the insurgent

The Insurgent is a newspaper in the Eugene-Springfield, Oregon com- munity. We are unaffiliated with any partisan organization. We seek to pro- vide a forum for those working towards a society free from oppression based on class, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, species and free from the threat of ecological collapse.

Editorial:

Hi Insurgent readers!

Another school year has begun, and we are starting it off with a bang. A few of us here have spent a good chunk of our summers to bring you 19.1, the first issue of the year. This issue has a wide array of material in it. from the stories of Eugene’s homeless population, to the deforestation practices of the University, to an enormous article about climate convergence, to the inhumane practices of U.S. prisons, to arguments for impeachment, and oh so much more to chose from. We hope you enjoy the read. Also check out the news brief section to your right for Duck-Activation, a series of workshops for new and old activists here at the University. This event was orga- nized by your very own Student Insurgent, so come check it out!

We are ecstatic to get the ball rolling this year. This paper is an amazing resource here on campus. It is a totally empowering way to express yourself, especially when our lives are so bombarded with mainstream media and advertisements. It is of vital importance that alternative perspectives to corporate propaganda exist. We want this paper to be the best it can be, and we need more people to join our collective. So dear radicals, | invite you to the first meeting of the year, Monday, September 24th, at 5:00 in the survival center. The survival center is located in Suite 1 of the EMU, next to the Craft Center and across the way from the Women’s Center. Come check us out and work on the most radical newspaper here at U of O. :

Subscriptions to the Insurgent are $15 a year by mail. The Insurgent is distributed freely to UO students, the community, and prisoners.

Love, Your Insurgents PS. Is anyone else totally appalled by the new parking lot in what was once a field behind Knight library?

CALLING ALL RADICALS, ARTISTS, ANARCHISTS, FEMINISTS, GENDER FUCKERS, DIYers, AND YOU! COME JOIN THE PARTY!

T-Shirt Making Party during a general meeting on Oct. Ist Meetings are on Monday's at 5:00 in the Survival Center

Submissions...The Insurgent encourages its readers and supporters to submit news and feature articles, short fiction and poetry, cultural crit- icism, theory, reviews, etc. Graphics, cartoons, and photos are more than welcome. Graphics can be submitted by themselves or with written pieces. All submissions must be 2,001 words or less.

We reserve the right to edit anything and everything we recieve for grammar, clarity, or length. All articles, with the exception of unsigned Edi- torials, reflect the view of their authors and not the rest of us.

Address: EMU, Suite One

University of Oregon

Eugene, OR 97403-1228 Phone : 541.346.3716

Fax : 541.346.0620

Email: sialtmedia@hotmail.com

THOUGHT CRimé PATROL

Collective: Jessica Brown John Walsh Cimmeron Gillespie Isobel Charlé Sam Whitehill Lindy Shelton Natty Clucas Dave Flaherty Lydia Keehn Eric Devin Max Smoot Katie Weidman Don Goldman Damian Kemp

Contributors: Rashid Johnson Marcus Mayorga Emma Gunson-Anderson Jack Dresser

Ben-Gurion the Mysterion Mad Mother Enrique Molinero

by Rashid

News Briefs: _ Table o’ Contents

Duck-Activation!!

By Cimmeron Gillespie Ee b \ { rT M r ee eee ee | Welcome back! The new year is beginning Over yy a Cus ayo 2 and so are the campaigns for many issues. The Student Insurgent is putting together a couple of ° ‘ seminars and en ali around good time in Duck Ac- Editorial Ne fo tivation. The Activation is our plan to help offer WAed eage Ta neta dice Mie Sago ad eter Cod a all students the opportunity to get involved. YOU are invited +o PARTIC/PATE!

The events start Saturday, September i Ge | 3 29%, the first weekend back to school. Duck Duc Activation! eeeeeeveeeseseseeeeeeneeeseees Activation starts at 10 am, and the nonstop action

continues until 5pm There will be a civil disobe- E

‘dience training, recycling workshops, an intro- ]

duction to all the student UNIONS, and to finish Home essness In PUSene it off a protest to show off your skills. So bring -

yourself, some picket signs, a Mug of coffee and

(et et active! ae py a eaconias starts in the EMU (middle of vie PR SOGIICHG. g22 sos ooss esses ci cats cD

