Nonviolent Resistance

In Solidarity with Occupy Wall St. at Vietnam Veterans Memorial

The newly formed Veterans Peace Team went into action with Occupy Wall St. on May Day. Eight members were arrested at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in New York City's Wall St. district, as they stood their ground in the face of a mass police invasion of the park.

By Charles M. Young

I got home at 10:00 pm on the nose, and the first thing I did was take off my shoes after 14 hours of May Day marching with 30-40,000 other conscientious objectors to capitalism. My feet hurt, okay? My second priority was turning on the local news, which happened to be Fox Five New York. According to my watch, it was 10:02. I didn’t see the first few seconds of the story, but it must have have been the lead. There was Ray Kelly, the chief of police, talking about...not Occupy Wall Street?...no, it was a video of him on some talk show, warning of the apparently imminent threat of Arab terrorists “implanting” bombs in their bodies and blowing up airplanes and buildings.

Seven citizen activists were arrested for calling for an end to drone warfare at Camp Williams/Volk Field in Wisconsin on Tuesday April 24.  They are joining together with activists in New York, Nevada, California, Missouri, Illinois, and Maryland who are risking arrest in actions as they raise their voices to draw attention to the travesty and illegality of drone warfare.

Camp Williams/Volk Field, a training site for drone pilots, is located in rural central Wisconsin.  As families in Wisconsin are struggling to make ends meet, there are plans underway to build an $8 million drone training facility at the base, using both state and federal money. 

UPDATE: Date of this may have been February 2012

I appreciate the bench’s effort to understand the arguments made - arguments involving local law, international law and, even the principles of civil disobedience. 

Your Honor my name is Elliott Adams, pro se defendant and I am giving Closing Arguments. 

Thank you for your care, patience and deliberateness during this trial.

International Law expert Ramsey Clark testified that international law appliers here in DeWitt.

He testified that drone attacks are illegal.

He testified that the law obligates us, as individuals, to obstruct war crimes and violations of international law.

He testified that the law obligates us, as individuals, to get our government to obey international law.

Everything we did on 22 April was in compliance with international law, the supreme law of the land.

He testified that law requires the Judge to decide if our acts were incompliance with international law or not.  And that the Judge of a court like this has the power and obligation to enforce international law.

To the Service Members of Hancock Air Base,

Each one of you, when you joined the United States Armed Forces or police, publicly promised to uphold the United States Constitution.  We take this opportunity to call your attention to Article VI of the Constitution, which states:

'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; (and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.)'

This clause is known as the supremacy clause, for it actually creates the United States as a legal entity.

The Constitution says, in the supremacy clause, that, without exception, treaties shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

From Judy Bellows

20-Year Veteran Pleads Guilty to Act of Civil Disobedience

President of Veterans For Peace Disrupted Congressional "Super Committee"

Judge Expresses Sympathy With Criticism of Government, Imposes Minimum Sentence

Retired Naval Commander Leah Bolger pled guilty to the charge of Unlawful Conduct -- Disruption of Congress at a hearing before Judge Stuart Nash in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Thursday, April 12th 2012. Bolger, who is a peace activist and the President of Veterans For Peace, interrupted a public hearing of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, commonly known as the Super Committee on October 26th, 2011 http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/JointDef.

In her statement to the Judge, Bolger said, "I have come to understand what millions of Americans already know—that the actual majority will of the people is of little concern to those in power. We can demonstrate and petition and write letters until we are blue in the face, but those actions are virtually worthless, as we can't compete. Our voice is drowned out by the power of the money coming from the lobbyists and corporate interests. Money equals speech."

Though the maximum penalty for this infraction is 6 months in jail and/or a $750 fine, Judge Nash sentenced Bolger to 60 days incarceration and suspended that sentence. He also required her to make a $50 payment to a victims of crime fund and to perform 20 hours of community service, which Bolger will perform by working 20 hours for Veterans for Peace. She is on probation for nine months and faces the risk of having the 60-day sentence imposed, but says she is committed to continuing to speak out and protest, including when NATO comes to Chicago in May.

