Opposing paradigms converge on Hawaii

Opposing paradigms converge on Hawaii
Hawaii is center stage for a meeting between the all-business APEC and international environmental conference Moana Nui

Jon Letman    Last Modified: 07 Oct 2011 10:36

Speaking earlier this year on US National Public Radio, Intel CEO Paul Otellini suggested that the global power shift that occurred from the United Kingdom to the United States at the beginning of the 20th century is now replaying itself, as power moves away from the United States to the Asia-Pacific region, specifically China.

If that’s true, then Hawaii is well poised to serve as the place where the proverbial baton is handed off. This November (8-13), Honolulu will host the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) 2011 summit where 21 member economies will discuss region issues.

Read the full story here.

E Komo Mai APEC: Rolling out the welcome mat for repression

What’s that choking thickness in the air?  Is it the vog?  Humidity?  Or could it be the police state climate that is visibly growing in Honolulu in preparation for the APEC summit in November?

The City and County of Honolulu plans to install 34 video surveillance cameras to enhance security during the APEC summit, at a cost of $1.5 million:

The city will spend about $1.5 million to install video cameras in key parts of Oahu to help bolster security for visiting dignitaries who will be here for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperative conference in November.

The money, which will come largely from the budgets of various city departments, will be used to buy and install 34 cameras in Waikiki, downtown Honolulu and Ko Olina in time for the arrival of the leaders of 21 APEC member countries the weekend of Nov. 11, city officials told members of the City Council Safety, Economic Development and Government Affairs Committee this morning. About $175,000 is coming from the Hawaii Tourism Authority.

Committee members raised concerns about how the cameras may affect free speech and civil rights during the conference but nonetheless advanced a resolution approving the use of the cameras.

Jamie and Tess Meier recently were cited by Honolulu Police for demonstrating without a permit.  The couple went topless in Waikiki as part of a nationwide day of protest for gender equality.  The citation was a clear violation of constitutional rights to free speech.  Realizing the City was treading on legal thin ice, City prosecutors dismissed the case “in the interest of justice”.

The Honolulu Star Advertiser reports “24 Pearl Harbor-Hickam workers arrested on outstanding warrants”:

Federal agents arrested 24 civilian contract employees working on Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam this week on outstanding warrants, and three will be extradited for felony violations.

The arrests were made Wednesday and Thursday following an investigation “aimed at protecting military assets and information from being compromised by unscrupulous individuals,” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s  Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) said in a press release today.

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) were also involved in the investigation.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Are these incidents signs of a pre-APEC crackdown?

Civil Beat reports:

Honolulu Police Load Up on Taser Ammo, Pepper Spray, Bean Bags for APEC

Twenty-five-thousand pepper spray projectiles for nearly $90,000. Eighteen-thousand units of bean bag ammunition for more than $60,000. Three-thousand Taser cartridges for another $60,000.

And a special, $13,000, long-range loudspeaker typically used to communicate authoritatively from a distance — for example from military helicopters to pirates at sea.

Those items are just a sampling of the Honolulu Police Department‘s lengthy shopping list in preparation for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit this November.

[…]

The purchases came from mainland weapons and ammunition distributors like Taser International, PepperBall Technologies and Safariland. The products feature names like “40mm Launchable CS spede-heat long range canister” and “SA200 PepperBall Launcher with high pressure 47 cubic inch bottle” and include a veritable Christmas holiday rainbow of smoke canisters — red, green and white.

Those are all types of aerosol technologies used to subdue rioters with smoke grenades and pepper spray dispersed through the air.

There are different weapons used to deliver non-lethal contact directly to a protester’s body — things like “instantaneous delivery rubber blast balls” and “bean-bag cartridges” and “40mm Stinger Rounds .60cal.”

There’s the Taser X26 — the city purchased 39 of those for $779.95 apiece. Accessories include 39 audio/video attachments at $411.95 apiece, 39 four-year extended customer care warranties for $184.95 apiece and 3000 “Taser 21 live cartridges (black with silver blastdoors)” for $20.95 each. Tasers use electric current to disable a people’s control of their muscles, incapacitating them so they can be taken into police custody.

Gluck said it’s encouraging that HPD purchased cameras for use with each of its Taser stun guns. Cameras can record the events leading up to the deployment of the weapon, and could help ensure that the Tasers are used appropriately — in place of a lethal weapon to avoid serious danger for an officer, not as a way to punish unresponsive or disrespectful, but peaceful, protesters.

This week, Civil Beat will file an open records request to obtain HPD’s use-of-force policy.

And, finally, there’s the “LRAD” — Long Range Acoustic Device — from MSC Industrial Supply. The city purchased 10 LRAD 100X systems for $6,042 each, plus another 10 wireless control systems ($2,918 each), 10 spare batteries ($500 each) and 10 carrying bags ($344 each). Add to that one LRAD 300X system ($13,043) and the accompanying tripod mount ($1,137) and the police department has spent more than $100,000 on acoustic equipment alone.

The Civil Beat article goes into the concerns that the heavy militarization of the police force in Hawai’i may infringe on the right to protected speech.  Here’s the full HPD shopping list for crowd control weapons:

Powered by Socrata

And here’s the source documents provided to Civil Beat by the ACLU of Hawai’i:

 

View more documents from Civil Beat
Grassroots organizations are organizing to confront the APEC agenda through education and action in the streets.  One event, hailed a Asia Pacific peoples’ summit is Moana Nui 2011, which is being co-sponsored by a collection of different groups in Hawai’i and the International Forum on Globalization.    Civic Beat reporter Chad Blair wrote an article on the diverse voices of opposition to the APEC meeting in Honolulu.