campus), in the Gumwood room for a Civil disobe- dience training. In the Alsea there will be a recycling pemsenter oni workshop. At noon, the workshops will break for lunch, during whic = | S . d 6 there will be @ tour of the EMU’s student UNIONS. Come stop by the Mi tar y CEVIGE an Art. eeeeeeeeeseeeeese ASUO, Survival Center, Women’s Center, Men’s Center, MCC, and MANY more. After the eat n’ greet, the workshops will resume. The following day will have more workshops in the East Lawn of the EMU, and will . 2 conclude in @ March Service and Impeach Cont'd...........7 There are so Many groups and so many opportunities; this is a fast track to getting everyone involved to make a difference at the University of Oregon. So come on downs be you a duck or duckling, and t ° U risons experience the awesome power of student action! Get involved, meet ef S §-9 new contacts, or meet Up with old ones. This is going to rock. From Or ul c In : - p weer e £08 M8 £0: 8.850 2 dorm, apartment, hotel, or boarding house, this is a powerful oppor- tunity to come get involved and make a difference at the epee R : 1 The student groups are a powerful, but chronically underutilized func- fi eo 0 tion at the U of Oo. So + is time +o sake advantage of these valuable e€sources Or pI ISOQUGCES ee eee resources. The Gumwood is accessible via the staircase kitty-corner to the Fishbowl (in the EMU). Go up one Right of stairs, take a left, and keep h 2 h ] g°iING straight. The Alsea is in the corridor adjacent +o the sky bridge, AG Cc Free Range Myt eceoeeneeeeeeeseeese 1

on the west most sidee Wales inate SOT

ae ae eee Ciifiate-Convereencers 12913

wo eG

sain are Pe Hatnite Creek A R ° J 1] 4 ] 5 wih dees in Wanni b hid Joh ~ anaes ATT OY Kashid JonnNson............

tia, California. Tree-sitters are :

fighting to protect these ancient

_ trees from logging. Spooner and nee

: Grandma are the names given +o Climate Convergence. eeeeeeeeesece l 6 ] 8 the two massive trees that live just ete LS Nanning Creek e = watershed. Spooner is over #2 weumveerersaeenmm 13cn-Gurion the Mysterion...........19 Grandma is a enormous tree attached to her twin, Grandpa.

peeenmenarevewmmms 1. Cd (nion State Prison................20

Fucker” on Spooner, and then tried to scrape off the words after photos were circulated. Raiders arrested several OST) Oo) REIS eer ene cee people, cut down platforms, - traverses and living spaces, and left food and supplies scattered oo manos Att by Marcus Mayorga. 22 ate ters are especially upset that eeseeee e@eeeeee ee | j raiders left the mess, since they Estrictly adhere to the guiding principle of a leaving only footprints”. Pacific Lumber MAD h 23 employees and cops are now blockading mot ee entrances to the treesit and the towns of Scotia and Rio Dell are “crawling with

a OIE OOK REVICW........ccccccccececeeeeee 24-25

desperately needed for the remaining tree-sitters. Humboldt Forest Defense

Momunminnnmaneummem | TCes at UO.............................26-27

heir websites urges people to contact HFD before attempting to locate the +reesit.

Art by Emma Gunson-Anderson..28

A tree cut in Nanning Creek Both pics from www.wesavetrees.org

’ J vx $ Eee 6 eee

LG} SUINjOA L007 A9qUId}A9S

the insurgent

.would have waited ‘longer to have a kid and didn’t marry the

The Underclass: Stories of Eugene's Homeless Population

As citizens and students we need to remember that while we have privilege and can afford college, many are not so lucky. In our nation today, many valid members of society are forced to live in squalor and extreme poverty. Some of their stories are below. Many are sad, but all promise to show us what we need to change in our society. Many people declined comment; many simply said leave. Here are a handful of the stories of those that would talk to me.

One couple with a small infant dis- cussed their Life. Daniel and-Heather are both from Eugene. When asked about how they see the world, Daniel said, “I see it as multi- versatile, where everyone has their own thing going on”. He expressed a disconnect in so- ciety. Heather replied to the same question. She said, “There are too many screwed up guys trashing on the earth, contributing to global warming. There are too many guys trashing on women, that’s the problem.” Since the couple had a kid, they got married, and both remarked that they wished they had waited. When asked if they could change something in their lives Heather re- sponded, “I wish I

first guy I fell in love with”. Daniel began talking of how there is inequality, and how people need to be given equal op- portunities in life. “TI would change the government, everything would be fair, all individuals would be equal.”

