18,
 when
 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright delivers a graduation speech at
 Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill.
=20
 Opinion polls continue to show widespread support in the United
 States for Clinton's stated aims of ending "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo,
 a
 province of Yugoslavia's dominant republic, Serbia, and allowing hundreds
 of
 thousands of refugees to return home under the protection of an
 international force that includes North Atlantic Treaty Organization
 troops.
=20
 Some polls, such as one issued this week by the Program on International
 Policy Attitudes, indicate that Americans would support stronger
 measures--including a ground invasion of the province--if that is needed
 to stop the purge of Kosovo Albanians.
=20
=20
=20
  >>

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 19:39:09 -0700
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Chinese Embassy Bombing Coverup

Why would NATO/US intentionally target Chinese Embassy in Belgrade?

Old Belgrade maps question NATO's excuse for targeting Chinese Embassy.
http://www.stratfor.com/crisis/kosovo/specialreports/special67.htm

Following are two forwarded posts offering deeper reasons behind the May
1999 NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.  The first offers a
historical perspective on this as part of a repeated pattern of US
military/politcal maneuvers and the second some specifics gleened from
conflicting news reports and some evidence contradicting mainstream media
coverage of this incident which seems to have galvanized many nations in =
a
resolve to treat the US as their enemy thus moving closer to the potentia=
l
of a WWIII possibly involving nuclear and other weapons of mass destructi=
on.
For details on a Global Emergency Alert Response campaign, see
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000

David Crockett Williams  [e-mail]
Coordinator, Global Peace Walk 2000

- -----------------------
[fwd] From: Peter Dale Scott <[e-mail]>

Subject: "UNINTENTIONAL" BOMBING REPEATS A FAMILIAR PATTERN
by Peter Dale Scott
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 5:34 PM

Actual heading: Bombing of Chinese Embassy

Content-Length: 5242
Status: R

COMMENTARY-720 WORDS
"UNINTENTIONAL" BOMBING REPEATS A FAMILIAR PATTERN

EDITOR'S NOTE: NATO forces and President Clinton have expressed regret ov=
er
the fact that the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was destroyed just as there
was word of a possible peace initiative, calling the incident unfortunate
and unintentional. But the timing and nature of the bombing brings to min=
d
a number of similar actions during the Vietnam War era. PNS contributor
Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat, has authored numerous books
and articles on U.S. foreign affairs.

BY PETER DALE SCOTT, PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE

The recent bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade looks like a replay.
During the Vietnam War era, U.S. forces hit political targets, specifical=
ly
embassies, just when international peace initiatives looked promising.
Congress should insist on a thorough accounting from those responsible fo=
r
the bombing.

The attack on the Chinese Embassy came one day after Russia and leading
NATO nations agreed to a set of general principles for ending the conflic=
t
over Kosovo. NATO has called the incident unintentional, but the Chinese
claim that three separate precision missiles hit the Embassy. Eyewitness
reports appear to corroborate the Chinese version.

The threat to the peace process is obvious. The draft plan calls for
approval by the U.N. Security Council, where China, a bitter opponent of
the bombing, exercises a veto.

This recalls December 1966, when the Rumanian Premier visited Hanoi in
support of a secret Polish peace initiative dubbed "Marigold." Mid-Decemb=
er
saw U.S. bombing of downtown Hanoi at unprecedented levels, after months
when the city's center had been off-limits to American planes.

During the raids one U.S. rocket damaged three adjacent Embassies -- the
Rumanian, the Polish, and the Chinese which effectively terminated
"Marigold." The U.S. called the Embassy bombings unintentional.
But such correlations occurred repeatedly. In April 1966, just as a Polis=
h
diplomat was arriving in Hanoi to initiate "Marigold," bombs dropped near=
 a
Polish vessel in a Vietnamese harbor. In June 1967, just after the White
House-Kremlin hot line was first used in a search for a diplomatic
solution, the Soviet freighter Turkestan was bombed by two U.S. fighter
planes.

Three times, in almost identical circumstances, other Polish and Soviet
vessels were later attacked. When in 1967 two French emissaries bearing a
U.S. peace message arrived in Hanoi, the city experienced yet another sur=
ge
in the bombing. My 1972 book, "Conspiracy" analyzed more than a dozen suc=
h
incidents.

