Click on title to link to the first part of the article, in the interest of completeness, posted below, Slavery and the Origins of American Capitalism, September 11, 2009.
To answer the question posed by my headline to this entry here is the guest commentary that will more than detail the reasons that while we respect and learn from the lessons of the American revolution we do not celebrate the holiday associated with that revolution
Workers Vanguard No. 943
25 September 2009
Slavery and the Origins of American Capitalism
Part Two
We print below, in slightly edited form, Part Two of a presentation by Jacob Zorn to a Spartacist League educational in New York on 30 March 2008. Part One of this talk, published in WV No. 942 (11 September), focused on the centrality of black chattel slavery to the early development of capitalism.
I want to talk about the American Revolution, which we don’t write about all that much. I think there are two essential pitfalls in dealing with the American Revolution. One was shown most fully by Earl Browder, the head of the Communist Party (CP) during its popular-front phase in the mid 1930s. In What Is Communism?—the same book in which he tried to show that “Communism is the Americanism of the twentieth century”—Browder argued that the American Revolution of 1776 was essentially the model of the popular front. (There’s a novel by Howard Fast called Citizen Tom Paine, written during World War II, where he also makes this argument, that Tom Paine came up with the idea of a popular front against British colonialism.) The second pitfall is to pretend that the American Revolution isn’t really important at all.
There’s a WV article that was part of the readings, called “Why We Don’t Celebrate July 4” [WV No. 116, 2 July 1976], which is very useful. But just because we don’t celebrate the Fourth of July doesn’t mean that we think the revolution was unimportant. The revolution was, so far as it went, both important and progressive—the main thing is that it didn’t go all that far. The American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution in the sense that it laid the basis for the development of American capitalism, but keep in mind that Britain in 1776 was not a feudal society—the English Civil War had happened more than 100 years earlier. Socially, the revolution was an alliance between the planter elites of the Southern colonies, which obviously were based on slavery, and the merchants of the Northern colonies because both of them wanted to break away from the constraints of British mercantilism. Thus, the revolution spurred not only the development of American capitalism, but also the development of the slave system in the South. The revolution itself cemented the alliance between capitalism and slavery, an alliance that would later—to borrow a phrase from the Communist Manifesto—have to be burst asunder. But one of the interesting points about the American Revolution is that this relationship was almost not burst asunder. The revolution did not solve the question of which of these two systems would dominate; and in that sense, the Civil War really was the Second American Revolution. This is another part of the answer to comrade Foster’s question: Why did there need to be a Civil War? I think the American Revolution kind of set it up, in that sense.
I want to talk about the political significance of the revolution, however. Many of the ideals of the revolution, which drew upon the Parliamentary side of the English Civil War, are, in and of themselves, important. The right to bear arms, the separation of church and state, representative democracy, republicanism and colonial independence are good things. It’s worth reading Common Sense by Thomas Paine. Some of these ideas were quite radical for the time—and I would just remind comrades that in Britain there is still both a crown and an established church. Plus, the founding fathers were by and large secular. I don’t think that if George Washington had said that God had told him to fight England that people would have taken him seriously. That’s another point that our article on the Fourth of July makes—that even by bourgeois standards, the leaders of the American Revolution stand several heads and shoulders above the current leaders.
The Nature of the American Revolution
The American Revolution, however, was not a social revolution, unlike either the French or the Haitian revolutions that immediately followed it. The question of the revolution was not whether the goal of the colonies was to be capitalist, or to make money, but for whom the colonies would be making money. It is important to keep in mind that of all the British colonies in America, the West Indies—the so-called “sugar colonies”—were much more important than the mainland North American colonies. The Northern colonies, as Eric Williams describes, essentially existed to provide food and other supplies to the Caribbean colonies. They preferred importing food, even at very high prices, from North America to wasting land that could otherwise be used for sugar. And in an earlier book, The Negro in the Caribbean (1942), Williams described how even then, most of the fish eaten in the Caribbean was imported from elsewhere, even though obviously the Caribbean is made up of islands. And the West Indian planters were a powerful section of the British ruling class, including many representatives in Parliament. So Parliament was not going to do anything that would harm the interests of these planters.
