Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Judith Miller, Law and Disorder

Tuesday. I'm opening with something. I'll put my comments in it, this is a story on Judith Miller giving a speech:

"People need to know what the government is doing in order to debate," she said.

I believe that was Patrick Fitzgerald's argument, wasn't it? I didn't slam her for refusing to name her source. I'm not going to pretend she was the only one at the Times getting it wrong and spitting out what they were told (Warren Hoge, Michael R. Gordon, Dexy Filkins are three others).

Did the government out Valerie Plame? I think that's pretty clear to most people. Maybe Miller didn't realize that was what was going on when Scooter was feeding her? Maybe you need to say, "Judy, this is what you're running with tomorrow"? Maybe you can't be subtle with her?

Miller said the American media, however, give the federal government reason to doubt its motives and competence each time it is discovered that an article is plagiarized or gossip is reported as fact.

What? I don't think the government gets a flying crap about Jayson Blair if that's who she's trying to drag into the argument.

As for "gossip . . . reported as fact," if the Times couldn't print "Officials say . . ." -- which is gossip -- every day, they'd have a lot of empty pages.

The blurring of entertainment and news and the relaxing of journalistic standards can be seen in online bloggers who are critical of people without giving them an opportunity to respond or who don't post corrections when they learn that what they have posted is wrong, she said.

What the hell is she talking about here? Blurring of entertainment and news? Okay, that's been going on forever. Good point, most media critics make it and have for years. Relaxing of journalistic standards? Let's give her the benefit of the doubt on her Iraq coverage before the war and say she believed in what she wrote, okay? Well if she had used journalistic standards, she wouldn't have egg on her face now. She didn't. She ran with what she was told. She scribbled it down like a stenographer.

Bloggers? What the hell is she talking about? I know C.I. posted Felicity Barringer's take on the commentary C.I. provided, I know Elaine posted Eric Alterpunk's laughable e-mail (and Rebecca, C.I. and Elaine responded to the "Cindy Brady of the faux left"). Corrections? Is she talking about the big-assed babies of the New York Times who e-mail C.I. saying, "You left a letter out of my name! A whole letter! How dare you!" When those come in, C.I. goes back and corrects it. Only for writers. Everyone else can go screw themselves. C.I. does try to get writing credit correct. Otherwise, you can get a nickname or you can get a typo and (as Cedric would say) Oh well . . .

To the best of my knowledge, Miller has never e-mailed C.I. A supporter of her's did (psuedo big name in the press). No request for a correction. Just a long gripe-fest about how Miller shouldn't be forced to testify. (The reply, from Jess, noted that C.I. had defended Miller's right not to testify. Had always defended it and still does. Jess provided links to over 30 entries. Did the whiner e-mail back, "Oops, my bad"? No. Hell no.) There is a reporter who wrote a hateful e-mail that Jess and Ava read. This reporter was all pissy about something C.I. said about an article. There was no correction, there would be none. The reporter was guilty of what C.I. wrote. C.I. knew it and knew it before a word got written. Ava knew it (and I'm being vague here because I don't want Ava and Jess to hear it from C.I. about talking about e-mails -- but this one so nasty and vile that they did forward it to me). Let's say the writer wrote about bananas. Ava knew from her father that the banana story was being pushed by the banana lobby. That they'd been pushing it for two weeks. C.I. heard about it from two friend in TV who were laughing about the idea that anyone would write about bananas and from a print editor who had a reporter who'd been hard sold on writing about bananas but had resisted the hard sell. There was a bet between C.I. and the two TV friends about who would be the idiot to go with the banana story. Two weeks after it started being pushed, X went with it. When noting how stupid the report was, C.I. noted that the story had been pushed for two weeks. X got all nasty in the e-mail (though didn't deny it was pushed -- guess he's a fool and not a liar) and just went off with the sort of stuff that would have Daniel Okrent screaming about 'threatening' e-mails. Only this didn't go to a reporter, it came from a reporter.