The habit of timing bombs to peace initiatives apparently began as a
deliberate policy of Lyndon Johnson, who habitually balanced concessions =
to
hawks and doves. Thus Johnson authorized the December 1966 raids at the L=
BJ
ranch in November, one day after he learned of "Marigold" from his roving
ambassador Averell Harriman. In this way Johnson ensured that, if the Nor=
th
Vietnamese did negotiate, it would be in a context of humiliating air
strength.

But by June 1967 a different pattern emerged -- one involving military
attacks which the President had forbidden. When activating the
Washington-Moscow hot line in late May, Johnson ordered U.S. pilots to st=
ay
away from Hanoi and Haiphong, where there were Soviet ships. The two pilo=
ts
who had attacked the Turkestan knew they were violating presidential
orders. They and their commander tried to conceal the incident, the latte=
r
by destroying the planes' flight film.

In his memoir former Defense Secretary McNamara recalled the "scathing
denial" he erroneously issued after this incident, blaming "an outright l=
ie
by a military officer." He added that the colonel responsible for the
bombing "was later court-martialed and fined."

McNamara did not mention that the colonel's conviction and $600 fine were
soon set aside. The two pilots were acquitted and remained on active duty=
,
even though their unauthorized action had killed a Soviet seaman. This
suggests that the bombing had high-level military support.

A similar Air Force action in 1971 temporarily ended the series of secret
meetings which Kissinger had been holding with North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho.
To help the meetings President Nixon had limited air strikes against Nort=
h
Vietnam to "protective reaction" after enemy attacks.

But the USAF general in charge of the air war, John Lavelle, continued to
target North Vietnam, instructing the pilots to suppress the fact that
there had been no enemy provocation. Thus Kissinger was caught off guard
when Le Duc Tho broke off the talks in November, insisting (over
Kissinger's misinformed denials) that the bombing went beyond "protective
reaction."

In short, it is clear that in the past, U.S. military commanders have
bombed without authorization at times of significant peace initiatives, o=
f
which they apparently did not approve.

The recent attack on the Chinese embassy should be investigated. It is of
course too early to analyze with confidence how it occurred. But history
demonstrates unequivocally that such incidents frustrate diplomacy and
prolong war.

(05101999)      **** END ****   =3DA9 COPYRIGHT PNS
- --
Sandy Close <[e-mail]> Pacific News Service [phone]

- ----------------------------------end of first of two forwarded posts--dc=
w

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: LIES, DMN LIES & MAPS
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 12:35 PM

Dear reader,
Feel free to distribute this in any way you wish.
- -- jared

HOW NATO & THE MEDIA MISREPRESENTED THE
CHINESE EMBASSY BOMBING

Opponents of the war against Serbia argue that much of what
passes for news these days is really a kind of war propaganda,
that NATO puts out misinformation and the media disseminates
the stuff uncritically.

A case in point is the coverage of the bombing of the Chinese
Embassy in Belgrade.  I download wire service reports from the AOL
world news database (accessible at
aol://4344:30.WORLD.338815.464449182
if you are an AOL member.  This allows me to see exactly
how wire services and newspapers change the news from hour
to hour.  Very instructive for studying how misinformation
is disseminated.

Studying misinformation is a special interest of mine.
If you'd like to see some of my previous work in this area,
send me a note and I'll email you The Emperor's Clothes,
which analyzes how the NY Times misinformed its readers
about the bombing of a Sudanese pill factory in August, 1998.

Before we examine the news coverage of the bombing of the
Chinese Embassy, let me recount a very interesting report from
a Chinese intellectual, currently at Harvard's Kennedy
Institute, who spoke on May 8th at the weekly Boston
anti-war rally (held at 3:00 every Sat. in Copley Square).

The man had conferred with people overseas and thus had direct
knowledge of the attack on the Chinese  Embassy.  He said three
missiles had struck the Embassy compound, hitting three
apartments where one or both adult family members was
a journalist.  The missiles apparently carried a light
explosive charge.

Why NATO Targeted Chinese Journalists

Why, asked the speaker, did all three missiles strike journalists'
apartments?

Clearly, he said, the goal was to punish China for sympathizing
with the Yugoslav people against NATO.  More specifically, the
intention was to terrorize Chinese newspeople in Yugoslavia,
thus silencing yet another non-NATO information source.

Does that seem too nightmarish to be true?  Keep in mind,
NATO has consistently bombed Serbian news outlets with
the stated intention of silencing sources of "lying propaganda."
Why would it be so far-fetched for them to do the same to
Chinese newspeople?