Under British mercantilism, there were basically two ways that the North American colonies were important to Britain. Under the Navigation Act of 1651, and later the Molasses Act of 1733, they were supposed to trade only with other British colonies. For the North, these acts were largely dead letters; they traded with whomever they wanted to trade. Northern merchants regularly bought molasses from French colonies, which tended to be more productive and sold cheaper, and they sold rum and other products—made directly or indirectly from slave labor—to non-British colonies. The planters in the South were expected to sell tobacco only to the British, but they found ways to get around this. The other important role of the North American colonies was to pay taxes. And tobacco was taxed at this time, in much of the 18th century, not by its value (i.e., by the price), but by how much was actually grown, so that as the planters’ profits declined, their taxes often still increased. So, in much of the 18th century, even though the sugar colonies were much more profitable, they paid much less in taxes than did Virginia. And Virginia, in fact, paid more taxes to the royal treasury than any other colony. Nonetheless, for most of this period, the British government had a policy that was called salutary—or benign—neglect, allowing the colonies to ignore much of the mercantile laws while the colonies ran themselves.
This all changed at the end of the Seven Years (or the French and Indian) War, in 1763, which, in America at least, was fought in part over control of the Caribbean and French Canada. It was very complicated, and in some ways perhaps the first world war, drawing in every European power. But two trends merged at the end of this war. Britain ended the war with immense holdings in North America, with a large empire, and the newly crowned George III wanted to reassert a vigorous role for the British Crown. But the British were broke after the war and looked to America as a way of paying for this. As the Encyclopedia Britannica puts it, the British “felt that the colonies were ungrateful children, ready to profit from the security our arms had gained for them, but unwilling to pay the price.”
So Parliament and George III, in a rather ham-handed way, passed a series of laws regarding the colonies (if you remember ninth grade, you probably went through them). But the bottom line is that these laws convinced both the American planters in the South and the merchants in the North that as long as they continued to remain a part of the British system, they would not be able to develop in the way that they wanted. And slavery was central to all of this, both because the main product that was being sent from Virginia—tobacco—was made with slave labor, but also because sugar and other things that were being traded in the North were an integral part of the Triangle Trade between Europe, the American colonies and Africa.
Slavery and the American Revolution
There is a great article that deals with the American Revolution in WV No. 764, called “The Haitian Revolution and the American Slavocracy.” Many comrades don’t remember it because it was published on September 14, 2001, but it explains how the American Revolution did not involve a social revolutionary component that was equivalent, for example, to the sans-culottes in France. It did not fundamentally change the class structure of the United States. But in order to mobilize the mass of the white populace—small farmers, artisans, shopkeepers—to risk their lives and livelihoods against Britain, the wealthy colonial elites had to tell them that all men, having been created equal, were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
One of the key ways they were able to do this was through the institution of slavery, and the American rulers could give political rights to whites because the central labor force in the American South was slaves, who were excluded from all this. This is one of the reasons that there was no regime of plebeian terror in the American Revolution as there was in France; there was no Robespierre or, as in the English Civil War, Cromwell. Famously, in writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, himself a slaveholder (he owned about 200 slaves), had put in some mild anti-slavery language, blaming George III for supporting the slave trade. This was taken out at the insistence of the slaveholders. That is to say, slavery couldn’t be touched.
From the revolution until the Constitution was adopted, the law of the land was what is called the Articles of Confederation. They allowed each state to regulate its own affairs, including whether to have slavery or not—this is the concept which later is called “states’ rights.” Earl Browder, in the same piece I referenced earlier, wrote that the Constitution was a “counter-revolution engineered by Alexander Hamilton.” (Given that this was about the same time that Browder was defending the Stalinist Moscow Trials in the USSR, his idea of a political counterrevolution might be somewhat suspect.) The CP fundamentally preferred the side of Jefferson—their school here in New York City, for example, was called the Jefferson School of Social Science. Jefferson liked to talk of individual liberties, and in some ways he is one of the more eloquent spokesmen for the American Revolution. But the system that was set up was really a cover, to a large degree, for slavery. Jefferson’s traditional enemy is considered to be Alexander Hamilton, and there are a lot of bad things about Alexander Hamilton, I suppose—he was willing to sacrifice political liberty upon the altar of bourgeois development, and he feared the people having too much power. But one of the key things was that he opposed slavery. If any of the founding fathers were vindicated by the Civil War, I think it was really Alexander Hamilton, who was in favor of a strong central government to develop capitalism, was opposed to slavery, and who also proposed arming blacks in the American Revolution, something that, again, the slaveholders opposed. Part of this is probably his own background, because he came from the British Caribbean and was intimately familiar with slavery.