The people out in the world today are i in, ough situations. With funding going to wars, the aid to the poor is diminished. With un- employment up, the number of homeless people across the nation has been rising. In urban areas there has been a movement to “clean up the streets”, and the effort has worked. In some cities across America the homelessness population has dropped by nearly 30 percent! This sounds great except that the counts fre- quently don’t include minors. In addition, these counts cannot actually find all the people who are homeless. While the efforts show a positive trend in America, homelessness remains pervasive in many areas.

Those the aid doesn’t reach are in dire straights to survive. The daily struggle for life often causes neglect of personal hygiene, which compounds problems of housed citizens avoiding homeless persons. It can also lead to health: problems. As homelessness itself is a symptom of our nation’s ignorance, ill plan- ning and poor fiscal decisions, so too is the suffering of individuals a symptom of citizens complacency.

The institutions nationwide designed to help the homeless are frequently ill equipped, or cause the force of religion to be shoved down the individual’s throat. If a person must swear and pray to god to receive aid from a Mission, is that not at best bribing people into becoming Christian? Are people who are withheld food or bed because they do not take prayer being blackmailed into Christian-Like behavior? Is this the solution that we de- sire as a nation? “The churches are locked, blocking the poor, needy and hungry that need help,” one woman remarked about the Mission and churches.

“The US is a simple ugly nation, ne- glecting elderly and youth; the government keeps people from dignity and respect,” says Sue, originally from California. Sue says she calls the Earth her home now. “The US has over- imposed laws, taking away the right to equal

opportunity, they are oppressing the poor.

They [the police], lock the bathroom doors open at night, anyone can walk in while you are us- ing a stall, its not private, its not safe! If you sleep on grass it’s fine, but if you have a blanket, it’s camping and you get a ticket,” she said. When asked if she could change some- thing in her life she replied, “I would change that I hear God a little closer, and that I could help people”.

The people living on the streets and under trees that fight for everyday life are shunned by society. As a society we have done some little things on occasion. There are solutions available without spending tremen- dous amounts. Three percent of the national military budget, if converted to helping the homeless could provide heating, food, and water purifiers at consistent locations. A phone bank with callback numbers could aid people in find- ing sess Sp ah How about using the space in

et municipal buildings, which would otherwise be closed at night, to house the homeless? Every city, county, and state has buildings, and most areas have schools. ALl of these buildings could be used. If homeless people were let in, they would be given consistent shel- ter, and with a little . monitoring could im- prove the safety of “the streets”. In Eugene, a school “in the River Road district was demol- ished. This building could have been used for housing or as a community center. But appar- ently the school district would rather make the Land commercial. Sue proposed an idea of her

- own, “[I would] have a house where people could

get away from drugs and addiction, get off the street”. While many people believe that home- less people live on the streets and do drugs; this is largely false. Many couldn’t if they wanted to because drugs cost money (which if you are homeless you don’t have a tremendous amount of).

Simple acts, which can make life more tolerable, are denied to homeless people. Simple greetings such as hello, hi, how are you, are frequently passed above the homeless population. These simple phrases, or an act of giving food, can make living easier for an individual. The road sign “any- thing helps” may be more true than you know, and even a wish of Luck is better than nothing. Sue talked of a dream for a better future, “ all humans should have higher liv- ing standards, we shouldn’t glorify beauty or ugliness and we should spend time with children”.

While talking to a group of homeless people who requested anonymity, they reflected upon their situation: “[The police] oppress the poor with unconstitutional tick- ets. The homeless are treated like slaves, not humans!” The abuses of the police go Largely unreported, because who do you report police to — the police! One individual said, “even if we could report some of the atrocities, who would believe us, who would even Listen?” This sentiment was echoed many times over. Another person chimed in with, “you have a right to be treated with dignity. Not every cop is corrupt or cruel, but the department is, the system is.”

By: Cimmeron Gillespie

“If I could do something, I would have a house, where the love of God is shown, not crammed down your throat. You can't get into the mission without going into bible study. Lets provide washing machines for clothes, and wash areas for people. Why can’t money go into housing and schools? It’s never put into ac- tion,” said Sue. A society which doesn’t look after its own is no society, but just indi- viduals, fighting for themselves! Sue spoke of the worst on the streets,“I have been as- saulted, raped four times, I felt devalued. It takes love to restore value, if a city doesn’t have values, you don’t have a city! You can’t choose what people have value, or you lose people.”