Connecting the Aegis dots between Jeju, Okinawa, Guam, Hawai’i

Koohan Paik, co-author of the Superferry Chronicles and member of the Kaua’i Alliance for Peace and Social Justice wrote an excellent op ed in the Garden Island newspaper connecting the dots between the military expansion at the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kaua’i, the struggle to stop a naval base in Jeju, South Korea, and protest movements in Okinawa and Guam.

True defenders

When I was a child in South Korea during the 1960s, we lived under the repressive dictatorship of Park Chung-hee. Anyone out after 10 p.m. curfew could be arrested. Anyone who tried to protest the government disappeared. A lot of people died fighting for democracy and human rights.

Today, the South Korean people carry in living memory the supreme struggles that forged the freedom they currently enjoy. And after all they’ve sacrificed, they are not going to give that freedom up.

So it is no surprise that the tenacious, democracy-loving Koreans have been protesting again — this time for over four years, non-stop, day and night. They are determined to prevent construction of a huge military base on S. Korea’s Jeju Island that will cement over a reef in an area so precious it contains three UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

This eco-rich reef has not only fed islanders for millennia, but it has also been the “habitat” for Jeju’s lady divers who are famous for staying beneath the surface for astonishing periods of time, before coming up with all manner of treasures. Even during South Korea’s times of unspeakable poverty, subtropical Jeju Island was always so abundant with natural resources and beauty that no one ever felt “impoverished” there.

There happens to be a very strong connection between Jeju’s current troubles and business-as-usual on the Garden Isle. You see, the primary purpose of Jeju’s unwanted base is to port Aegis destroyer warships. And it is right here, at Kaua‘i’s Pacific Missile Range Facility, that all product testing takes place for the Aegis missile manufacturers.

On Aug. 29, when Sen. Dan Inouye was here to dedicate a new Aegis testing site, he said, “We are not testing to kill, but to defend.” It would have been more accurate if Inouye had said, “We are not testing to kill, but to increase profits for Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, no matter how many people are oppressed or how many reefs are destroyed.”

Four days later, on Sept. 2, I got a panicked call from a Korean friend that there had been a massive crackdown on the peace vigil in Gangjung village to protect Jeju’s reef from the Aegis destroyer project.

More than 1,000 South Korean police in head-to-toe riot gear descended upon men and women of all ages blockading construction crews from access to the site. At least 50 protestors were arrested, including villagers, Catholic priests, college students, visiting artists and citizen journalists. Several were wounded and hospitalized. My friend told me, “We fought so hard for democracy. And now this. It’s just like dictatorship times.”

Another reason the Koreans are so angry is that their government has been telling them that the Aegis technology will protect them from North Korea. But Aegis missiles launching from Jeju are useless against North Korea, because North Korean missiles fly too low. In a 1999 report to the U.S. Congress, the Pentagon verified that the Aegis system “could not defend the northern two-thirds of South Korea against the low flying short range Taepodong ballistic missiles.”

So if Aegis is no good against North Korea, why build the base? Again, this is not about defense, this is about selling missiles (and increasing profits for Samsung and other major contractors on the base construction job).

There is a strong similarity between resistance on Jeju (where a recent poll showed 95 percent of islanders are opposed to the base) and concurrent uprisings on Guam and Okinawa, as well. All three islands are slated for irreversible destruction to make way for Aegis destroyer berthing.

And who wouldn’t protest? Like us, these are island peoples who care passionately for their reefs, ocean ecosystems and fisheries. I have heard certain Jeju Islanders say they will fight to the death to protect their resources.

Today, the mayor of Gangjung himself, along with many others, languish in prison because of their uncompromising stance against the Aegis base. Fortunately, people across the Korean peninsula and beyond, are heading to Jeju to support the resistance movement.

Without peaceful warriors like them, there would be no more reefs, no more coral, no more fish, no more nothing. They are our true defenders, not the missile manufacturers, as Inouye’s sham logic would have us believe.

As the Pentagon conspicuously ramps up militarization in the Asia-Pacific region, individuals of good conscious should pursue de-militarization. In the words of Aletha Kaohi, “Look to within and get rid of the ‘opala, or rubbish.”

Koohan Paik, Kilauea

Lines between intelligence and military functions becoming blurred

The New York Times reports that President Obama will announce that Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, will replace Robert Gates has Secretary of Defense, and that General David Petreaus will become director of the CIA.   But this trend towards the blending of intelligence and military functions is moving into dangerous territory where it is increasingly unclear what legally constitutes war and who are lawful combatants under international law. It is a reflection of the U.S. empire as a permanent state of war.

>><<

President Obama’s decision to send an intelligence chief to the Pentagon and a four-star general to the Central Intelligence Agency is the latest evidence of a significant shift over the past decade in how the United States fights its battles — the blurring of lines between soldiers and spies in secret American missions abroad.

On Thursday, Mr. Obama is expected to announce that Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A. director, will become secretary of defense, replacing Robert M. Gates, and that Gen. David H. Petraeus will return from Afghanistan to take Mr. Panetta’s job at the C.I.A., a move that is likely to continue this trend.