Although the Constitution did represent a move away from the more egalitarian goals, or at least the rhetoric, of the revolution, it was carried out largely by the same men who made the revolution—as our piece in 1976 put it, they died of old age. It was not really a political counterrevolution in the same way that you can talk about Thermidor in the French Revolution, because there was not really a Robespierre in the American Revolution. The closest you would have, I guess, would be Daniel Shays, who in late 1786 in western Massachusetts rebelled against high taxes. It was fundamentally a different type of revolution.
The Constitution of 1787 was pushed by Alexander Hamilton in order to create a centralized government that would have the power to help create a unified, capitalist country. It was not very democratic, even if we exclude the question of slavery. In this context, I recommend section three in the July 2003 amici curiae (friends of the court) brief by the Partisan Defense Committee on Jose Padilla, which is called, “It Took a Civil War to Establish the Rights and Privileges of United States Citizenship.” It makes the point that federalism—the so-called separation of powers, including between the states and the national government—really allowed slavery to exist until the Civil War. Therefore, the Constitution of 1787 codified the coexistence of two battling social systems, with the South given extra power.
I’m sure comrades have listened to, or at least read, Barack Obama’s recent “A More Perfect Union” speech, where he argues that:
“The answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution—a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.”
Well, no, the Constitution actually made resolving this question short of a Civil War largely impossible. Also—it’s interesting—when he lists all the bad things about the Constitution, he leaves out the most important part, which is the three-fifths compromise, which not only said that blacks are 60 percent human beings, but essentially gave the slave South control of the federal government. As Frederick Douglass put it in an article titled “The Constitution and Slavery” (1849): “Under it, the slave system has enjoyed a large and domineering representation in Congress, which has given laws to the whole Union in regard to slavery, ever since the formation of the government.” Out of the three-fifths clause we also have the amazing contraption of the electoral college, which basically was designed to, and did, give the South the presidency, by giving more power to states that owned slaves. Some nine out of the first 15 presidents were Southerners, most from Virginia. So slavery was not, as Obama put it—and it’s not just Obama, it’s a common liberal myth—a “stain” on early American politics and society, but an essential thread woven throughout the development of American capitalism. It’s a fundamental aspect, not extraneous or peripheral.
The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 in order to get the states to support the adoption of the Constitution, and this is what the Padilla brief calls the “Second Constitution.” And these recognized important rights, but they still did not define any sense of national citizenship, something that would not come until the Civil War. In fact, one of the reasons that the framers didn’t put these rights in the original Constitution is that they didn’t want to start off saying that “all men are equal” again. That is to say, they didn’t want to have anything that could be seen as challenging slavery. Of course, a point that is made in the Padilla brief and that we have often made since the “war on terror” began is that rights are not just granted by a piece of paper but also reflect what type of social struggle is going on in society.
[TO BE CONTINUED]
*******
Workers Vanguard No. 944
9 October 2009
Slavery and the Origins of American Capitalism
Part Three
We print below, in slightly edited form, the third and final part of a presentation by Jacob Zorn to a Spartacist League educational in New York on 30 March 2008. The first two parts were published in WV Nos. 942 and 943 (11 September and 25 September).
One way of contrasting the American Revolution to the French Revolution is to look at the case of Tom Paine. In the American Revolution, he was the far-left wing. But when he went to France, while he supported the French Revolution, he ended up essentially on the right wing of the revolution. It wasn’t his ideas that changed so much as the context. And when the Haitian Revolution erupted in 1791, even the elements of the American Revolution that supported the French Revolution, such as Jefferson, hated the Haitian Revolution and wanted to drown it in blood, because they saw in it a spectre that would threaten slavery in the South. Interestingly, Hamilton was one of the more open to recognizing Haiti as an independent country, partly because he hated France. Also, it’s interesting that the leaders of the American Revolution who were the most anti-slavery—Alexander Hamilton and Tom Paine—were not really American in the traditional sense. Tom Paine had just come over from Britain, and Hamilton was from the West Indies.