Perhaps NATO wants to silence ALL non-NATO reporting on the
war, even at the risk of starting World War III.

Or perhaps NATO, or a part of NATO, such as the U.S. government,
wants to provoke a fight with China before China gets too strong
to be crushed?

Let's take a look at the "news" coverage.


SORRY, WRONG BUILDING

NATO spokesman Jamie Shea's first response to the Embassy
bombing was a) to apologize and b) to explain that the NATO missiles
had gone astray.  NATO had intended to hit a building across the
street, a building that houses what SHEA called the "Federal Directory
for the Supply and Procurement."

Said Shea:  "'I understand that the two buildings are
close together."' (Reuters, May 8)

(If they ever catch the terrorists who bombed the US
Embassy in Kenya and bring them to trial, could their
legal team utilize the Shea Defense which consists of
a) first you say I'm very sorry and b) then you say you
meant to blow up the building across the street?)

But getting back to the "news" -- according to Jamie
Shea the Chinese Embassy is close to the "Federal
Directory for the Supply and Procurement."  But the
Chinese Embassy is in fact located in the middle of a
park in a residential neighborhood and:

"The embassy stands alone in its own grounds surrounded
by grassy open space on three sides.  Rows of high-rise
apartment blocs are located 200 (600 feet) metres away and a
line of shops, offices and apartments sits about 150
meters (450 feet) away on the other side of a
wide tree-lined avenue, [called]...Cherry Tree Street."
(Reuters, 5/8)


NEARBY BUILDING?  WHAT NEARBY BUILDING?

Apparently realizing that a "Federal Directory for the Supply
and Procurement" would not be placed in an
apartment complex -- or on a 1000 foot lawn - NATO spun
a new story a few hours later:

"Three NATO guided bombs which slammed into the
Chinese embassy in Belgrade overnight struck precisely
at the coordinates programmed into them, but it was
not the building NATO believed it to be.

'They hit bang on the three aim points they were given,'
a military source said....

[NATO military spokesman General Walter] Jertz declined
to say what sort of weapon hit the Chinese embassy, except
that it was 'smart' or guided munitions and not free-fall bombs.
He denied planners were 'using old maps, wrong maps.'"
(Reuters, May 8)

OK.  Three smart missiles or bombs hit the three
locations they were supposed to hit.  It was a misidentified
target.  And the Pilot(s) wasn't misled by old or bad maps.

On the face of it, what is the likelihood of NATO picking
target coordinates that just happen to coincide with three
apartments occupied by journalists?  I mean, one computer-guided
bomb destroying a journalist's home would not be unlikely.  But
three hitting three journalists' homes?


TOO MANY SPOKESMEN

In the same Reuters story, another expert suggests
it would be highly unlikely for NATO to make the kind
of mistake Jertz is suggesting:

"'Target identification and pilot preparation would have been
extensive in this case, because of the military importance
of the intended target and because Belgrade is heavily
defended by Serb forces,' [Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Wald,
a strategic planner for the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said at a briefing
for reporters.

'`'The way targeting works ... the higher the threat, the more
valued the target, the more time you would study it.  The more
time you have to study it, the better,' Wald said."

Based on what Wald is saying here, isn't it pretty much unlikely
that an embassy would be mistaken for a "Federal Directory for the
Supply and Procurement?"

TOO MANY PLACES

Which brings us to yet another problem.  Because in
the same MAY 8 Reuters Story the name of the place
which NATO intended to bomb mysteriously changes -- not
once but twice.  Read the following quote from General
Jertz carefully:

"Careful to avoid making excuses, NATO military spokesman
General Walter Jertz said NATO went after the target because
it thought it was the weapons warehouse of the Federal
Directorate for Supply and Procurement.

'The information we had was that in this building was the
headquarters of the Directorate, and we have no evidence
that we were misled,' he said."

So now the thing they thought they were bombing was:

a) the Federal Directory for the Supply and Procurement;

b) Weapons warehouse of the Federal
Directorate for Supply and Procurement;  and

c) the headquarters of the Directorate.

No wonder they couldn't be misled.  They couldn't
even name the place.

TOO MANY MISSILES

NATO's next spin-control effort was an attempt to simplify
things.  Retelling the story again a bit later on the 8th, AP
reported that:

"The precision-guided weapon that hit the Chinese
embassy in Belgrade apparently did just what it was told. .."