Judge Nash heard testimony from Retired Associate Judge Art Brennan who said, "Leah Bolger is not alone in her thinking. Millions of us would do what she is doing if we could summon the energy and the courage to tell our government what it really needs to know. Leah is charged with the misdemeanor of interfering or disrupting Congress. Far from it! She did not interfere with members of Congress doing their duty, representing the people, meeting and deliberating. Instead, she added her own careful words to a committee that needed to hear from the people that Congressional leaders are elected to represent--someone other than the military industrial complex and the corporate super-citizens."

Brennan's thoughts were echoed by attorney/activist Kevin Zeese who told Judge Nash, "In 45 seconds retired Commander Leah Bolger did more to represent the views of Americans and tell the true facts about the deficit than all of the elected representatives on the Joint Committee…(she) did an incredibly brave and patriotic act of citizenship."

Bolger's attorney Mark Goldstone also spoke in support of her action.

Judge Nash said twice that he sympathized with Bolger's criticism of the government. She had asked the Super Committee to stop ignoring the public's demand that wars be ended, military spending be reduced, and the rich be taxed. Nash, however, said that 300,000,000 people cannot all come and interrupt a Congressional hearing. After her court appearance, Bolger said that she would have liked to be able to tell the judge that if our representatives represented us, nobody would have to interrupt them. "It is a disgrace that we have to break the law in order to speak to our government," Bolger said.

Nash's imposition of such a minimal sentence was greeted by cheering from the packed courtroom and by multiple offers to pay the $50 on Leah's behalf. Bolger does not view the $50 paid to a victims' fund as a fine. She asked the court to impose no fine, as she believed no one should pay for permission to speak to our government. "I'm gratified," Bolger said afterward, "that the judge agreed I should pay no fine." The judge also imposed no "stay-away" order barring Bolger from Capitol Hill, despite the government's request for one.

Bolger is also supported by author and radio/TV host Thom Hartmann who called Bolger's actions "a courageous act of civil disobedience" and compared her to Susan B. Anthony. Other notables supporting Bolger include Ben Cohen, Michael Moore, and prominent activist and former presidential candidate, Ralph Nader who said, "Bolger showed what active citizens should be doing peacefully--confronting the corruption head on and making sure the public knows what is really going on. She should be honored for her actions."

By Dave Lindorff

I've often wondered why so many innocent people who are shot by police end up dead.

Granted that police officers spend a fair amount of time training with their service revolvers, and are thus likely to be better shots with a pistol than your average gun-owner. But even so, in so many cases where some unarmed person is shot by police, the result is death, and it makes you wonder how cops, often in the dark and on the run, manage with their notoriously hard-to-aim pistols to hit a vital organ with such depressing regularity.

By Dave Lindorff

Back in the early 1980s, I had the extraordinary good fortune to get to meet one of my literary heroes, Kurt Vonnegut, up close and personal.  We shared a police wagon, sitting next to each other for a ride to the station to be booked for blocking the door to the South African consulate in a demonstration against that country’s then policy of white rule and apartheid.

I can’t say I got to know the author very well, but he was quite friendly and interesting to talk to, and after our arrest and booking was over, and we were released, I shared a cab as far as his house.

Disruption of Congressional “Super Committee” could result in 6-month sentence

Retired Naval Commander Leah Bolger will appear in court Thursday, April 12^th 2012 on charges stemming from her arrest on October 26^th, 2011.  Bolger, who is a peace activist and the President of Veterans For Peace, interrupted a public hearing of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, commonly known as the Super Committee.

In a calm, articulate manner Bolger spoke for nearly a minute in the well of the Senate hearing room before Capitol Hill police escorted her out and placed her under arrest.  Prominent social activist Ben Cohen praised Bolger for her courageous stand in this video which includes footage of her action: http://youtu.be/aZVtPhVBM5Q  Bolger accused the sole witness, Chief Budget Officer Douglas Elmendorf, of obfuscating the true costs of military spending, and implored the Committee to enact the people’s plan for reducing the deficit—end the wars and tax the rich.