I do not want to suggest that the American Revolution was nothing more than a pro-slavery rebellion. As the article on Haiti points out, “To be sure, some radical elements in the American Revolution, including Thomas Paine, denounced slavery as a moral evil and called for its abolition. And Jefferson himself was well aware—and was constantly reminded by his liberal and radical English and French friends—that black chattel slavery was blatantly incompatible with the democratic principles he so eloquently proclaimed” (WV No. 764, 14 September 2001).
The common way liberals and idealists deal with this problem, especially with Jefferson, is to say that the ideals of Jefferson transcended the reality of Jefferson (and other founders)—that this was their own personal weakness. But in reality, whatever his personal weaknesses, Jefferson’s beliefs reflected the interests of his class, which was the slavocracy, and it was social struggle that expanded bourgeois-democratic rights to black people, including through the Civil War, and not a closer reading of the Declaration of Independence.
Incidentally, abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison rejected the entire Constitution—they called it a “covenant with death”—because it was pro-slavery, but in some ways they drew the wrong conclusion. That is to say, they avoided political struggle in favor of “moral suasion.” But their analysis of the Constitution as pro-slavery was correct. When Frederick Douglass broke with Garrison, he also changed his views of the Constitution.
The Early U.S. and Slavery
To many, the pro-slavery nature of the Constitution at the time may have appeared justified because many people thought that slavery would die a slow but natural death: the international slave trade was going to be abolished, the fertility of the soil in tobacco country was declining, and tobacco prices were in decline. But two things gave the Southern slavocracy a renewed lease on life, and Jefferson was at least indirectly involved in both. One was the invention of the cotton gin in the 1790s that made slave-produced cotton profitable. Jefferson as secretary of state approved the patent by Eli Whitney, and he also bought one of the earliest models. The second was the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, in which Jefferson as president basically illegally doubled the size of the United States. There is a whole debate in the history books over whether Napoleon or Jefferson was the one most responsible for the Louisiana Purchase. But in reality I think it was Toussaint L’Ouverture—by having defeated the French in Haiti, he made it so that Napoleon wanted to wash his hands of any colonies in America as quickly as possible.
Taken together, these developments increased the power of the Southern slavocracy and propelled them into conflict with the North. As we all know, this conflict between the capitalist North and the slave South eventually led to the Civil War, the second bourgeois revolution in the United States. However, the Northern capitalists were not engaged in one unceasing revolutionary struggle. Key elements of the Northern bourgeoisie were all too eager to cohabit with slavery because it was profitable. However, by the mid 19th century, the development of capitalism as a whole increasingly came into conflict with the domination of the Southern system in national politics. Marx in 1861 sarcastically described what he called the Northern bourgeoisie’s “long hesitations, and an exhibition of forbearance unknown in the annals of European history,” in describing their willingness to compromise with the South.
And in fact, Marx was one of the greatest observers of the class dynamics of American politics. Here’s a rather long quote from the same article by Marx:
“The progressive abuse of the Union by the slave power, working through its alliance with the Northern Democratic party, is, so to say, the general formula of the United States history since the beginning of this century. The successive compromise measures mark the successive degrees of the encroachment by which the Union became more and more transformed into the slave of the slave-owner. Each of these compromises denotes a new encroachment of the South, a new concession of the North. At the same time none of the successive victories of the South was carried but after a hot contest with an antagonistic force in the North, appearing under different party names with different watchwords and under different colors. If the positive and final result of each single contest told in favor of the South, the attentive observer of history could not but see that every new advance of the slave power was a step forward to its ultimate defeat. Even at the times of the Missouri Compromise the contending forces were so evenly balanced that Jefferson, as we see from his memoirs, apprehended the Union to be in danger of splitting on that deadly antagonism. The encroachments of the slaveholding power reached their maximum point, when, by the Kansas-Nebraska bill, for the first time in the history of the United States, as Mr. [Stephen] Douglas himself confessed, every legal barrier to the diffusion of Slavery within the United States territories was broken down, when, afterward, a Northern candidate bought his Presidential nomination by pledging the Union to conquer or purchase in Cuba a new field of dominion for the slaveholder; when, later on, by the Dred Scott decision, diffusion of Slavery by the Federal power was proclaimed as the law of the American Constitution, and lastly, when the African slave-trade was de facto reopened on a larger scale than during the times of its legal existence. But, concurrently with this climax of Southern encroachments, carried by the connivance of the Northern Democratic party, there were unmistakable signs of Northern antagonistic agencies having gathered such strength as must soon turn the balance of power.”