Jim's always telling C.I. that the last entry at The Common Ills should be a collection of those e-mails. (It won't happen.) But C.I. does read that crap. And someone who has a snit fit in an e-mail? C.I. doesn't hold a grudge. X has gotten compliments at The Common Ills before and since.

Now C.I. doesn't identify as a "blogger," but I can't imagine any blogger who wouldn't do, at the very least, what C.I. does. If it's a scream-fest by someone who was commented on at the site, C.I. does read that. C.I. does consider what's in the e-mail. Rebecca will tell you C.I. will try to see it from the reporter's side.

I don't think Judith Miller knows what she's talking about. Is she talking about Perez Hilton? Did one of her friends get outed at that site? If so, oh well. It's a gossip site.

Now their rumors that were hurtful to Miller. I know that because I saw them and was going to note them here. I called C.I. and was told, "I'm not going to tell you what to post or not but ___ says Miller's very upset about it and they also aren't true." So I didn't put them up here. I'm not doing it now. While it's probably true that some blogs did put them up, they didn't write 'em. They were posting what a mainstream magazine had printed. Bloggers may have popularized the rumors but they didn't start them.

"I'm worried about bloggers," she said. "(A post) starts as a rumor and within 24 hours it's repeated as fact."

The only other thing I can think of is Arianna Huffington's comments about Miller's book deal. I don't consider Huffington a blogger. I don't mean that as a slap but she was a best selling author before The Huffing Post (and probably still is one). I also think she understands journalistic standards and could probably tutor Miller on them if Miller would ask for help.

While she advocates a federal shield law to protect mainstream journalists from divulging their sources, she doesn't favor extending that to bloggers who don't follow the standards and ethnics of the journalism industry.

Now that's what pissed me off. I didn't attack her for not revealing her sources. But she's drawing a line saying she can do that but bloggers can't. Here's a question, what about when bloggers and reporters work together to 'create' a story? That happened not all that long ago and it happened in the AP and the New York Times.

The issue here is can they keep their source private? She wants to base it on whether or not 'bloggers . . . follow the standards and ethnics of the journalism industry." I think that's supposed to be "ethic" but the source for the article is CJR so don't expect much in their abilities to communicate. But if the rule for not naming a source is whether or not someone follows standards and ethcis, Miller wouldn't have gotten any defense. I doubt even C.I. would have said Miller had a right to not reveal her source if that was 'the rule.'

Still, she wouldn't restrict a blogger's right to publish online. She said some bloggers have been invaluable in uncovering government flaws.
"I'm glad to welcome them as long as they agree to the standards," she said.

I'm not trying to be cruel here, but what she's welcoming to? She's not an employed journalist anymore. It's doubtful she will be in the next few years (possibly never). So what she's welcoming them to? The unemployment line?

Even if she was I.F. Stone born anew, it's really not her job to welcome anyone.

I realize that she wants to redo her image. I know she tried to visit the blogger who is jailed (Josh White) for refusing to give the authorities what they want. I give her credit for that. But someone needs to pull her aside and let her know that her 'name' is not a good one. She used to have a site, for her defense, and if she thinks people need to do corrections when they get it wrong (something I agree with), then she needs to do corrections to her own pre-war work.

I'm really not interested in kicking her while she's down. I don't feel sorry for her but I think she's ended up the focus when there are a lot more who did their part to keep the truth from the people. But when she's making an idiot of herself and dragging other people into it, I will say something.

I do consider myself a blogger and, NEWSFLASH, I'm not waiting on Judy's invite or anyone else's. I'm not seeking her approval or anyone else's. I do my thing at my site. If people don't like it, they'll stop dropping by. That's their right. Just like if someone doesn't want to read a paper, they won't read it.

Miller needs to work on her image and she won't save it by making unnamed references to Jayson Blair or by hectoring bloggers. She got caught doing bad reporting. She can't blame bloggers for the fact that they noted her bad reporting.