When asking about the worth of a people,

* or a decision, we cannot ignore the human cost

of not investing. The homelessness, the suf- fering, the terrible injustice which occurs of the streets every day, this is no one person’s fault, no one person’s problem. Rather it be- longs to all of us. We all must own the prob- lem of suffering or we all must suffer as a so- ciety. “Money doesn’t provide anything, define what it means for success~ did I help people, or did I have money. Did I help the lady cross the street give food, it’s the little things that make people, knowing what goes on and what people need. That is success,” said Sue.

Virtually every person who was inter- viewed expressed a desire for a more equitable society, with chances for all its citizens. How can anyone call a country just, who willingly @ ignores the suffering of it’s people? Life Will likely never be perfect, but we need to look after those who have little or no means to provide for themselves.

When asked about the cost of housing people, perhaps we should ask what the cost is when we don't. When we Leave somebody out, when we abandon someone so completely, then we are surprised they break laws! Why should anyone whom society has abandoned follow that society’s laws? If we want a law-abiding popu- lace, then lets care for one another and look after each other. When we stop caring about those in need, how can we expect care when we are in need? In the words of the University of Oregon’s own Scotty Gilmore: “Build a home”. One quote at the end of the day sums up all the suffering: “It’s a lot to bear out here”. The

real question here is, will you help carry the Load?

Want an Insurgent T-shirt? Come to our T-Shirt making party on Monday, October Ist, at 5:30 in Suite 1 of the EMU! Feel free to bring your own shirts to decorate with Insur-

gent propaganda. Some shirts will be provided but may be limited.

The Chorus for Impeachment is Growing Jack Dresser, Ph.D.

[ am a behavioral scientist, not a lawyer, and from a psychological perspective I am deeply disturbed by the antisocial behaviors of the Bush administration and its foreign policy. It has established the United States as an international outlaw, a nation that behaves like a bully and a spoiled, self-important child, somehow entitled to ignore and violate international laws, treaties and standards of conduct. Bush and Cheney are compulsive gamblers driven to keep gambling until they lose everything, and have been daring us to im- peach them for years.

But psychological disturbance and antisocial behavior are insufficient legal foundation for impeachment, so I rely here primarily on the Constitutional and evidentiary foundations developed by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle from his book, Destroying World Order, former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman who served on the House Judiciary Committee that drafted Articles of Impeachment against President Nixon, National Lawyers Guild President Marjorie Cohen, and House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D, MI) who filed House Resolution 635 in December 2005 documenting the case for impeachment of President Bush in a 182-page document with 1,022 footnotes.

After disclosure of the administration’s warrantless electronic eavesdropping on American citizens over a year ago, the “I” word (Impeachment), began appearing in public discourse. For those who view these developments with alarm as “unpatriotic,” another president had something to say: “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only un- patriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public” Teddy Roosevelt wrote this in 1918.

Even Arlen Specter, the Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee last summer, ventured on ABC’s This Week that impeachment would be a remedy for violation of the 1978 FISA law (and, not incidentally,

the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution). “After impeachment,” he added, “you could have

a criminal prosecution.” However, he quickly continued with “the principal remedy under our society is to pay a political price.” Many of us strongly disagree. I believe that impeachment is not only the best but an absolutely necessary remedy to satisfy the demands of justice, restore our national integrity, expose and crush

the forces now undermining our Constitutional government, and attempt to regain the trust and respect of the world.

Last year Elizabeth Holtzman published an article in The Nation entitled, “The Impeachment of George W. Bush.” Holtzman was a member of the House Judiciary Committee that brought three Articles of Impeach- ment against President Nixon. The same three Articles would apply against Mr. Bush, plus another eight. Holtzman describes several grounds for impeachment of the entire administration. The Constitution provides for impeachment not only of the President but “all civil officers of the United States” accused of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.

Holtzman also describes the compelling reasons for doing so. “High crimes and misdemeanors,” she explained, is an 18"-century term meaning crimes that endanger our Constitutional system of government.

President Bush has committed a long series of such high crimes tha sn ts eee aE ela Pee < =

place in jeopardy the foi

ndations of o1 u ANGa

It is important to recognize that fmpeaching Bush will not simply leave us with Cheney. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides for impeachment of the whole cabal together, naming each “officer of the United States” involved in each offense charged.