One weapon.  That does make things more believable,
unless of course the reader has seen the previous stories
that refer to Three missiles....

Since few people read multiple news stories about the
same topic, and even fewer read them carefully, moving
from three to one missile is a pretty safe gambit.  But the
problem still remains: how could NATO targeteers, pouring
over their maps, not notice the label CHINESE EMBASSY
on a building they were planning to bomb?

IT WAS THE MAPS!

NATO's answer: switch positions on the map question.

What was the source of "the erroneous B-2 bomber attack,
which dropped several satellite-guided bombs on the embassy"?

Here's the latest explanation:

"In mistakenly targeting the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade
Friday night, U.S. intelligence officials were working from an
outdated map issued before China built its diplomatic compound
several years ago, American and NATO authorities said yesterday.

'The tragic and embarrassing truth is that our maps simply did
not show the Chinese Embassy anywhere in that vicinity,' a
senior NATO official said." (Washington Post, May 10)

Let's consider the implications of what we've just read.

First, the Post accepts without question NATO's assertion
that the embassy bombing was accidental.  Indeed
the Post doesn't mention the highly newsworthy
fact that the news media stories are so mutually contradictory.
Doesn't that tell us something about these news agencies,
about their attitude toward NATO and this war?  That they are
really part of NATO's public relations effort, dutifully
reporting whatever they are told without pointing out the
implications of NATO's ever-evolving explanations.

Second, the claim that using "old maps" was the problem
flatly contradicts an equally confident assertion made
about 36 hours earlier by NATO' spokesman, General Jertz.
You remember: "He [that is., Gen. Jertz] denied planners
were 'using old maps, wrong maps.'" (Reuters, May 8)

Third, consider the phrase "outdated map issued before China
built its diplomatic compound several years ago."
This clearly refers to PAPER maps.

Now is it believable that NATO would be working off old paper maps of
Belgrade?  What's the matter, they can't afford computers?
They have no technical staff?  We are after all talking about
the combined armed forces of the U.S. and most of Europe.
The whole focus of their attack on Serbia is aerial bombardment.
Aerial bombardment depends primarily on maps and intelligence.
Doesn't it fly in the face of rudimentary common sense -- indeed of
sanity -- to believe that this military force would have anything but
the most sophisticated mapping facilities, updated with satellite
photos and local intelligence reports hourly, all of it in computerized
war rooms with giant screens, scores of technical personnel, etc.,
etc.

And isn't it equally obvious, that that one thing such an armed
force would have at its finger tips would be exact information
about sensitive installations -- such as diplomatic facilities --
precisely to make sure they did not get bombed.

Unless of course NATO wanted them to be bombed.

And of  all the diplomatic facilities in all of Yugoslavia, wouldn't
the one to which NATO would pay the most attention be
the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade - both because of China's
immense world-importance and because it is Belgrade's chief ally.

Of course NATO had up to date maps of the area around
the Chinese Embassy.  And of every square inch inside
the Embassy as well.

Fourth, since NATO claims it decided to bomb the Embassy
because of what the targeteers  saw on these "old maps" -- just
what did the targeteers see?  We are told they didn't see the
Embassy.  Did they see something else they wanted to attack
and destroy?  Just what was this something else?  Was it a
building which housed some military facility?  In the middle of
a 1000 foot lawn in a residential section of the city?  And if
there is such a map with such a building, why doesn't NATO
produce this ancient document, and show it to us?

And fifth -- did you notice we're talking about multiple missiles
again?

LET US NOW REVIEW NATO'S STORIES

According to NATO there were three --

  NO, there was only one

smart bomb that hit the Chinese Embassy by mistake because
it missed a building across the street that houses the "Federal Supply
and Procurement Office" --

  NO, that wasn't the problem.  The missiles (because we're back
to three missiles again)  didn't miss -- they hit right on target except
it turned out the target was all wrong, t wasn't the Federal Supply
and Procurement Office at all, it was the Chinese Embassy and
somehow the targeteers got it all confused but one thing is
definite: the mix-up was not the result of using old maps.

  But that's not right either because if a target is important a
great deal of care is taken, and given that this was such an
important target, even more care would be taken to make sure
it really was the a) Federal Directory for the Supply and
Procurement and

NO, that should be the b) Weapons Warehouse of the Federal
Directorate for Supply and Procurement,

NO,  that isn't right either it wasn't just a warehouse, it was the
c)  HEADQUARTERS of the Directorate and -

NO!  Forget everything I've said so far.  It was the maps.
The maps were very old so you couldn't tell that the building
on that site was an Embassy.   And there were three missiles, of
course -- who ever said anything about there only being one?