Now let's talk about Law and Disorder which airs on Mondays on WBAI and on other stations as well. It's a one hour radio program (you can listen online) and Heidi Boghosian (National Lawyers Guild), Michael Smith, Dalia Hashad (Amnesty International) and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) are the four hosts. Michael Smith (and all of them) belong to all three organizations in parenthesis. But three got parenthesis because they hold offices in the organizations. They are all four lawyers and the Michaels are also authors.

So the week before they did part one of their series (four-part) on the increasing police state in the United States under the cover of 'national security.' This week was the second part and the focus was on the people who have been called 'enemy combatants' by the administration. In the first part, they stressed many things but I think the main point was that 9-11 was a crime but instead of treating it like such (in terms of enforcement and prosecution), the adminstration turned it into a "war" and made a power grab for powers they'd never be able to get any other way. And Ruth and I talked about the episode this evening so thanks to Ruth for pointing some stuff out, sharing and listening. And thanks to Tracey, her granddaughter, who dropped off the tape yesterday. Eddie did e-mail. He was listening on WBAI and he missed the end of the show because they just stopped it short with the claim that there wasn't time and supposedly the producer didn't get it to them in time -- Geoff Brady is the producer. If that's the case, I think they could still play the entire show. I really didn't need to hear the guy, I forget his name, telling me the show was over and what was about to start. Every program introduces itself in their opening so I think listeners who were new to WBAI could have figured out what the next program, Out FM, was in a matter of seconds. He also talked over the part of the show where Michael Ratner was telling people they could go to the Law and Disorder website. I also heard from Billie who asked me what happened on WBAI because she listened to the show at the show's website. I wrote her back and she said, she listened to the show Monday morning before WBAI airs it because it was up at the website so she wondered about the 'the program arrived late' thing. Billie and Eddie both wish the show aired on the radio in Dallas-Fort Worth.

So this episode, they looked at the ones who had been labeled 'enemy combatants' and how that had effected them and had effected the law. Because when you pass those 'war powers,' you destroy the law. This meant speaking with Gita Guitierezz who is also with the Center for Constitutional Rights and has represented clients held at Guantanamo. The point was made and I'll make it here that these prisoners (I don't use 'detainee') have never been found guilty of anything. They've just been locked up and some weren't even from Afghanistan. Some were just rounded up because somebody wanted to make money by turning people over or someone had a grudge against someone. Guitierezz (hope I spelled that right, C.I. spelled it to me over the phone but I may have screwed it up) talked about how you had to assume that your conversations with your client were being listened to. They talked about the force feeding of prisoners and other things that had stripped them of their rights. But they have no rights because they're not a real legal category, they're a created one by the Bully Boy. And they've been held all this time and are still being held. Could you take that? Four years, five years, six years? At what point does America say, "Enough!" The administration won't. What they've done is torture and they will never let the men out because that would reveal the crimes done to them while they have been held. They also talked about how the administration (and I think this is an argument Condi has made especially) pins the blame for not releasing on the host country the prisoners are from. They (adminstration) has all these rules about things after they're released and other countries respond, there's nothing you gave me that justifies me spying on them.

Jonathan Hafetz was a guest and he's with the Brennan Center for Justice. His client was
Jarallah Al-Marri who was kidnapped in Pakistan (by the US) and carried to Bagram. There was talk in the first segment and this one about how Bagram goes under the radar and the little changes made with Guantanamo aren't being made at Bagram because most people don't even know about. Not only was he kidnapped, but Donald Rumsfled authorized another 'kidnapping' where Al-Marri was supposed to think he had been moved to another country where torture was possible but he was still in US custody. Just screwing with his mind and that's torture. This adminstration practices torture and they need to be held accountable for it. Al-Marri was torturted (like when his head was slammed into walls -- that's just one example).

