Category Archives: War & Peace

Judge’s ruling order ACLU access to detainee in Iraq

I read a couple of articles this morning about the federal court ruling that the ACLU must be provided immediate and unmonitored access to an American citizen being held in Iraq as an “enemy combatant” before finding a link to the decision in a New York Times story on the case.

Although the DOD acknowledges the unidentified prisoner has asked to meet with an attorney, they have up until now refused to allow that to happen.

From the decision:

The Defense Department argues that next friend standing should be denied because the
ACLUF has not conferred or met with the detainee, and therefore cannot prove that it is pursuing his best interests, and, most importantly, the ACLUF does not know if the detainee wants the ACLUF to pursue habeas relief on his behalf. (Id. 7–10). The court finds the Defense Department’s position to be disingenuous at best, given that the Department is the sole impediment to the ACLUF’s ability to meet and confer with the detainee. Moreover, having informed the detainee of his right to counsel, and the detainee having asked for counsel, the Department’s position that his request should simply be ignored until it decides what to do with the detainee and when to allow him access to counsel is both remarkable and troubling. (emphasis added)

What’s troubling to me is that the Trump administration is seeking to dismantle the rule of law that has set this country apart from others for over 200 years, both by naming doctrinaire but unqualified individuals to federal court judgeships, and by blatantly rejecting the normal administration of justice as somehow “rigged” and therefore unworthy of respect. These are profoundly dangerous actions, which pose fundamental challenges to our system of laws. Can we hope that there are enough rational Republicans to prevent the constitutional crisis that seems more and more likely in the months ahead?

U.S.-based Quaker Group Completes another Trip to North Korea

The Quaker-based American Friends Service Committee announced this week that it’s representative just completed a visit to North Korea in a continuing program of humanitarian assistance.

It’s good to know that at least some positive interactions are taking place, despite the heated rhetoric by our countries’ leaders.

From AFSC’s press release:

On November 4, 2017 Dr. Linda Lewis, who serves as the country representative for the American Friends Service Committee’s program in North Korea, completed her first trip to North Korea since the Trump Administration instituted new travel restrictions that took effect September 1.

“I’ve been traveling to North Korea to work with our partners there for many years, and despite the new restrictions, this trip was no different,” said Lewis. “We see the fact that we were still able to enter the country as a positive sign from Washington, and are glad that the U.S. is acknowledging the importance of humanitarian cooperation.”

The American Friends Service Committee has been engaged in relief efforts on the Korean Peninsula since the years after the Korean War. AFSC’s North Korea program is currently working with cooperative farms to raise productivity and implement sustainable agricultural practices in the region, and is one of the few U.S.-based organizations operating in the country today.

AFSC had expressed concerns with the travel restrictions to North Korea, including filing a public comment with the State Department. “We’re concerned that the new travel restrictions have added an unnecessary and burdensome layer of bureaucracy to humanitarian work,” said Lewis. “We believe that channels for humanitarian engagement are pivotal for building peace on the Korean peninsula, and hope to see fewer restrictions, not more. These restrictions should be rescinded when they come up for review.”

PBS Vietnam War series drawing concern from peace activists of the era

The upcoming PBS documentary series about the Vietnam War, scheduled to shown beginning next month, is drawing critical interest and concern from those who worked for peace during that difficult period in American and world history.

A number of peace activists from the 1960s and 1970s have joined together to form the Vietnam Peace Commemoration Committee, which is trying to use the occasion to continue to educate the public about the origins and impacts of the Vietnam War.

Film makers Burns and Novick outlined their goals in a New York Times op ed, available here. Reactions by anti-war viewers so far have been mixed, and can be read here. The creators have cautioned audiences to withhold judgement until they see the full series.

This commentary by Ron Young, published earlier this summer, lays out some of the issues. It is reprinted, with permission, from Ron’s blog.

Commentary on Previewing the PBS Vietnam War Documentary
By Ron Young

At a preview of the PBS Vietnam War documentary, while filmmakers Ken Burns and Lynn Novick presented visuals and voices of diverse Americans and Vietnamese reflecting complex, different views of the war, I fear the film’s imbalance of voices and distorted historical framing of the war will keep us from learning essential lessons to help prevent future wars.

In the preview, we hear the voices of Nixon, Agnew and Johnson defending the war but not the voices of Senators Morse and Gruening who voted against the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution. This deceitful resolution effectively authorized the war, just as forty years later the false claim about Iraq having nuclear weapons provided the rationale for the disastrous U.S. invasion. The preview, and my guess is the film itself, doesn’t give us the voice of Pulitzer Prize winning journalist David Halberstam who got it right in his 1964 book, The Making of a Quaqmire, on why the American war in Vietnam was unwinnable.