As C.I.A. director, Mr. Panetta hastened the transformation of the spy agency into a paramilitary organization, overseeing a sharp escalation of the C.I.A.’s bombing campaign in Pakistan using armed drone aircraft, and an increase in the number of secret bases and covert operatives in remote parts of Afghanistan.

General Petraeus, meanwhile, has aggressively pushed the military deeper into the C.I.A.’s turf, using Special Operations troops and private security contractors to conduct secret intelligence missions. As commander of the United States Central Command in September 2009, he also signed a classified order authorizing American Special Operations troops to collect intelligence in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and other places outside of traditional war zones.

The result is that American military and intelligence operatives are at times virtually indistinguishable from each other as they carry out classified operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. Some members of Congress have complained that this new way of war allows for scant debate about the scope and scale of military operations. In fact, the American spy and military agencies operate in such secrecy now that it is often hard to come by specific information about the American role in major missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Libya and Yemen.

The operations have also created tension with important allies like Pakistan, while raising fresh questions about whether spies and soldiers deserve the same legal protections.

Officials acknowledge that the lines between soldiering and spying have blurred. “It’s really irrelevant whether you call it a covert action or a military special operation,” said Dennis C. Blair, a retired four-star admiral and a former director of national intelligence.  “I don’t really think there is any distinction.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Racial profiling in Hawaiʻi 1930s-style

According to a Honolulu Star Advertiser reprint of a February 27, 1984 article, “Hostage Plan Revealed: Patton Eyed Local Japanese,” General George Patton drafted a plan while stationed in Hawai’i to take 128 Hawai’i Japanese leaders hostage in the event of a war with Japan.  The plans were written between 1935 and 1937, revealing that the racist Japanese internment during World War II came from deeply rooted military policies and were not an aberration.  Michael Slackman, historian for the USS Arizona Memorial, uncovered the plan in the National Archives.  The article states:

No less a military luminary than Gen. George S. Patton Jr. drafted a plan to take 128 local leaders of the Japanese Community — including two men who went on to become members of the Hawaii Supreme Court — hostage during World War II.

[…]

The plan was written sometime between 1935 and 1937, when Patton was stationed in Hawaii as chief of military intelligence, Slackman said, and it was discarded as obsolete before the war started and never implemented.

However, some local Japanese leaders were taken into custody by martial law authorities soon after the Pearl Harbor attack and were incarcerated first at Sand Island and then at Honouliuli.

Slackman discovered the document, titled “A General Staff Study/Plan: Initial Seizure of Orange National,” while doing research for the Arizona Memorial in the National Archives last May.

[…]

The plan first called for making the telephones of the target hostages inoperative through busy signals. Then, 80 soldiers were to board 20 trucks and arrest 88 civilians who lived in the Honolulu area. Another 40 hostages were to be taken by military commanders in other districts. …

Once arrested, most of the hostages … were to be held at the Schofield Barracks hospital

FBI Raids Homes of Antiwar and Pro-Palestinian Activists in Chicago and Minneapolis

FBI Raids Homes of Antiwar and Pro-Palestinian Activists in Chicago and Minneapolis

Fbi-raid

Antiwar activists are gearing up for protests outside FBI offices in cities across the country today and Tuesday after the FBI raided eight homes and offices of antiwar activists in Chicago and Minneapolis Friday. The FBI’s search warrants indicate agents were looking for connections between local antiwar activists and groups in Colombia and the Middle East. We speak to the targets of two of the raids and former FBI officer Coleen Rowley. [includes rush transcript]

Guests:

Jess Sundin, longtime antiwar activist in Minneapolis. Her home was raided by the FBI early Friday morning. She’s a member of the Anti-War Committee, whose offices were also raided.

Joe Iosbaker, employee of the University of Illinois in Chicago and a steward for SEIU Local 73. He helped coordinate buses from Chicago to the protests at the Republican National Convention in 2008. His home was one of two raided in Chicago Friday.

Coleen Rowley, former FBI special agent and whistleblower based in Minnesota. She was named Time Magazine’s Person of the Year in 2002.

Rush Transcript

AMY GOODMAN: Antiwar activists are gearing up for protests outside FBI offices in cities across the country today and tomorrow after the FBI raided eight homes and offices of antiwar activists in Chicago and Minneapolis Friday.

The FBI’s search warrants indicate agents were looking for connections between local antiwar activists and groups in Colombia and the Middle East. Eight people were issued subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury in Chicago. Most of the people whose homes were searched or who were issued subpoenas had helped organize or attended protests at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, two years ago.

The federal law cited in the search warrants prohibits, quote, “providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.” In June, the Supreme Court rejected a free speech challenge to the material support law from humanitarian aid groups that said some of its provisions put them at risk of being prosecuted for talking to terrorist organizations about nonviolent activities. Some of groups listed by name in the warrants are Hezbollah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. The warrants also authorized agents to to seize items such as electronics, photographs, videos, address books and letters.

Friday’s raids come on the heels of a Justice Department probe that found the FBI improperly monitored activist groups and individuals from 2001 to 2006.

For more, I’m joined now by three guests.

Joining us from Minneapolis, longtime antiwar activist Jess Sundin, whose home was raided by the FBI early Friday morning. She’s a member of the Anti-War Committee, whose offices were also raided.