Legal scholar Joseph Isenberg, writing in the Yale Law & Policy Review, explains further that in England and early colonial Ameri@a impeachment was imposed for corruption, maladministration, and endangering the safety of the state. These earlier grounds for impeachment have been the norm for the Bush administration. For corruption, consider Cheney’s secretly crafted energy bill written by the energy industry, the Medicare prescription drug plan written by the pharmaceutical companies, the no-bid Halliburton contracts issued be- fore the Iraq invasion and their subsequent outrageous waste of taxpayer dollars, and other flagrant corruption and cronyism. For maladministration, consider the Katrina debacle and other gross incompetence by political hacks appointed to critical government positions. For state endangerment, consider the Iraq morass with inadequate troops and armor, over 3,500 Americans dead, and Islamic terrorist recruitment mushrooming as a- result of Iraq, with a tripling of worldwide terrorist attacks from 2004 to 2005 after which the State Depart- ment ceased their annual reports.

“The Case for Impeachment” by Harper’s editor Lewis Lapham in March 2006 decried the typically abject failure of the American press to report HR 635. Lapham asked Conyers why he would bother with a Repub- lican-controlled House. Conyers’ response is worth quoting: “To take away the excuse that we didn’t know. So that years from now, if somebody should ask, “Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?’ when the Bush administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity,

can say that ‘somehow it escaped our notice’ that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.” And yet the Democratic House has failed to do its duty, clearly defined by each member’s sole oath of office, “To support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

There is a very long list of Bush offenses, many of which are impeachable. At the top of my list is one very important Constitutional principal, of which most Americans seem unaware, that has been flagrantly and repeatedly breached by this administration. Under the “Supremacy Clause” — Article VI, Paragraph 2 — of the Constitution, all treaties to which the United States is a signatory are “the Supreme Law of the Land.” And all major international treaties since 1928, including the UN and Nuremberg charters, have prohibited aggressive war. America has signed them all. Nazis were tried and executed at Nuremberg and Japanese leaders at To- kyo for the same “crimes against peace.” The Bush wars of aggression constitute not only high crimes against our Constitution, but international war crimes as well. This will be key in any impeachment proceedings, which should be followed by conviction in the Senate, removal from office, and indictment for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Bush wars of aggression constitute not only high crimes against our Constitution, but international war crimes as well, and are incorporated into the first three of ten Articles of Impeachment I suggest:

Article 1: Launching an aggressive, illegal war against Afghanistan, another U.N. member state that did not attack the United States, after failing to secure U.N. authorization, and in reckless disregard of legal distinc- tions between terrorist actions of groups or individuals and acts of war by nation states.

false information to the American public, whether deliberate or through lack of due diligence, to fraudulently —

Most Americans believe the attack upon Afghanistan was justified by 9/11. However, terrorist attacks are defined under U.S. and international law as criminal acts, not actions of states. Accordingly, terrorists are subject to arrest by law enforcement authorities and are tried in criminal courts — over 3,000 thus far in 170 different countries.

VG} SUINJON £007 A9quIa}d9S

In compliance with internationally established protocols for dealing with terrorism suspects, including specific protocols for response to acts of aviation terrorism established in the 1971 Montreal Sabotage Con- vention, the Taliban requested evidence to support the administration’s demand for extradition of bin Laden and offered to negotiate such extradition. The Bush administration failed to provide convincing evidence and refused to negotiate, instead re-defining terrorism as “war” — which is without basis in international law — and launching a war of aggression against another sovereign state.

Article 2: Conspiracy to defraud the United States government by providing false testimony to Congress and

obtain from Congress a War Powers Resolution and lead the nation into an illegal war against Iraq without U.N. approval, followed by occupation of Iraq which also violates international law.

The Iraq War, which has killed far more people on both sides than the attack on Afghanistan, is even more clearly illegal. Not only is this a completely unprovoked war, but abundant evidence documents that the

ted directly o' directly rastructure destruction and the

people. jerefore, eve death infil chaos initiated — well over 600,000 Iraqis according to the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health research — is a war crime.

The War Powers Resolution provided to President Bush by Congress on October 10, 2002 is riddled with the false assumptions deceptively fed them by the administration, including irrelevant data from before the Gulf War, spurious associations of Saddam with bin Laden, al Qaeda and 9/11, false statements about Iraqi WMDs, WMD capabilities, and aggressive intentions, and irrelevant citations of various U.N. resolution violations that would require Security Council rather than U.S. enforcement action. It is a document based on fraud, and as such cannot be considered legally binding.

Moreover, this War Powers Resolution authorized use of armed force only under two conditions, either to de- fend national security against “the continuing threat posed by Iraq” — of which there was none, or to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions, for which the administration failed to obtain U.N. authorization. Having met neither of these conditions, the administration nevertheless launched an illegal war of aggression against another U.N. member state.