A PARK, AND OTHER MILITARY TARGETS

This writer has just spoken to a Serbian gentlemen whose
family lives a few blocks from the Embassy.  He says the
Embassy was built 4 or 5 years ago and that prior to
the building of the Embassy, the only thing there was: a park.

A park: tress and grass...

Therefore the notion that NATO could possess a map drawn
before the Chinese Embassy was built which showed any building
occupying the land on which the Embassy now stands is simply
impossible.  There was nothing there but trees and grass.

Therefore NATO is lying.

And since NATO is lying, we are left with the Chinese gentleman's
explanation.  It is the only one that makes sense.  NATO deliberately
blew up three apartments inhabited by Chinese journalists in the Chinese
Embassy.  This was a high-tech execution.  What will NATO do next?

(Note to reader: If you wish to see the complete text of the
articles I have quoted from, drop me a line and I'll be
glad to send them to you. [e-mail] )

Best regards,
Jared  Israel  [e-mail]

IF you know anyone to whom you would like me to send
documents and analysis of interest concerning this war and
related questions, please send me the address(es).

Thanks - [e-mail]
=908






- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 08:36:58 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Joan Russow)
Subject: (abolition-usa) The Hague Appeal Conference a black mark on peace activism:

The Hague Appeal Conference: a black mark on peace activism

Not only the Dutch Embassy was remiss in not granting visas to Yugoslavian
peace groups but also the organizers of the Hague Peace appeal were
derelict in their duty to ensure that a strong statement related to
Yugoslavia be issued at the conference. Why did the organizers prevent the
carefully crafted statement on Kosovo from  being presented at the plenary?
Why did Bill Pace, who is purported to support the NATO bombing, be
allowed to prevent the organizers from allowing a statement? Why were two
Albanians- the most ardent supporters of NATO  allowed to speak at the
plenary? Why did Cora Weiss, when asked at a press conference about a
statement on Kosovo state that there was division within the peace
movement? Why was RAmsay Clarke who was asked to participate by the Dutch
Peace groups,  prevented from speaking at the conference? Why did the
organizers describe the request to have a large protest in front of the
International Court of Justice during the NATO presentations to the ICJ as
being "too political"?


The Hague Peace conference organizers have seriously erred and have
discredited the peace movement. I was told that the US even used the fact
that there was no statement from the peace movement in the Hague to be an
indication that there was support for the NATO intervention.

Which groups were involved with the decision making, and whose interests
are they really serving?



Joan Russow




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 18:46:36 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Re: Peace Organizations Set to Take On Clinton

Kevin,
Is a noisy disruptive rally being planned for the Northwestern commencement?
I have no problem with big--but noisy and disruptive would create a lot more
enemies among North shore folks and with the parents of grads than support
for our cause.

Being all-pervasive would be more effective.  I know Gabe Huck is helping
coordinate those of us in the North shore and my understanding is that he's
advocating a "dignified" event--I hope that isn't being disregarded.

Debby

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:41:08 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Fw: Vlada Petric

Friends,
I send a cc of this to our co-workers in Belgrade to let them know their
material is being widely circulated. This is an important response to Susan
Sontag's piece, from a responsible intellectual.
Fraternally,
David McReynolds

<< Subj:     Fw: Vlada Petric
 Date:    5/27/99 10:07:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time
 From:    [e-mail] (grupa484)
 To:    [e-mail] (Ivanka Kostic), [e-mail] (Hans
Spoelstra), [e-mail] (Franco Toldi), [e-mail] (Goran
Milicevic)
 CC:    [e-mail] (Rajko Maksimovic), [e-mail] (Karin
Hopfmann), [e-mail] (Jelena Subotic), [e-mail]
(Jan Oberg)


 -----Original Message-----
 From: Irina Subotic <[e-mail]>
 To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
 Date: 27 05 1999 09:12
 Subject: Vlada Petric