Joining us via Democracy Now! video stream from Chicago is Joe Iosbaker, whose home was one of two raided in Chicago Friday. He’s an employee of the University of Illinois in Chicago and a steward for SEIU Local 73. He helped coordinate buses from Chicago to the protests at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

Also in Minneapolis we’re joined by former FBI special agent and whistleblower Coleen Rowley. Time named her Woman of the Year, Person of the Year in 2002.

We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Let’s begin in Minneapolis with Jess Sundin. Tell us what happened.

JESS SUNDIN: Friday morning, I awoke to a bang at the door, and by the time I was downstairs, there were six or seven federal agents already in my home, where my partner and my six-year-old daughter had already been awake. We were given the search warrant, and they went through the entire house. They spent probably about four hours going through all of our personal belongings, every book, paper, our clothes, and filled several boxes and crates with our computers, our phones, my passport. And when they were done, as I said, they had many crates full of my personal belongings, with which they left my house.

AMY GOODMAN: Were you the only one there that morning?

JESS SUNDIN: No, my partner and my first-grade daughter were also there.

AMY GOODMAN: And what exactly did they show you to get in?

JESS SUNDIN: Well, we have a porch where you can’t see exactly who’s outside. And so, they had already let themselves into the porch by the time my daughter—my wife opened the door. And when they came in, they showed us this four-page document that listed, as I said, all the kinds of things that they were entitled to look—to search for in my home, as well as a subpoena to appear before a grand jury. My name was listed on the search warrant, but both myself and my partner received subpoenas for the grand jury in Chicago.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to Chicago, to Joe Iosbaker. Describe what happened to you on Friday morning.

JOE IOSBAKER: Well, it’s the exact same story. It was a nationally coordinated assault on all of these homes. Seven a.m., the pound on the door. I was getting ready for work, came down the stairs, and there were, I think, in the area of ten agents, you know, of the—they identified themselves as FBI, showed me the search warrant. And I turned to my wife and said, “Stephanie, it’s the thought police.”

AMY GOODMAN: And they came in?

JOE IOSBAKER: They came in, and they proceeded to set up their operation in our living room, and they proceeded to photograph every room in our house. And over the next, I don’t know, thirty or forty-five minutes, they proceeded to label every room and then systematically go through every room, our basement, our attic, our children’s rooms, and pored through not just all of our papers, but our music collection, our children’s artwork, my son’s poetry journals from high school—everything.

AMY GOODMAN: And were they explaining to you what they were doing as they were raiding your house?

JOE IOSBAKER: There was—there were—some of the officers, you know, were telling us what they were doing. Most of them were not. But they gave us some explanation.

AMY GOODMAN: What exactly did they say to you?

JOE IOSBAKER: Well, they—all they said in terms of the content of what they were looking for is that they—you know, they showed us the search warrant, and I was—my wife and I were both subpoenaed, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: What organizations are you involved with, Joe? What do you think they’re looking for?

JOE IOSBAKER: Well, as you said at the start, I’m a trade unionist primarily. That’s how most people know me. I’m also the staff adviser at UIC for the Students for a Democratic Society chapter.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s University of Illinois, Chicago.

JOE IOSBAKER: Correct. And, you know, I’ve been a political activist for thirty-three years, so I’ve been a member of a lot of organizations and campaign.

AMY GOODMAN: Coleen Rowley, you’re a former FBI agent, whistleblower, named Time Person of the Year in 2002. Can you explain what you think is happening here? And also, put it in the context of this very interesting Justice Department IG—Inspector General—report that has just come out on their surveillance of whistleblowers—rather, the surveillance of activists over the last almost decade.

COLEEN ROWLEY: Well, I can’t really detail all of the legal factors that have changed since 9/11, but there simply has been a sea change. For instance, when I taught constitutional rights in the FBI, one of the main top priorities was First Amendment rights. And while this is not the first time that you’ve seen this Orwellian turn of the war on terror onto domestic peace groups and social justice groups—actually, we had that begin very quickly after 9/11, and there were legal opinions, Office of Legal Counsel opinions, that said the First Amendment no longer controls the war on terror—but even so, this is shocking and alarming that at this point we have the, you know, humanitarian advocacy now being treated as somehow material support to terrorists.

We’ve also just seen, ironically, four days before this national raid, we saw the Department of Justice Inspector General issue a report that soundly criticized the FBI for four years of targeting domestic groups such as Greenpeace, the Thomas Merton Center in Pittsburgh, different antiwar rallies, even involving a finding that the FBI director had given them a falsehood to Congress as to the justification for the FBI to monitor a peace group.

AMY GOODMAN: What about what’s happened in Iowa, Coleen Rowley?

COLEEN ROWLEY: Well, that’s another instance. And that one is actually after the scope of the IG investigation. The IG investigation only went to 2006. There have been requests for that IG to go further. Obviously there’s been four more years. And in 2008, we found out through a Freedom of Information request that there’s 300 pages of—I think it was four or five, six agents trailing a group of students in Iowa City to parks, libraries, bars, restaurants. They even went through their trash. So, this is another reason why peace groups, and certainly law professors, have to be very concerned now about this misinterpretation that says advocacy for human-rights—I just have to mention, we have a famous Minnesotan who wrote Three Cups of Tea. And he obviously sets up schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His name is Greg Mortenson. Obviously, people like him and Jimmy Carter are even at peril, given this wide discretion now to say that anyone who works in a foreign country, even for peace or humanitarian, anti-torture purposes, could somehow run afoul of the PATRIOT Act.