The Congressional resolution also required assurance that diplomatic remedies had been exhausted prior to invasion, and required bi-monthly reports to Congress. Neither requirement has ever been met. Saddam had re-admitted U.N. weapons inspectors six months earlier and was fully cooperating with the U.N., and the administration has submitted no reports. On grounds of non-compliance as well as fraud, the Iraq War Reso- lution cannot be considered binding upon Congress and could be rescinded at any time had they but the will.

Article 3: Violation of Article 24 of the United Nations Charter of 1945, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles of 1945, the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, and other international agreements and treaties, all of which prohibit pre-emptive war and to all of which the United States is a signatory, making these covenants the Supreme Law of the Land.

The attacks on both Afghanistan and Iraq are “crimes against peace” in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact — under which Nazis and Japanese leaders were tried and executed following WWII — as well as the U.N. and Nuremberg Charters of 1945.

War is justified under international law only for self-defense. This is why the administration falsely defined 9/11 as an act of war, invented a fantastic structure of lies to define Iraq as an ominous and looming threat to American and world security, and continues to claim engagement in a “war on terror” rather than acknowl- edging its illegal occupation of another sovereign state. For legal cover, the administration falsely defines re- sistance to our invasion — which is perfectly legal under international law — as “terrorism.” Their intentional, fraudulent misrepresentations have undoubtedly been designed to evade international and U.S. law, the threat of impeachment, and their future indictment as war criminals.

Our founding fathers deliberated at length on the War Powers Clause, recognizing that going to war is the gravest decision a nation can make. They determined that in a democracy only the people and their elected

continued on page 7

the insurgent

Military Service?

A Response to Military Service

By: Cimmeron Gillespie

I would like to respond to the “What it takes to sign

up” article in the Register Guard August 14", 2007 front page, about the young man Curtis Boechler who signed up for the Army. Boechler’s decision was based on an idea of dedication and uncertainty about his future. As a high school graduate who also considered military service I can relate to Boechler. However, I did not choose military service for several reasons. To Mr. Boechler, and any other person considering military service please review the following:

° The Armed services “contract”, is a legal ball and

chain, giving the military ALL the power which includes (but is not limited to): change in pay, service posting requirements, service duty and service time, etc. The fine print of the contract states the military can change any part of the contract, for any reason at any time “without notice to the signer”. In addition you can’t leave. Once you sign the military has its own kangaroo court that you may subjected to. They own you, your body, and even your LIFE.

Charles Glenn states that recruiting in this district

is good because “[recruiters] get out there and sell the Army”. Sell the Army indeed. What is it they are selling exactly- the ability to carry a gun and to legally kill? The military is selling death.

Consider the suffering wrought upon individuals and family by war.

Boechler mentions the bible and states that “stronger. forces should take care of weaker ones”. Yet, one of the Commandments is “Thou Shall Not Kill”. Jesus said, “for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword”. This is another biblical message that one should consider. So do not idly throw God as justification for the institution of mass murder. The military is an institution for killing, which has been put to terrible uses, the Nazi regime used the military to commit genocide, as have many other military and para-military groups. Freedom fighter, national guard and most military groups have used violence unjustly. In Wartime especially the potential for atrocities is especially high.

The military has produced elements of valor and the US does have the Army Corp. of Engineers which appear venerable; the military is an instrument of war, killing

and death, the repair crews, medics; and veterans alike are all part the cycle of death generated by the military. The argument that military is necessary, is rooted in an idea of fear and perpetual uncertainty of the future. The idea that it will protect us has been evidently disproved during the

9/11 tragedy. The US cannot defend it itself from the out-

side (9/11, the 2billilion annual losses in chemical goods),

cannot win external wars (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq), unless there is a tremendous change in the Military (which is not apparent), Using the military internally is a bad idea (the troop squatting and pillaging of the revolu- tionary war, 1870’s Pullman strike “protection”, 1960's “protection” against students), so why have it? Grated

the military lines the pockets of many supply companies, and is a useful tool for exploitation of other countries (Panama, central America in the 1980’s, Iraqi Oil, Protec- tion of Kuwaiti Oil, etc), but why have a military? Why are we killing each other?

To anyone entering the military, please consider what you will be facing going into the military. Once in the military what you could be asked to do, and ask yourself- are you really prepared to do that? Perhaps more impor- tantly, can you live with what you may be asked to do?