Ralph Nader, a member of Veterans For Peace, applauded retired Naval Commander, Bolger's effort to challenge the Super Committee for a minute of an un-scheduled reminder that cutting much needed social programs that saves lives rather than cutting the bloated military budget and taxing the 1% is Congressional insanity.  "The government is dysfunctional, working for corporate interests rather than providing for the peoples necessities.  Bolger showed what active citizens should be doing peacefully-- confronting the corruption head on and making sure the public knows what is really going on.  She should be honored for her actions."

Bolger was a member of the Occupation of Washington, DCat Freedom Plaza.  The occupation protested the Super Committee by holding an Occupied Super Committee hearing which was aired on C-SPAN, see CSPAN Coverage of Occupied Super Committee Hearings, and produced its own report.  By cutting military spending and taxing the wealthy, the Occupied Super Committee reached the ten year deficit targets set by President Obama and Congress in two years, and was able to fund a jobs program, forgive student debt and secure social programs.  See The 99%’s Deficit Proposal: How to create jobs, reduce the wealth divide and control spending. As a result of the actions of Bolger, the Occupy movement and other activists, the Super Committee, which had been on course to cut Social Security and Medicare, decided not to issue a report.

A press conference will be held at 8:30 am, Thursday April 12^th in front of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 500 Indiana Ave NW, Washington DC.  Those scheduled to speak and/or answer questions include:

         Leah Bolger, defendant, President of Veterans For Peace (VFP)

         Mark Goldstone, attorney for the defendant

         Art Brennan, NH Retired Superior Court Associate Justice, member of VFP

         Kevin Zeese, Co-director, Its Our Economy, organizer of Occupy Washington, DC

David Swanson, author, activist, radio host, member of VFP

                                                                                    ####

By John Grant

Founded and preserved by acts of aggression, characterized by a continuing tradition of self-righteous violence against suspected subversion and by a vigorous sense of personal freedom, usually involving the widespread possession of firearms, the United States has evidenced a unique tolerance for homicide.

-David Brion Davis
Homicide in American Fiction 1798-1860

The Trayvon Martin story is not going to go away. It was a narrative event waiting to happen, and the story only gets richer with meaning as time goes on. There are the obvious racial aspects, but the most important elements are about police power versus citizen power -- and who can get away with shooting whom?

PHOTOS.

Report:

1 April 2012. Around 2am 800 peace activists from more than ten European countries gathered near NATO headquarters in Evere, Brussels. 500 people tried nonviolently to enter the NATO compound. About 20 activists succeeded to enter the military site, 483 people were arrested. At the main entrance of the NATO headquarters 300 supporters cheered the intervention teams.

When peace is at stake, nonviolent intervention is necessary. NATO is a select club of countries that globally wages war, deploys nuclear weapons and is prepared to use them in a first strike. This military alliance is a danger for world peace. On May 20th and 21st, the heads of government of NATO member states will gather in Chicago. Today’s nonviolent intervention sends them a clear message: NATO creates more problems than it solves.

NATO Game Over – international action of civil disobedience
NATO GAME OVER is an action of civil disobedience. Nonviolent intervention teams tried to enter the NATO area in order to prevent a more serious crime, the preparation of war crimes.
Delegations from Germany, the Netherlands, France, UK, Finland, Sweden, Turkey, Italy, Portugal and Spain participated in the action alongside Belgian activists.
They all have a clear message for the government leaders who are meeting in Chicago for the NATO Summit on May 20th and 21st: “We do not want a missile defence shield, We do not want NATO soldiers in Libya or Afghanistan, We do not want dangerous, useless and illegal nuclear weapons”.

Remove nuclear weapons
NATO's deterrence and defense strategy will prove to be a difficult issue. Since the last NATO summit in November 2010, the alliance has been looking for “the appropriate mix of nuclear, conventional and missile defense forces”, under the NATO Deterrence and Defence Posture Review. NATO member states will need to agree on the future role of the approximately 200 American tactical nuclear weapons that are still deployed in five European countries. NATO bureaucracy is keen on maintaining the status quo.
However, nuclear weapons cannot be used without violating international humanitarian law and their deployment is a preparation of war crimes. These weapons do not serve any military purpose, and a majority of European citizens want them removed. NATO must overcome Cold War thinking, re-adjust its nuclear policy and withdraw these nuclear weapons. A failure to do so will be an obstacle for further nuclear disarmament.