Remember Jose Padilla? The "dirty bomber." Colleen Rowley was testifying about the government's refusal to follow leads before 9-11 in Congress and J-Ass, who was attorney general then, holds a press conference, from Russia, to announce that a "dirty bomber" has been captured, but Padilla was taken into custody days before. It was all a show effort to change the day's news. Jose Padilla is a US citizen but Bully Boy created the "right" to call someone (any American) an "enemy combatant" and hold them as long as he damn well pleased. Andy Patel was the guest. He's one of Padilla's lawyers. There's also a woman who's been representing him since the beginning. I don't know how many other lawyers he has but he needs everyone of them. The administration is no longer calling him a "dirty bomber." They have no evidence of that and never did. But it changed the news cycle for a day and scared the hell out of a lot of Americans which keeps everyone stupid and afraid to ask questions or speak out. (I think speaking out is the topic next week.) So that was the show. Be sure to check out Like Maria Said Paz for Elaine's thoughts tonight. Now here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, November 14, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, another mass kidnapping rocks Baghdad, Ramadi's under attack, Donald Rumsfled learns it's not a lot of fun to be seen as a war criminal (Kissinger makes it look so much easier!), and press estimates say "at least 82 people" have died from violence in Iraq today.
Starting with
KPFA's Flashpoints on Monday, Nora Barrows Friedman interviewed activist, journalist, author and vet Mike Ferner.

Nora Barrows Friedman: Mike, as a veteran, what can you say about the growing momentum of combat of soldiers who are starting to organize and are refusing to serve, refusing to go to Iraq and fight Bush's illegal war?

Mike Ferner: "I think it's one of the best developments we've seen happen. I hope it increases exponentially. And I hope hundreds and hundreds of soldiers will take a look at their comrades who are doing this and say: 'That's something I should seriously think about.' I hope that we get large numbers of these soldiers just plain refusing to be deployed. If they're thinking about doing it, they need to call the
G.I. Rights Hotline [(800) 394-9544; outside the US, (510) 465-1472 -- additional numbers are at the site], the need to seriously considering doing it prior to being deployed because once you're there [Iraq] it's far more difficult. But I would love to see whole companies and battalions of people just sit down and refuse to board that plane to be taken back to Iraq. I got out of the Navy as a Const. Objector during the Vietnam war and at some point you just have to look into your heart and ask can i continue to do this and can I live with myself given the culpability that I'm going to have given that I'm following the orders of a government engaged in an illegal war."