AMY GOODMAN: The Church Committee in the 1970s really blew the lid open on CIA spying at home, and also guidelines then, regulations, were passed afterwards. How do they apply today, when Americans are being surveilled, infiltrated, spied on at home?

COLEEN ROWLEY: Well, that’s another one of the factors, besides this Supreme Court ruling. Right after 9/11, the Attorney General began to erode those guidelines. He basically said that FBI agents could go into mosques and places like that to monitor, so that was the beginning. The very—almost the last official act that Bush did in 2008 was that he totally erased those prior AG guidelines. There is really no need to even show factual justification now. The presumption is entirely reversed. And basically the FBI need only say that they were not targeting—that they were not targeting a group solely based on their exercise of First Amendment rights. So the presumption really did, again, a complete flip-flop.

And, of course, that’s why you see these various scandals now coming out. It should be no surprise to someone that if there’s no restraints, the green light is on, that you see, of course—I actually kind of sympathize with the FBI. I used to train these agents, and I can understand the enormous pressure they’re under. And, of course, this is why it’s so incredibly important to get the word to the officials who are in charge of using their discretion that they should use their discretion to look for real terrorists instead of to go after peace groups.

AMY GOODMAN: Jess Sundin, what are your plans now? I mean, over the weekend I saw online the video of your mass emergency meeting—many people came out for this, rallying around—and also talked about the RNC 8, the eight people who were preemptively arrested in the lead-up to the Republican convention, all charged on terror counts. All of those terror counts have been dropped now. But it certainly was a very frightening time. What are your plans now?

JESS SUNDIN: Well, as you mentioned, in the Twin Cities we had a meeting the night that the raids happened. There were more than 200 people who gathered, and really every organization in the Twin Cities. But I’d say countless organizations across the country have contacted us to ask us how they can help. There will be, today and tomorrow, as you mentioned earlier, demonstrations in at least twenty cities around the country. We’ve had word of plans for demonstrations at embassies in other countries, as well, at US embassies.

So, one of the things we’re doing is trying to call attention to what’s happened and really make it clear to people that we have done nothing wrong. There is no basis to the claim that we’ve in any way given support to terrorist organizations. But in fact, we are being—we are being—there is attention on us because of our work in the antiwar movement, and in particular, our perspective of solidarity with people in the countries where the US war and militarism are happening.

We, following up on these demonstrations, are going to be pulling together a network of people from many of these organizations that have expressed their concern. Folks who want to get tied into that can find us through the Anti-War Committee website, which is very outdated. We’re doing our best to get it up. Of course, as we explained, all of our computers were seized. So we’re doing a lot of catch up, trying to get ourselves organized.

And, of course, we’re also very concerned with making legal plans to protect ourselves. A number of people have been called before a grand jury in Chicago. And we, you know, don’t want to be—you know, a case to be framed up around us. All of us are quite confident that nothing that was found in our homes will give substantiation to the claims against us. And there’s, in fact, no charges against us. But we want to do everything we can to both protect ourselves legally while at the same time working with the movement to call attention to what’s happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Joe Iosbaker, I wanted to ask you about the other house that was raided. Just looking at an AP piece, FBI agents in Chicago took a laptop and documents from the home of Palestinian American antiwar activist Hatem Abudayyeh, who is the executive director of the Arab American Action Network. His attorney, Jim Fennerty, said, The government’s trying to quiet activists. The case is really is scary,” he said. Abudayyeh is an American citizen. Can you talk about your work on Israel-Palestine, who Hatem Abudayyeh is?

JOE IOSBAKER: Well, I actually have to talk about my wife’s work. My wife is a longtime solidarity activist in the Palestine solidarity movement. And—

AMY GOODMAN: Stephanie Weiner.

JOE IOSBAKER: Correct. She was also subpoenaed. And really everyone in the antiwar movement in Chicago knows Hatem. You know, if you look back online at video of the protests here of thousands of people marching when Israel assaulted Gaza two years ago, Hatem was the emcee at almost every major rally. And the Arab American Action Network was the first center of the Arab community in the city, founded back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. So Hatem is the most prominent Palestinian activist in the city of Chicago. It’s no surprise that they targeted him.

AMY GOODMAN: And you’re organizing, Joe Iosbaker, around Colombia. In a minute we’ll be joined by Ingrid Betancourt, who was, well, as you know, held captive—

JOE IOSBAKER: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —for more than six years. But what about your work around Colombia, since it seems that Israel-Palestine and Colombia were major focuses of this FBI raid?

JOE IOSBAKER: Well, I actually think that I should defer that question to Jess, who has much more experience in Colombia solidarity work.

AMY GOODMAN: Jess Sundin in Minneapolis.

JESS SUNDIN: Yeah, the antiwar movement has long been concerned with places that the US funds wars abroad, and there’s a major civil war unfolding in Colombia, and it’s the third-largest recipient of US military aid, so Colombia is very much an issue for the antiwar movement. I have traveled to Colombia and understand that it’s the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. And, in fact, anyone involved in the social movement there is viewed by the government, as well as the paramilitary death squads, as a rebel and treated as such. And so, I know that the investigation is very interested in travel—I have traveled to Colombia—and [it] tried to establish some sort of organizational ties, which there aren’t. But that said, I do support the Colombian struggle and have been very involved in that.

AMY GOODMAN: Coleen Rowley, how do civil rights compare, what you’re seeing today under the Obama administration, to President Bush, someone you certainly blew the whistle on?