By Rashid Johnson

Una Respuesta a Servicio Militar Traducido por Enrique Molinero

Me gustaria responder al articulo "What it takes to sign up" publicado en la primera pagina del Registered Guard el pasado 14 de agosto, del 2007. Este articulo se trata del joven Curtis Boechler que se inscribié para el Army. Boechler baso la decisién de inscribirse gracias a una idea de dedicacion y de un futuro personal inseguro. Siendo un estudiante de la secundaria yo también considere ingresar en servicio militar y por eso es que entiendo a Boechler. Pero yo escogi no servir en servicio militar por varias razones. Asi que al Sr. Boechler, y cualquier otra persona pensando en ingresar a la militar, por favor piense y examine lo siguiente:

* — Elcontrato de las fuerzas armadas es como una cadena que le da a la militar TODO el poder que incluye, y no se limita en: cambio de salario, requi- sitos de puesto en servicio, tipo de servicio militar y duraci6n de servicio, etcétera. Lo que no es claro en el contrato es el hecho que la militar puede cambiar cualquier parte del contrato, por cualquier raz6n y en cualquier momento sin aviso alguno. Adicional- mente, no se puede salir de la militar. Una vez que haya firmado el contrato, la militar tiene sus propias cortes y leyes que el contratado tiene que obedecer y seguir. Alguien que firma un contrato con la militar pierde su libertad y se convierte en propiedad de la militar, perdiendo todo derecho sobre su cuerpo y su VIDA.

* — Chales Glenn dice que el reclutamiento de este distrito es bueno porque los reclutadores "salen y venden el Army”. Pero en realidad que es lo que exactamente venden - el derecho a cargar armas de fuego y poder matar legalmente? La militar vende muerte.

* Hay que pensar en el sufrimiento que la guerra causa a individuos y sus familias.

* — Boechler menciona que la Biblia dice que "los fuertes deben defender a los débilés". Pero, uno de los diez mandamientos es "no mataras". Jestis dice, "todo aquel que tome la espada, ante la espada caera", este siendo otro mensaje biblico en el que tenemos que pensar. Asi que no debemos de_usar en vano justificaciones de dios para una institucién que se dedica a mata y asesinar.

* Lamilitar es una instituci6n que de matanza, que ha sido utilizada terriblemente. El régimen Natzi uso su militar para cometer genocidios, como lo han hecho muchos otros grupos militares. Las guar- dias nacionales, y casi todo grupo militar ha usado términos violentos injustamente. Especialmente en tiempos de guerra hay muchas posibilidades de cometer violencia y atrocidades.

La militar si ha producido elementos de honor y decoraci6n y también vemos que los Estados Unidos tiene el Army Corp of Engineers que parecen ser venerables; pero la militar es un instrumento de guerra, asesinato, y muerte, un instrumento que incluye a los equipos de reparacién, médicos, y veteranos que son parte del ciclo de muerte generado por la militar. El argumento que la militar es indispensable esta sembrado en el temor y una idea de-un futuro desconocido. La idea de que esta militar nos protegera fue desaprobada por la tragedia del 9/11. Los Estados Unidos no puede defenderse de los afueras (9/11, y 2 billones de de perdidas anuales en pro- ductos quimicos), no puede ganar guerras extranjeras (Corea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Irak), al menos que aiga un cambio drastico en la militar (cosa que es improbable), el uso interno de la militar es una mala idea (como lo hemos visto en episo- dios de la historia estadounidense desde la guerra revoluciona- ria, asta la "defensa" contra estudiantes de los afios 60), gpara que tener una militar? Agrandar los bolsillos de de muchas compaiifas proveedoras de vienes, y como una herramienta para la explotacién de otros paises (como Panama, America central en los 80's, petrdleo de Irak y Kuwaiti, etcétera), pero para que tener una militar? ;Para que matarnos entre nosotros?

A cualquier persona que vaya a entrar en la militar, por favor piense en lo que se va a encontrar en la militar. Y una vez en la militar, piense en lo que se le pedira, y pregtin- tese - {si en realidad esta dispuesto ha hacerlo? Y tal vez lo mas importante, {si podré vivir con las consecuencias de los actos tal vez le pidan?

ELIDA POEL ADR PE ILLIA EDS D LL NE ALI ANDBS ES ERG SH

Impeachment, continued from page 5

Congressional representatives have the right to make this decision unless there is an immediate or imminent attack to repel. A president can commit no more serious crime against our democracy than lying to Congress and the public to gain support for a war.

This is, by far, the worst crime of the Bush Administration. But there are additional, strong bases for impeachment. At least three impeach- able offenses have arisen from the conduct of the wars, condensed into proposed Articles 4-6 below.