War resisters? Has independent media bothered to note, forget cover, that
Ehren Watada will be court-martialed? No. D.D. Delaney (Port Folio Weekly) reports that Watada is facing up to "eight-and-a-half years in prison for the charges the Army has brought" against him. Meanwhile another war resister, Mark Wilkerson, who awaits word on what the military intends to do with his case, notes e.e. cummings' "I Sing of Olaf Glad and Big" -- a poem about a man "whose warmest heart recoiled at war; a conscientiour object-or". Wilkerson served one tour in Iraq and then applied for conscientious objector status only to see that denied. Following the denial, Wilkerson self-checked out for a year-and-a-half before announcing August 31st that he was turning himself in. As Wilkerson told
Dennis Bernstein on
KPFA's Flashpoints August 31st, when his c.o. status was denied, he at first prepared a rebuttal but was told it would be shelved until he returned from his second deployment to Iraq. In an echo of Mike Lerner's comments yesterday, Wilkerson told Bernstein August 31st, "I completely stand by my decision. For me this was a time in my life when I decided I had to make a stand regardless of whether [it meant] prison or death".
many avert their eyes, the war drags on. Today in Baghdad, another mass kidnapping -- the sheer number of those kidnapped may generate some interest. Most press estimates agree to at least 100 and many go with 150. (Christopher Bodeen of AP goes with 130 based upon a later statement by the Health Education Ministry.) CBS and AP note: "CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports . . . that about 80 men in some kind of Iraqi police uniforms surrounded the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education building in broad daylight and then fanned out inside the building, according to witnesses. The abductors then led the men and women captives out of the building to waiting pickup trucks and left the area, all before the real Iraqi police showed up." Pedistrians outside were encourage to clear the streets, inside the four story building, women and men were separated with the women locked in a room and only the men apparently kidnapped by people claiming to be with the Iraq Public Integrity Commission (which does not exist). What appears to be blood was noted on the floor of an entryway, phone receivers were ripped from phones, ashtrays knocked over. CNN reports that a witness "saw the gunmen check identity cards, pick out Sunni employees, including a man 'who was just delivering tea'." Sam Knight (Times of London) reports that the kidnappers used "around 40 new camouflaged pick-up vehicles" and "[a]round 80 gunmen dressed as police commandos" were involved. Whether or not they were part of the Iraqi police force has not been established.
AFP reports that "five police commanders" have been arrested and quotes Major General Abdel Karim Khalaf stating that they "should be held responsible." Reuters quotes a civil servant who witnessed the mass abductions stating that, while this was going on, "I saw two police patrols watching, doing nothing." Christopher Bodeen (AP) reports that "the commander of the police brigade in charge of the area and three other officers" were also "taken into custody." Reuters also quotes the minister of Higher Education, Abd Dhiab, who states: "As far as we know, this area is full of police and Defence Ministry checkpoints and we know police vehicles followed the kidnappers to a specific area and after that we don't know what happened." The New York Times notes that: "After the kidnappings, the minister of higher education, Abdel Salam Thiab, a Sunni, rushed to Parliament, where he interrupted a national televised session to denounce the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite, for rebuffing repeated requests for improved security." CNN rounds that out: "Al-Ajili said he had sent a letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki last week, asking for better protection for universities and education buildings. The defense and interiour ministers had rejected earlier requests for 800 university guards, he said."
Reuters notes the targeting of educators since the beginning of the illegal war as well as this: "Just this month, Jasim al-Thahabi, the dean of Baghdad's University's Administration and Economics, was killed with his wife and son in a drive-by shooting." That was November 2nd and AP estimated he was at least the 155th educator killed since the start of the illegal war.
Al Jazeera reports that Ramadi was attacked yesterday by US forces who "destroyed several houses in an attack on al-Dhubat district" and quotes Dr. Abdullah Salih, of a hospital in Ramadi stating that 35 corpses had been brought in. Though military flacks played dumb when asked for a quote by news services, they later issued their own statement that 11 'insurgent' were killed in Ramadi where alleged 'insurgents' allegedly intended to plant alleged explosive devices and later they observed more alleged 'insurgents' allegedly planting more alleged explosive devices but "Coalition Forces have conducted no air strikes in the vicinity of these events today."
Al Jazeera notes a car bombing in west Baghdad which took three lives and wounded seven people. Reuters notes a mortar attack that left six injured and four dead in al-Zuhur, a bus station bombing in Baghdad that wounded ten and left two dead, a car bombing in central Baghdad which killed 10 and injured 25, and a car bombing in Tikrit that left ten wounded. Christopher Bodeen (AP) reports a car bomb in "along a highway linking downtown Baghdad with the Shiite slum of Sadr City" left 21 killed and 25 injured and threw Mohammed Ali "from his motor cycle" as he was attempting to drive home after work -- Ali states: "I could see people on fire. We tried to rescue some women from a minibus, but they died in our arms."
Al Jazeera notes an ambush near the Iranian border that left seven people in a mini-bus dead and two others wounded while two police officers were shot dead in Diyala.
Reuters reports ten corpses were discovered in Baquba ("bound, blindfolded . . . gunshot wounds").
In addition,
the British military has released the names of the four soldiers who died Sunday in Basra while on boat patrol: Jason Hylton (father of two, 33 y.o.), Ben Nowak (27 y.o.), Lee Hopkins (35 y.o.) and Sharron Elliott (34 y.o.). Reuters notes that Elliott is "the second British female servicewoman to die in action."
Returning to Nora Barrows Friedman's interview with Mike Ferner on
KPFA's Flashpoints yesterday (this is the segment Rebecca was noting last night), the two of them spoke of Abu Sifa, which is near Balad, and what was taking place there as it was under the supervision of the US army's Fourth Infantry Division. Shortly before Ferner arrived (about six weeks), 80 males, of various ages, had been rounded up and taken away. Following that . . .