COLEEN ROWLEY: Well, I can’t talk for another couple hours here, because that’s how long it would take me. I actually urged the FBI from early on—I even wrote a chapter, “Civil Liberties and Effective Investigation.” And unfortunately, these warnings have just been largely—of myself and many others—have been largely ignored. Even the 9/11 Commission focused—three of their recommendations, out of forty-one, were on creating a privacy and civil liberties oversight board. And Bush pulled the rug from under that board early on. And Obama, two years later, has never appointed any people, any of the five seats to that board, which is just incredible in light of what’s gone on, even including the revelations of torture and warrantless monitoring.

What people need to do is to basically ask for more than just an IG investigation. They need to ask for Congress to actually take on something like a new Church Committee. And that’s actually been asked for. Barbara Lee, I think, actually had a proposal a year ago for something like that. So we should all contact our elected representatives and ask for Congress to take on greater oversight of this—what’s going on.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we will certainly continue to follow this case as it unfolds. I want to thank you, Coleen Rowley, former FBI agent, whistleblower, named Time Person of the Year in 2002. Jess Sundin and Joe Iosbaker, thanks so much for being with us. I know this is a very difficult time for you. Both of their homes were raided, computers, notes, other things taken. That happened on Friday morning. And, of course, we’ll continue to follow both these cases.

From Malu ‘Aina:

Labeling Peaceful Protest of War  a “Terrorist Act?

The war on peaceful dissent is gaining speed.  Within the last week FBI SWAT teams (members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force) broke down doors in early morning raids of antiwar leaders and activists in several U.S. cities including Minneapolis and Chicago.  (So far Hilo has been spared.)  An old time labor organizer said anti-terrorism today is becoming worse than the anti-communist McCarthyism witch hunts of the 1950s.

The peace activists had their possessions ransacked, and computers, photos, papers, and cell phones taken.  No arrests were made nor charges filed. The FBI said the raids were part of “an ongoing investigation,” but the raids appear to be a fishing expedition to intimidate dissenters into silence, and ratchet up police state measures by inferring that peaceful protest of war is terrorism.  George Bush once said, if you’re not with us, you must be with the terrorists.

The current FBI raids ignore the just released Dept. of Justice Inspector General’s (IG) scathing report about improper government terrorism investigations between 2002 and 2006. The IG’s report said the FBI targeted various peace, justice and religious groups with no apparent justification and improperly conducted surveillance of anti-war rallies in Pennsylvania, and groups such as The Catholic Worker, Quakers, and Greenpeace.  According to the IG’s report, the FBI even placed non-violent activists on terrorist watch lists and placed peace groups “under its ‘Acts of Terrorism’ classification.”  The FBI followed people to parks, libraries, etc. and even secretly searched their personal trash.

Using the guise of anti-terrorism to target and intimidate domestic peace groups and and anti-war activists is a serious abuse of government power.  The mindset behind such actions is made clear by a spokesperson for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC) back in 2003 trying to defend unjustified targeting of peace activists without factual evidence.  CATIC Spokesperson Van Winkle said: “You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that’s being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that (protest),” said Van Winkle, “You can almost argue that a protest against (the “war on terror”) is a terrorist act.”

By the above account, it looks like we are all terrorists if we want to stop war and have a just and peaceful world for future generations. I suppose things could be worse.  We could be put on the kill list (instead of the watch list) — targeted for assassination by the CIA as a terror suspect as many people, including U.S. citizens abroad, already are. The Obama administration is claiming “State Secrets” in a lawsuit challenging such all inclusive executive authority.  No Miranda Rights.  No right to an attorney. No formal charge, No trial.  Just the fast track to summary execution by a CIA hit squad or a missile firing drone aircraft.  What ever happened to the Constitutional demand  that “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?”

Refuse To Be Silent!  Stand Up For Peace!

1. Mourn all victims of violence. 2. Reject war as a solution. 3. Defend civil liberties. 4. Oppose all discrimination, anti-Islamic, anti-Semitic, etc.
5. Seek peace through justice in Hawai`i and around the world.
Contact: Malu `Aina Center for Non-violent Education & Action P.O. Box AB Kurtistown, Hawai`i 96760.
Phone (808) 966-7622.  Email ja@interpac.net http://www.malu-aina.org
Hilo Peace Vigil leaflet (Oct. 1, 2010 – 472nd week) – Friday 3:30-5PM downtown Post Office

Jim Albertini

Malu ‘Aina Center for Non-violent Education & Action

P.O.Box AB

Kurtistown, Hawai’i 96760

phone: 808-966-7622

email: JA@interpac.net

Visit us on the web at: www.malu-aina.org

‘Scapel’ can’t remove viral diseases of imperialism

The New York Times has published a new article in its series “Shadow Wars”, about the expanding covert war that rages in many countries even as troop withdrawals are planned for Iraq and debated for Afghanistan.

The article makes several important observations to consider:

  • “While the stealth war began in the Bush administration, it has expanded under President Obama…”
  • “The administration’s demands have accelerated a transformation of the C.I.A. into a paramilitary organization as much as a spying agency, which some critics worry could lower the threshold for future quasi-military operations.”
  • “For its part, the Pentagon is becoming more like the C.I.A. Across the Middle East and elsewhere, Special Operations troops under secret “Execute Orders” have conducted spying missions that were once the preserve of civilian intelligence agencies. With code names like Eager Pawn and Indigo Spade, such programs typically operate with even less transparency and Congressional oversight than traditional covert actions by the C.I.A.”
  • “…private contractors have taken on a prominent role, raising concerns that the United States has outsourced some of its most important missions to a sometimes unaccountable private army.”