Stop military intervention
In Chicago, NATO-secretary general Rasmussen wants to decide on the priorities for the further expansion of NATO’s military intervention apparatus. The war in Afghanistan proves the failure of military intervention. Under the pretext of ‘Responsibility to Protect’, NATO attacked Libya to force a profitable regime change. The war left Libya a fragmented country, where armed militias struggle for power.

Press contact: Hans Lammerant, +32 479 682 443

(AFP)  BRUSSELS — Hundreds of peace activists on Sunday tried in vain to break into the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Brussels, with 483 of them arrested by police.

The demonstration, organised by the Belgian association Action for Peace two months before a NATO summit in Chicago, was called to protest the alliance's intervention in Afghanistan and Libya, and nuclear arming.

"No demonstrator was able to enter NATO headquarters," spokesman for Brussels police, Christian De Coninck, told AFP. "We detained 483 people for questioning and all of them should be free in the evening."

De Coninck said no one was hurt and no damage was reported.

The Coalition Against NATO/G8 War & Poverty Agenda  has nothing on its website about using nonviolence, supporting nonviolence, or opposing violence.

The G8 and NATO Protest also has nothing like that, but does have this:

"As we plan our actions and tactics, we will take care to maintain appropriate separations of time and space between divergent tactics."

A month ago I blogged that I would not endorse Occupy the RNC or DNC because both groups were refusing to state that they opposed violence.

Occupy the RNC has now put this on its website:

"We are not organizing actions, especially violent ones. That would just be stupid. We exist to provide information and facilitate logistics for people resisting the RNC."

Not how I would have put it.  Nor would I have added:

"Don't fuck with us. We'll sue you."

But foreswearing violence and calling it stupid is enough for me.  I wish Occupy DNC could bring itself to do as much.  Better yet, just add "We oppose violence and will not use it."

That would be ideal, smart, strategic, and beneficial to the movement.

When the cops start a riot in Chicago on May 20th, raise your hand if you think CNN will base its coverage on your Youtube of what really happened and ignore that statement above about "space between divergent tactics."

Back in November, some good activists working with Occupy Wall Street wrote:

"‘Diversity of tactics’ becomes an easy way to avoid wrestling with questions of strategy and accountability. It lets us off the hook from doing the hard work of debating our positions and coming to agreements about how we want to act together. It becomes a code for ‘anything goes,’ and makes it impossible for our movements to hold anyone accountable for their actions."

In other words, it's not consensus.  It's minority rule.  Most of us favor an openly nonviolent movement, publicly commited to nonviolence.  When I question organizers of these protests, they practically scream that that is indeed what they favor, but that they want to be inclusive and not allow the 1% to divide us.  Is destroying us better than dividing us?  Is scaring away the majority of the 99% a price worth paying to be inclusive of 10 people who want to smash windows and 2 guys who want to smash police officers?  What about the openness lost by embracing tactics that require secrecy?

"The Occupy movement includes people from a broad diversity of backgrounds, life experiences and political philosophies. Some of us want to reform the system and some of us want to tear it down and replace it with something better. Our one great point of agreement is our call for transparency and accountability. We stand against the corrupt institutions that broker power behind closed doors. We call to account the financial manipulators that have bilked billions out of the poor and the middle classes.

"Just as we call for accountability and transparency, we ourselves must be accountable and transparent. Some tactics are incompatible with those goals, even if in other situations they might be useful, honorable or appropriate. We can’t be transparent behind masks. We can’t be accountable for actions we run away from. We can’t maintain the security culture necessary for planning and carrying out attacks on property and also maintain the openness that can continue to invite in a true diversity of new people. We can’t make alliances with groups from impacted communities, such as immigrants, if we can’t make agreements about what tactics we will employ in any given action.

"The framework that might best serve the Occupy movement is one of strategic nonviolent direct action. Within that framework, Occupy groups would make clear agreements about which tactics to use for a given action. This frame is strategic—it makes no moral judgments about whether or not violence is ever appropriate, it does not demand we commit ourselves to a lifetime of Gandhian pacifism, but it says, ‘This is how we agree to act together at this time.’ It is active, not passive. It seeks to create a dilemma for the opposition, and to dramatize the difference between our values and theirs.