Mike Ferner: The army came again late one night with the Bradley fighting vehicle and just emptied the few remaining residents in this one particular house and just blew the hell out of it. And did that again a few days later. So when I was visiting the . . . interviewing some of the army troops it was from that very same batallion. and luckily I was able to have interviewed the iraqis so i had times and dates and names and all the details. And I asked Lt. Col Nathan Sassaman, who was the battalion commander, "What's the deal? How come you guys came and rounded up everybody in this village and you're only looking for one person?" And he said, "Yeah, we got him." And I said, "Yeah, I know. You took eighty-some --" He said, "Well it wasn't 80, it was 76." And I said, "Well, okay, whatever the number was." He said, "Well we found weapons buried in the surrounding fields there and these were all suspected terrorists." Including a couple of very elderly men that had to be helped into the truck and young teenagers and so forth. And I said, "Well then how come you came back a few days later and blew up this one house?" He said, "Well we had been getting mortar fire from that area and we wanted to send them a message." And I said, "Well what about -- came back a few days later and did the same thing?" He said, "Well they continued mortaring our base." Well this is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. It's called Collective punishment and because you're getting mortar fire from one area, most of the time you don't know exactly where it's coming from, and uh to go into a village and just blow up a couple of houses to try to teach them a lesson is a war crimes. The American soldiers that were there told these folks, "We'll make this place look like the moon and you'll never be able to grow anything here again." If that isn't terrorism, I don't know what is. It was not even tried to be denied by the US Army officers that were repsonsible for it. So you start multiply this, over and over again and around the country. And it should be no surprise to anybody that we're not welcome there and that there's a violent armed resistance to our presence that's going to continue until we leave.
Fener's new book is entitled
Inside the Red Zone and he'll be at Spritzers, 734 Central Ave., Alameda, CA on Wednesday at 7:00 p.m.
Before moving on to another topic, let's note that Nathan Sassaman expressed shock at another event (
assault on Iraqis through the use of the Tigris River leading to one death). It would be so bad that the New York Times' Dexy Filkins, who spent a great deal of time with Sassaman (apparently in sleep quarters -- Dexy: "He never took his boots off" -- embedded much?) would later write of him in "The Fall of the Warrior King" (New York Times). Dexy went far back with Sassaman as Ira Chernus noted. In the 'Warrior King' piece, as Ty noted, Dexy's question of "Where is the line?" could apply to his own 'reporting' which addresses Sassaman ordering the destruction of homes and Dexy terming those sort of actions 'non-lethal force.'
In Germany, the
Center for Constitutional Rights, the International Federation for Human Rights, the Republican Attorneys' Association, et al. have filed their criminal complaint against Donald Rumsfeld and others because "[f]rom Donald Rumsfeld, go down, the political and military leaders in charge of ordering, allowing and implementing abusive interrogations techniques in the context of the 'War on Terror' since September 11, 2001 must be investigated and held accountable." That includes then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, George Tenet, Ricardo Sanchez, David S. Addington and William James Haynes Jr. CCR notes, "The complaint is being filed under the Code of Crimes against International Law (CCIL), enacted by Germany in compliance with the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal court in 2002, which Germany ratified. It enables the German Federal Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute crimes constituting a violation of the CCIL, irrespective of the location of the defendant or plantiff, the place where the crime was carried out." CCR has set up a page at their website which focuses on this criminal complaint. AFP reports: "A key witness for the bid to put Rumsfeld and others on trial in Germany is the former commander of US prisons in Iraq, Brig. General Janis Karpinski, who alleges she was made a scapegoat for the Abu Ghraib scandal." Michael Ratner (president of the Center for Constitutional Rights) tells Germany's Der Spiegel, "These crimes are not the work of a few bad apples. They were planned and executed at the highest levels of the US government." Der Spiegel notes, "It's been a bad few days for former United States secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld."
In other legal news,
CBS and AP report that the Pendleton Eight now has four agreeing to plea bargain with Jerry E. Shumate Jr. becoming the latest to cop a deal in the April death of Hashim Ibrahim Awad in Hamdania. Schumate's attorney, Steve Immel, tells The Seattle Times that Shumate has admitted to the crime of kidnapping an Iraqi but that he thought it was an 'insurgent' until Awad was dead. The other three who have entered into plea bargains are Melson J. Bacos, John Jodka III and Tyler A. Jackson.
Ehren Watada's father, Bob Watada, and his step-mother, Rosa Sakanishi, continue their speaking tour to raise awareness on Ehren but that tour is winding down. It ends on the 17th (Joan noted Sunday that there's an event in Honolulu on Sunday). and then they'll be in Hawaii preparing for the court-martial. In addition, Ehren's mother Carolyn Ho has also been speaking out. The US military announced Thursday that they were planning to court-martial Ehren Watada. Those interested in catching the speaking tour, a full schedule can be found here, will need to grab the final dates which include:

Nov 14, TBA St. Louis, Mo. Location: Friends Meeting House, 1001 Park Avenue Sponsors: Veterans for Peace Chapter 161, 314-754-2651Contact: Chuc Smith, 314-721-1814, vfpch61@riseup.netiraq

Nov. 15, Norfolk, VA, Location: Norfolk/Virginia Beach, 40th Street Stage, 809 W 40th St (corner 40th St and Colley Ave -- across from Felini's), Sponsors: Veterans For Peace National In Affiliation with the Norfolk Catholic Worker, Local members of VFP, Military Families Speak Out, and the Active Duty Military Project, Contacts: Tom Palumbo, DissentingSoldier@Yahoo.Com,
757-470-9797, Ann Williams, 703-867-2174

Nov 16, Noon, Asheville, NC, Location: TBA -- Media Conference, Sponsor: Veterans For Peace Chapter 99, Contact: Tim Pluta, 828-645-1717,

Nov 16, 2PM, Asheville, NC, Location: Mars Hill College -- Class Presentation
Sponsor: Veterans For Peace Chapter 99, Contact: Tim Pluta, 828-645-1717, timpluta@hotmail.com

Nov 16, 7PM, Asheville, NC, Location: University of North Carolina -- Public Presentation, Sponsor: Veterans For Peace Chapter 99, Contact: Tim Pluta, 828-645-1717, timpluta@hotmail.com , Lyle Peterson, 828-206-0245, Ahmad Daniels, War Resister Vietnam Era (appears in "Sir, No Sir!"), Mark Gibney Human Rights, International & Constitutional Law, Law, Ethics and Public Policy

Nov 17, 11:00AM, Asheville, NC, Location: Warren Wilson College, Sponsor: Veterans For Peace Chapter 99, Contact: Tim Pluta, 828-645-1717, timpluta@hotmail.com
, Lyle Peterson, 828-206-0245, Professor Paul Magnarella (Peace Studies, Warren Wilson College)

Nov 17, 7PM, Atlanta, GA, Location: The First Iconium Baptist Church, Sponsor: Veterans For Peace Chapter 125, The Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition/Atlanta, Atlanta WAND, Contact: Debra Clark, 770-855-6163, dclark@antiwar.com

mikey likes it

ehren watada
bob watada
dennis bernstein
nora barrows friedman
Mike Fernermark wilkerson
the third estate sunday review
mikey likes it
sex and politics and screeds and attitude