The full implications of these changes and the blurring of traditional lines of authority and accountability for military operations are not yet known.  A disturbing revelation is the fact that old covert operatives of the Iran-Contra era have been recalled to run these new covert operations:

Michael G. Vickers, who helped run the C.I.A.’s campaign to funnel guns and money to the Afghanistan mujahedeen in the 1980s and was featured in the book and movie “Charlie Wilson’s War,” is now the top Pentagon official overseeing Special Operations troops around the globe. Duane R. Clarridge, a profane former C.I.A. officer who ran operations in Central America and was indicted in the Iran-contra scandal, turned up this year helping run a Pentagon-financed private spying operation in Pakistan.

These are some of the same guys that created the “blowback” problem of Al-Qaeda, who were initially trained, funded and armed by the C.I.A.

These developments have alarmed even old covert operatives such as Jack Devine, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who was involved in the covert war against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Devine was quoted as saying:  “We got the covert action programs under well-defined rules after we had made mistakes and learned from them…Now, we’re coming up with a new model, and I’m concerned there are not clear rules.”

The new covert strategy has been touted as a surgically precise ‘scapel’, in contrast to the ‘hammer’ of conventional warfare.  But a scapel can be a poor tool to remove a viral phenomenon such as the global networked resistance that has spread as a reaction to imperialism and globalization.

>><<

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/world/15shadowwar.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

Secret Assault on Terrorism Widens on Two Continents

By SCOTT SHANE, MARK MAZZETTI and ROBERT F. WORTH

Published: August 14, 2010

WASHINGTON — At first, the news from Yemen on May 25 sounded like a modest victory in the campaign against terrorists: an airstrike had hit a group suspected of being operatives for Al Qaeda in the remote desert of Marib Province, birthplace of the legendary queen of Sheba.

But the strike, it turned out, had also killed the province’s deputy governor, a respected local leader who Yemeni officials said had been trying to talk Qaeda members into giving up their fight. Yemen’s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, accepted responsibility for the death and paid blood money to the offended tribes.

READ MORE

“Top Secret America” meets “Snoozepac”

The Washington Post is publishing a very important investigative series called “Top Secret America”, exploring the explosion of secret government programs in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks:

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

Some of the findings of their investigation include:

* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings – about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year – a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

Something that should be of interest to people concerned about Hawai’i and the Pacific region is that the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) is listed as having the “most activity” related to the various top secret programs covered by the investigation.  Check out the interactive graphics and maps.

PACOM has 6 top secret work locations and 27 contracting clients.  It conducts twenty-two out of twenty-three types of top secret work:

* Management consulting and administration

* Air and satellite operations

* Border control

* Counter-drug operations

* Counter-IED explosives operations

* Counterintelligence

* Cyber operations

* Disaster preparedness

* Facilities and Infrastructure

* Ground force operations

* Human intelligence

* Information technology

* Intelligence analysis

* Law enforcement

* Naval operations

* Nuclear operations

* Staffing and personnel

* Psychological operations

* Building and personal security

* Specialized military operations

* Technical intelligence

* Training

In contrast to the menacing profile of the military’s secret operations in Hawai’i painted by the Washington Post article, a former public affairs representative for the Marine Corps described the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercises as “snoozepac” and the “world’s largest floating cocktail party” in a private blog.  The Honolulu Star Advertiser reported:

On July 8 , DiNicolo wrote on her blog that despite its size, locale and agenda, “these (RIMPAC) games seem anything but exciting. Take away the French, and really, what’s left?”

“Snoozepac is 38 days of too many visitors gorging themselves on foreign and U.S. naval delicacies,” DiNicolo wrote. “Air assets become personal taxis transporting their fares from vessel to vessel. (Maybe that’s how it got its rep as the world’s largest floating cocktail party).”

DiNicolo insists the “cocktail party” reference was to social gatherings and not drinking, but RIMPAC officials found themselves explaining in-port social events aboard participating nation’s ships that did involve alcohol, including “Singapore Slings” being served up by that nation’s navy.

The old WWII slogan “Loose lips sink ships” could be rephrased “Loose lips sink careers”.  I guess some secrets are never meant to see the light of day.

Washington Post: Obama expands ‘secret war’ globally

President Obama is using more “extraterritorial” and “extralegal” tactics than Bush in the U.S. global and permanent state of imperial warfare.   The following article from the Washington Post describes how the Obama Administration has expanded the use of special forces to conduct covert operations in 75 countries, up from 60 countries the year before.   The U.S. is conducting illegal warfare in other countries without formal declarations of war or UN approval. Many civilians are killed in these long distance drone assassinations.

>><<

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304965_pf.html

U.S. ‘secret war’ expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role

By Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, June 4, 2010; A01

Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.

Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.

Commanders are developing plans for increasing the use of such forces in Somalia, where a Special Operations raid last year killed the alleged head of al-Qaeda in East Africa. Plans exist for preemptive or retaliatory strikes in numerous places around the world, meant to be put into action when a plot has been identified, or after an attack linked to a specific group.

The surge in Special Operations deployments, along with intensified CIA drone attacks in western Pakistan, is the other side of the national security doctrine of global engagement and domestic values President Obama released last week.