In the documentary’s preview we hear agonized, brave voices of young American soldiers who fought the war, more than 58,200 of whom never came home, but not the voices of an estimated million or more who went AWOL or deserted or voices of soldiers who courageously resisted and risked imprisonment.

The worst distortion is Burns’ historically inaccurate statement that at the war’s end, “a country (South Vietnam) disappeared.” While Vietnamese had different political views then and do today, Vietnam was and is one country. This was recognized in the 1954 Geneva Accords that ended French colonial rule, temporarily divided the country into two zones, and mandated Vietnam-wide elections in 1956, elections which the U.S. imposed Diem regime refused. In truth, the war’s end marked Vietnam’s independence. The country was finally free from decades of foreign domination.

The American war in Vietnam didn’t need to happen. On February 28, 1946 Ho Chi Minh wrote to President Truman informing him how the French were making preparations for returning French troops to Hanoi to make Vietnam a colony again. Ho wrote urgently, “I therefore earnestly appeal to you personally and to the American people. . .to support our independence. . .in keeping with principles of the Atlantic and San Francisco charters.”
President Truman, blinded by Cold War ideology which pitted the U.S. against many anti-colonial nationalist movements, never replied. Instead, the U.S. paid 80% of France’s losing war costs. And then we spent $168 billion ($1 trillion in 2017 dollars) for the American War that robbed resources at home from the War on Poverty and Great Society programs.
Burns and Novick view their film as helping to create reconciliation over a war that generated deep divisions among Americans. As South Africans understood in creating their post-Apartheid commission, you can’t have reconciliation without truth-telling. The truth is the American War in Vietnam was wrong. It was a war, like the war in Iraq, that never should have happened.

During the Vietnam War, as National Youth Secretary of the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), Ron resisted the draft, led an interfaith/interracial mission to Saigon focused on repression, carried mail to American POW’s in Hanoi, and coordinated national peace marches on Washington, DC in November 1969 and May 1970.

Ron lives in Everett, WA and can be contacted at ronyoungwa@gmail.com.

Foreign Policy: Cabinet ignoring the president?

This is a long exerpt from today’s Foreign Policy Situation Report, a daily review of news. It’s one that I find very useful and worth keeping up with, especially these days.

By Paul McLeary

Same as it ever was. After a week of incendiary tweets and comments from President Donald Trump threatening war with North Korea and Venezuela, his cabinet and top military advisors did what they’ve grown accustomed to doing: moving past the noise emanating from the Oval Office.

“An attack from North Korea is not something that is imminent,” CIA Director Mike Pompeo said Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation. Appearing later on “Fox News Sunday,” Pompeo went further. “I’ve heard folks talking about being on the cusp of a nuclear war,” he said, but there is “no intelligence that would indicate that we’re in that place today.”

Pentagon on the line. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Joseph Dunford, is in Seoul, South Korea to meet with officials and military leaders. He also took a more measured approach. “As a military leader, I have to make sure that the president does have viable military options in the event that the diplomatic and economic pressurization campaign fails,” he said. “We are mindful of the consequences of executing those options, and that makes us have more of a sense of urgency to make sure that we’re doing everything we absolutely can to support Secretary Tillerson’s current path.”

“We’re all looking to get out of this situation without a war,” Dunford said.

Cabinet pushes diplomacy. On Sunday night, an op-ed by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and also urged a diplomatic approach:

“The U.S. will continue to work with our allies and partners to deepen diplomatic and military cooperation, and to hold nations accountable to their commitments to isolate the regime. That will include rigorous enforcement of sanctions, leaving no North Korean source of revenue untouched. In particular, the U.S. will continue to request Chinese and Russian commitments not to provide the regime with economic lifelines and to persuade it to abandon its dangerous path.”

FP’s Paul McLeary and C.K.Hickey worked up a map to pinpoint where U.S. missile defense and radar systems are in the Asia Pacific region.

Tough talk limits options. Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said over the weekend that Trump’s talk of “fire and fury” doesn’t help the situation on the Korean peninsula. “It’s an incredibly difficult, complex problem, and we have rhetoric, some very strong rhetoric, coming from both North Korea, as well as from the United States,” he said. “And that rhetoric, it seems to me, has taken away options or it’s reduced maneuver space, if you will, for leaders to make decisions.”

Another front. On Friday, president Trump also threatened Venezuela with military action, catching Washington off guard. Appearing on ABC News on Sunday, national security advisor Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster was asked if he thought there was the possibility of U.S. military action in Venezuela. “No, I don’t,” he answered.