 >Subject: [BGD-forum] How Susan Sontag Promotes War by Vlada Petric
 >Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 10:13:46 +0200
 >
 >Introduction
 >
 >It seems that 50 days of persistent bombing of Yugoslavia, with
 >repeated "collateral damage" and increasing numbers of innocent
 >citizens killed due to "unintentional errors," has produced a unique
 >effect on people of Yugoslav extraction in this country.
 >
 >This phenomenon is particularly interesting from a psychological
 >standpoint because the emotional impact of the inhuman destruction
 >affects individuals directly, regardless of their political persuasion
 >or social background.
 >
 >As a result, more and more Americans of Yugoslav origin, who left the
 >Communist regime and involved themselves wholeheartedly in the social,
 >economic, and cultural life of the United States, are beginning to
 >reconsider their faith in the "New World Order."
 >
 >Also among the disillusioned are those who were born in this country,
 >but have become gradually aware of the injustice and double standards
 >their government exercises towards the land of their fathers.
 >
 >Vlada Petric, renowned film theorist and professor at the Visual Arts
 >Department, Harvard University, has spent three decades teaching at
 >various American universities, and was the first Curator of the
 >Harvard Film Archive. Throughout this period he did not participate in
 >any political action in this country, dedicating all his intellectual
 >capacity to education, but he vigorously supported the massive
 >demonstrations against Milosevic's authoritarian regime in Yugoslavia.
 >
 >Triggered by the article in The New York Times Magazine, in which
 >Susan Sontag justifies the NATO aggression on Yugoslavia, Professor
 >Petric felt compelled to get involved and wrote a response to Sontag.
 >
 >                         Why Are We Bombing Kosovo?
 >                      - How Susan Sontag Promotes War -
 >                            by prof. Vlada Petric
 >
 >     Realizing that the NATO attack on Yugoslavia "has been bungled,"
 >the initiators and supporters of this military intervention in Europe
 >are now trying to present the action as a "moral" issue. In her
 >article entitled "Why Are We in Kosovo?" (The New York Times Magazine,
 >May 2, 1999), Susan Sontag provides for the war a rationalization that
 >sounds like a call to revenge. Instead of asking her ill-conceived
 >question, it is more appropriate to ask, "Why Are We Bombing Kosovo?"
 >Because by bombing Kosovo--and Yugoslavia, for that matter--we will
 >never "be" in Kosovo. To achieve this and to resolve the Kosovo
 >conflict--which Sontag irresponsibly proclaims "not that
 >complicated"--there exist only two options:
 >
 >     a) Instant invasion that would involve bitter fighting on the
 >     ground, resulting in great casualties among the soldiers (which
 >     one can argue to be justifiable), with enormous losses of innocent
 >     people on all sides.
 >     b) Persistent negotiations that may last long, yet are worth every
 >     innocent human being destroyed by the brutal military machine and
 >     by single-minded political thinkers like Sontag.
 >
 >    Untouched by the tragic aspect of the situation in the Kosovo
 >province of Yugoslavia, Sontag recommends war as the best solution,
 >posing yet another question: "How can you stop those bent on genocide
 >without war?" It seems inconceivable that an artist, who is supposed
 >to put humanistic ideals above politics, can conceive such a question,
 >and conclude that "not all wars are unjust." In her mind, the NATO
 >bombing of Yugoslavia is a "just war" (read: "just aggression")
 >although it "has been bungled," but she fails to explain why this war
 >is doing badly. To do so, she would have to admit that, after NATO
 >intervention, the number of Albanian Kosovar refugees who had to leave
 >their homes has increased from a trickle to a flood, while many
 >hundreds of innocent people have been killed throughout Serbia,
 >Montenegro, and Kosovo, due to "technical and logistic errors." In a
 >"just" war, of course, errors must be justified, and Sontag assumes
 >the role of an arbitrator who declares that it is "only a small
 >portion of the suffering that the Milosevic government has inflicted
 >on neighboring peoples." What a grotesque rationalization: a "small
 >portion" of the prescribed punishment of a people for the misdeeds
 >committed by both their own and other leaders!  This implies blind
 >retribution that can only ignite more hatred and continue the
 >killing. As an educator, I fortunately learned that such a vindictive
 >method of "teaching" people how to behave does not work, since it
 >expands violence and encourages retaliation.
 >
 >    Dividing wars between "just" and "unjust," Sontag estimates how
 >much retaliation is "necessary" to punish the nation she proclaims as
 >the sole culprit for the war in what once was Yugoslavia. She readily
 >equates the Serbian people with the Milosevic regime, which is like
 >declaring the Russian people responsible for the Stalinist atrocities,
 >or claiming that all Germans are guilty for what Hitler did to the
 >Jews, Gypsies, Serbs, and other ethnic minorities in Europe. Only a
 >mind infected by hatred can produce and popularize such a monstrous
 >concept.
 >
 >    To support her thesis, Sontag recalls her experience in Sarajevo
 >during the Summer of 1993, comparing the ethnic civil war in
 >Yugoslavia with the Nazi slaughter of the German Jews. Again, her
 >comparison is tendentious and severely flawed, motivated by
 >one-sidedness. Certainly, the shelling of Dubrovnik, Sarajevo,
 >Vukovar--as well as ethnic cleansing--is wrong, just as the bombing of
 >Belgrade, Novi Sad, Nis, Podgorica, Pristina, and many other cities in
 >Yugoslavia is wrong and counter-productive. Moreover, bombing as an
 >ultimatum cannot bring the warring parties to a negotiating table,
 >particularly if the "supreme judge" unequivocally supports only one
 >side in the conflict.
 >
 >    Promotion of war, whether labeled as "just" or "unjust," is a
 >crime against humane consciousness, because it excludes concern for
 >the innocent citizens trapped in the power struggle for political,
 >military, and economic supremacy. Deaf to the cries of the innocent
 >Yugoslav citizens threatened by NATO bombs, Sontag proposes bloody
 >retribution as a "just reaction" to the Kosovo conflict, and poses her
 >final question "Can we really say that there is no response to this?"
 >Of course, there is and should be a response, but not by warmongering
 >and encouraging more bloodshed, as Sontag does, with the pretense of
 >extinguishing the "radical evil in the world." By killing innocent
 >people, Susan, you would create more evil in the world.
 >
 >    There have always been those who glorified war as a means of
 >resolving discord between states and nations and some even label wars
 >as "holy," blessed by God. Today, when nothing is sacred any more, we
 >have to oppose ideas that place ideology above human life, instead of
 >contributing to the supercilious militaristic logic that is "a
 >dangerous aberration of human consciousness," as Mirko Kovac, the
 >great Serbian writer and both Susan's and my friend, would
 >say. Unconcerned with peoples' suffering and the multiplication of
 >innocent victims, Susan Sontag promotes her "just" war" from an
 >Italian coffee bar on the sunny Adriatic coast.
 >
 >Professor Vlada Petric taught film history at the Visual Department,
 >Harvard University from 1973-1997. He is the founder and first Curator
 >of the Harvard Film Archive. Retired, he lives in Cambridge,
 >completing his two books on film theory and aesthetics.
 >
 >
  >>