One advantage of using “secret” forces for such missions is that they rarely discuss their operations in public. For a Democratic president such as Obama, who is criticized from either side of the political spectrum for too much or too little aggression, the unacknowledged CIA drone attacks in Pakistan, along with unilateral U.S. raids in Somalia and joint operations in Yemen, provide politically useful tools.

Obama, one senior military official said, has allowed “things that the previous administration did not.”

‘More access’

Special Operations commanders have also become a far more regular presence at the White House than they were under George W. Bush’s administration, when most briefings on potential future operations were run through the Pentagon chain of command and were conducted by the defense secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“We have a lot more access,” a second military official said. “They are talking publicly much less but they are acting more. They are willing to get aggressive much more quickly.”

The White House, he said, is “asking for ideas and plans . . . calling us in and saying, ‘Tell me what you can do. Tell me how you do these things.’ ”

The Special Operations capabilities requested by the White House go beyond unilateral strikes and include the training of local counterterrorism forces and joint operations with them. In Yemen, for example, “we are doing all three,” the official said. Officials who spoke about the increased operations were not authorized to discuss them on the record.

The clearest public description of the secret-war aspects of the doctrine came from White House counterterrorism director John O. Brennan. He said last week that the United States “will not merely respond after the fact” of a terrorist attack but will “take the fight to al-Qaeda and its extremist affiliates whether they plot and train in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond.”

That rhetoric is not much different than Bush’s pledge to “take the battle to the enemy . . . and confront the worst threats before they emerge.” The elite Special Operations units, drawn from all four branches of the armed forces, became a frontline counterterrorism weapon for the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

But Obama has made such forces a far more integrated part of his global security strategy. He has asked for a 5.7 percent increase in the Special Operations budget for fiscal 2011, for a total of $6.3 billion, plus an additional $3.5 billion in 2010 contingency funding.

Bush-era clashes between the Defense and State departments over Special Operations deployments have all but ceased. Former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld saw them as an independent force, approving in some countries Special Operations intelligence-gathering missions that were so secret that the U.S. ambassador was not told they were underway. But the close relationship between Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is said to have smoothed out the process.

“In some places, we are quite obvious in our presence,” Adm. Eric T. Olson, head of the Special Operations Command, said in a speech. “In some places, in deference to host-country sensitivities, we are lower in profile. In every place, Special Operations forces activities are coordinated with the U.S. ambassador and are under the operational control of the four-star regional commander.”

Chains of command

Gen. David H. Petraeus at the Central Command and others were ordered by the Joint Staff under Bush to develop plans to use Special Operations forces for intelligence collection and other counterterrorism efforts, and were given the authority to issue direct orders to them. But those orders were formalized only last year, including in a CENTCOM directive outlining operations throughout South Asia, the Horn of Africa and the Middle East.

The order, whose existence was first reported by the New York Times, includes intelligence collection in Iran, although it is unclear whether Special Operations forces are active there.

The Tampa-based Special Operations Command is not entirely happy with its subordination to regional commanders and, in Afghanistan and Iraq, to theater commanders. Special Operations troops within Afghanistan had their own chain of command until early this year, when they were brought under the unified direction of the overall U.S. and NATO commander there, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and his operational deputy, Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez.

“Everybody working in CENTCOM works for Dave Petraeus,” a military official said. “Our issue is that we believe our theater forces should be under a Special Operations theater commander, instead of . . . Rodriguez, who is a conventional [forces] guy who doesn’t know how to do what we do.”

Special Operations troops train for years in foreign cultures and language, and consider themselves a breed apart from what they call “general purpose forces.” Special Operations troops sometimes bridle at ambassadorial authority to “control who comes in and out of their country,” the official said. Operations have also been hindered in Pakistan — where Special Operations trainers hope to nearly triple their current deployment to 300 — by that government’s delay in issuing the visas.

Although pleased with their expanded numbers and funding, Special Operations commanders would like to devote more of their force to global missions outside war zones. Of about 13,000 Special Operations forces deployed overseas, about 9,000 are evenly divided between Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Eighty percent of our investment is now in resolving current conflicts, not in building capabilities with partners to avoid future ones,” one official said.

Questions remain

The force has also chafed at the cumbersome process under which the president or his designee, usually Gates, must authorize its use of lethal force outside war zones. Although the CIA has the authority to designate targets and launch lethal missiles in Pakistan’s western tribal areas, attacks such as last year’s in Somalia and Yemen require civilian approval.

The United Nations, in a report this week, questioned the administration’s authority under international law to conduct such raids, particularly when they kill innocent civilians. One possible legal justification — the permission of the country in question — is complicated in places such as Pakistan and Yemen, where the governments privately agree but do not publicly acknowledge approving the attacks.

Former Bush officials, still smarting from accusations that their administration overextended the president’s authority to conduct lethal activities around the world at will, have asked similar questions. “While they seem to be expanding their operations both in terms of extraterritoriality and aggressiveness, they are contracting the legal authority upon which those expanding actions are based,” said John B. Bellinger III, a senior legal adviser in both of Bush’s administrations.

The Obama administration has rejected the constitutional executive authority claimed by Bush and has based its lethal operations on the authority Congress gave the president in 2001 to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons” he determines “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the Sept. 11 attacks.

Many of those currently being targeted, Bellinger said, “particularly in places outside Afghanistan,” had nothing to do with the 2001 attacks.