"Strategic nonviolent direct action has powerful advantages:

"We make agreements about what types of action we will take, and hold one another accountable for keeping them. Making agreements is empowering. If I know what to expect in an action, I can make a choice about whether or not to participate. While we can never know nor control how the police will react, we can make choices about what types of action we stand behind personally and are willing to answer for. We don’t place unwilling people in the position of being held responsible for acts they did not commit and do not support.

"In the process of coming to agreements, we listen to each other’s differing viewpoints. We don’t avoid disagreements within our group, but learn to debate freely, passionately, and respectfully.

"We organize openly, without fear, because we stand behind our actions. We may break laws in service to the higher laws of conscience. We don’t seek punishment nor admit the right of the system to punish us, but we face the potential consequences for our actions with courage and pride.

"Because we organize openly, we can invite new people into our movement and it can continue to grow. As soon as we institute a security culture in the midst of a mass movement, the movement begins to close in upon itself and to shrink.

"Holding to a framework of nonviolent direct action does not make us ‘safe.’ We can’t control what the police do and they need no direct provocation to attack us. But it does let us make clear decisions about what kinds of actions we put ourselves at risk for.

"Nonviolent direct action creates dilemmas for the opposition, and clearly dramatizes the difference between the corrupt values of the system and the values we stand for. Their institutions enshrine greed while we give away food, offer shelter, treat each person with generosity. They silence dissent while we value every voice. They employ violence to maintain their system while we counter it with the sheer courage of our presence.

"Lack of agreements privileges the young over the old, the loud voices over the soft, the fast over the slow, the able-bodied over those with disabilities, the citizen over the immigrant, white folks over people of color, those who can do damage and flee the scene over those who are left to face the consequences.

"Lack of agreements and lack of accountability leaves us wide open to provocateurs and agents. Not everyone who wears a mask or breaks a window is a provocateur. Many people clearly believe that property damage is a strong way to challenge the system. And masks have an honorable history from the anti-fascist movement in Germany and the Zapatista movement in Mexico, who said “We wear our masks to be seen.”

"But a mask and a lack of clear expectations create a perfect opening for those who do not have the best interests of the movement at heart, for agents and provocateurs who can never be held to account. As well, the fear of provocateurs itself sows suspicion and undercuts our ability to openly organize and grow.

"A framework of strategic nonviolent direct action makes it easy to reject provocation. We know what we’ve agreed to—and anyone urging other courses of action can be reminded of those agreements or rejected.

"We hold one another accountable not by force or control, ours or the systems, but by the power of our united opinion and our willingness to stand behind, speak for, and act to defend our agreements.

"A framework of strategic nonviolent direct action agreements allows us to continue to invite in new people, and to let them make clear choices about what kinds of tactics and actions they are asked to support.

"There’s plenty of room in this struggle for a diversity of movements and a diversity of organizing and actions. Some may choose strict Gandhian nonviolence, others may choose fight-back resistance. But for the Occupy movement, strategic nonviolent direct action is a framework that will allow us to grow in diversity and power."

Between now and May 20th in Chicago would be an ideal time to spread understanding of this.

Lisa Fithian is the streetwise radical who's teaching kids who want to be badass to be smart.

By Josh Harkinson, Mother Jones

Jeffery Salter/Redux

In her makeshift classroom in lower Manhattan, Lisa Fithian turns to a group of several dozen students, squares her shoulders, and issues a challenge: "Does someone want to be a cop and come get me?" A tall redhead abruptly breaks out and lunges at her, but Fithian, a petite, den-motherish 50-year-old, head fakes and bolts away. Cheers erupt from her pupils, Occupy Wall Street protesters intent on shutting down the New York Stock Exchange the following morning. Another pretend cop moves in, and this time she drops to the ground, flopping like a rag doll as the officer struggles to drag her away. Fithian stands to deliver her lesson. "Of the two choices, running away or going limp, what does running away communicate?" she asks.

"Guilt," several people say.

She smiles and nods. "Guilt."

READ THE REST.