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:20:14 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) ACTION ALERT-Nuked Food

ACTION ALERT

COMMENTS TO FDA ON FOOD IRRADIATION
EXTENDED TO JULY 18!
WRITE THE FDA AND CONGRESS TODAY!!

The comment period for the proposed Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rule
that allows manufacturers to sell irradiated food without any labeling
requirements to warn consumers has been extended to July 18th.
Agribusiness and
the nuclear industry are pressing to label irradiated foods under the heading
ôcold pasteurizationö.

Tell the FDA and Congress that food treated with radiation must continue to be
clearly labeled with the radura (the international symbol for irradiated food)
and a statement indicating it was treated with radiation.  Say the absence of
such a statement would be misleading because irradiation destroys vitamins and
causes changes in sensory and spoilage qualities that are not obvious or
expected by the consumer.  Irradiation creates a new class of unique
radiolytic
products that have never been tested for the possible carcinogenic effects on
humans and new volumes of radioactive waste from Cobalt-60 and Cesium will
plague our nation, exposing workers to toxic radionuclides when we haven't a
clue as to what to do with the nuclear waste we already have.

Please DO NOT write a general statement opposing food irradiation;
unfortunately, it has already been approved thanks to pressure from
Agribusiness on Congress.  You must demand that such foods be clearly labeled
Also request that public comments be placed on the Internet so that the public
can be informed about who is participating.

If we can generate enough letters to maintain labeling, then despite the
government approval for this process, we will be able to boycott irradiated
products--but only if we know which foods have been ônukedö based on honest
labeling.

When writing, refer to Docket #98N-1038 ôIrradiation in the production,
processing, and handling of foodö

Send comments before July 18th to:

Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061
Rockville MD 20852
or
Send an email to:
[e-mail] and/or
[e-mail]
(Put Docket #98N-1038 in the subject line)

Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #133
***********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.