Article 4: Causing many tens of thousands of civilian casualties

by using prohibited and indiscriminate weapons, including cluster bombs, depleted uranium, MK77 napalm, fuel-air or “thermobaric” explosives, and white phosphorous directed against human targets, all of which violate the United Nations Charter, The Hague Rules on Land and Air Warfare, the Genocide Convention, the Universal Dec- laration of Human Rights, and the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles, and to all of which the United States is a signatory.

Article 5: Encouraging or permitting widespread torture and humili- ation of prisoners, both directly and by proxy through “extraordinary rendition” to foreign “black sites” in violation of the United States War Crimes Act of 1996, the Third and Fourth Geneva C. onventions, the Convention against Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States is a Signatory to each of these international treaties.

Article 6: Failing as C ommander-in-Chief of American Armed Forc- es to (a) provide sufficient troops and adequate equipment to protect their safety in a combat theater of operation, (b) heed the operational advice of military commanders, (c) plan for the aftermath of war, and (d) insulate military decisions from political motives.

Beyond the wars, there are also several impeachable domestic of- fenses:

Article 7: Authorization of wiretaps and other electronic surveillance without court authorization, in violation of the 1978 FISA law and the Fourth Amendment Constitutional right of American citizens “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Violation of the FISA

_ law is both a felony anda “high crime” against our consti-

tutional system of government which would require removal from office upon impeachment and conviction.

Article 8: Obstruction of justice and conspiracy to commit treason by (a) active involvement in disclosing the identity of a covert CIA agent in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, thereby damaging national security by compromising the lives, safety, and operational capacity of covert agents and severely damaging our ability to recruit hu- man intelligence assets necessary to prevent terrorist events; and (b) providing false testimony and withholding information about this crime in interviews with federal in vestigators.

The 250 pages of previously concealed emails from Cheney

’s office released under court order to the Fitzgerald investi- gation reportedly contradict Cheney’s statements to federal investigators. The Article of Impeachment against Nixon charging Obstruction of Justice included the charge of lying to federal investigators. This is a felony even if not under oath.

Article 9: Failure to protect and defend the people of the United States by ignoring and failing to act upon multiple warnings from the preceding administration and numerous federal and international agencies that anticipated the 9/11 attacks; subsequent lying about the existence of these warn- ings; and Contempt of Congress and obstruction of justice by attempting to prevent formation of, and then withholding evidence from, the 9/11 Commission and its legally empow- ered investigation.

Article 10: Subverting the constitutional separation of pow- ers by failing to seek or obtain congressional consent for (a) withdrawal from international treaty obligations, and (b) reversal by executive orders and “signing statements” of statutory laws enacted by Congress, (c) refusal to comply with legally issued congressional subpoenas, and (d) evasion of U.S. courts and due process protections for suspects accused of terrorism. a

Naked seizures of power abrogating statutory and interna-

impeachment

tional law while asserting executive powers not provided in the Constitution have characterized the Bush presidency from its inception. Treaties must be ratified by the Senate. From this principle it has been argued that withdrawal from treaties must also be ratified by the Senate, and presidents have traditionally honored the Senate’s right of consent. Mr. Bush has consis- tently ignored this principle entirely and unilaterally withdrawn from the Kyoto Accord on global warming, the 1972 Anti-Bal- listic Missile Treaty, the 1972 Biological Warfare Treaty, the 1967 Treaty prohibiting weapons in outer space, and the 1963 Vienna Convention establishing the International Court of Justice, which in turn violated the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Mr. Bush has similarly overridden by executive order many Statutes enacted by Congress in such areas as environmental and workplace protection that are strongly favored by the American public, providing benefits to large corporate support- ers in what appear to be quid pro quo exchanges representing corruption at the least, if not indirect or direct bribery.

Article 11: Subversion of our democratic institutions by conspiring to commit election fraud, including illegal disen- franchisement of approximately 60,000 primarily Democratic Florida voters in the election of 2000, and electronic ma- nipulation of vote counts incapable of audit by Republican operatives in the election of 2004 in Ohio, Florida and other key “swing” states.

P6L SUINjOA 1007 A9qWIS}IES

The facts of fraud in both elections are conclusively estab- lished, but direct administration involvement remains unproven to date. However, lawsuits are in progress from which these links may well emerge through discovery, subpoena power, and plea bargains. This should be an additional area of investiga- tion we demand of our Congressional representatives.

In recent