—“The American Question in England” (1861)
So the point is that there was what New York Senator William Henry Seward called an “irrepressible conflict” between slavery and freedom. I’m going to give somewhat short shrift to the 1850s, not because it’s an unimportant period, but because it’s so important that comrades are probably more familiar with it than with the earlier stuff. I also think that the first volume of James McPherson’s Ordeal by Fire (1982) covers this ground very well. But I want to draw comrades’ attention to several factors. One is the role of the political parties, and the second is the role of expansion.
As Marx illustrates, the Democratic Party—including in the North—was a pro-slavery party. The contemporary political system that we have today is relatively new. For much of the antebellum period, there were two parties, the Whigs and the Democrats. The Democratic Party, formed by Jefferson in 1792 and reformed by President Andrew Jackson in the 1830s, was a populist party. They were in favor of what is often called “Jacksonian Democracy,” which goes down in various history books as the expansion of democracy in the United States. They were for the rule of the “little man”; they were against banks and entrenched economic power. They opposed the creation of a national bank. They were a white man’s party, viciously anti-Indian—Jackson carried out one of the brutal series of attacks that pushed the Indians out of the Southeast and further west—and also viciously pro-slavery and anti-black. This was also the time of increasing Irish immigration, and the Democratic Party, especially in big Northern cities like here in New York, based themselves on immigration.
In the South, the Democrats were an openly pro-slavery party. Although he had his differences with Jackson, one key Democratic leader was John C. Calhoun, who was in many ways the intellectual grandfather of the Confederacy. He developed the idea—“nullification”—that a state could refuse to abide by the federal government if it disagreed. He also believed, unlike Jefferson, that slavery was not only necessary, but was positively good. And this is really the history of the Democratic Party. There is a new book that is very interesting, by Bruce Bartlett, who writes for the Wall Street Journal, called Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (2008). He is pro-Republican and so has an ax to grind, but it goes through the history of the Democratic Party on the question of slavery and then later on Reconstruction, up through the Dixiecrats.
The other political party was called the Whigs. They opposed what they saw as increased presidential power. They wanted the government to intervene into the economy to help spur capitalist development, such as through a national bank, protective tariffs to develop industry, and government spending on what were called “internal improvements,” or infrastructure. Both these parties had supporters in the North and the South, but as slavery became a more important issue, they were increasingly torn apart.
The other party that developed, as the slave question basically corroded the Whigs in the 1850s, was the Republican Party. The Republicans were not an abolitionist party, but they were perhaps the most radical mainstream party that the country has ever seen. They were dedicated not to eliminating slavery, but to rolling back the power of the slave South—the so-called Slave Power. There is a good book by Eric Foner that sums up the goal of the early Republicans, called Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men (1970). The Republican Party became the party of the American bourgeoisie in its struggle against the slavocracy—it was a class-based party, something that we are told doesn’t exist in the United States.
And then there were the abolitionists, who were seen as a radical fringe, but who played a very important role in pushing the question of slavery forward. I said that there is really no radical Cromwell or Robespierre figure in the American Revolution, but it’s the abolitionists who are the real radical bourgeois revolutionaries in the history of the United States. It is to them that we look, not Thomas Jefferson.
Why did the two systems keep butting heads? It was not about the morality of slavery or about broader philosophical issues. It was because both slavery and capitalism had built-in tendencies to expand, and the expansion of one came at the expense of the other. So, as Marx wrote, one had to vanquish the other. There are three reasons why the Southern slavocracy needed to expand:
1. Exhausted soil. Just as in Roman times, the slavery system used up the soil rapidly. The emphasis was on getting the most crops possible now, and not on preserving the soil. In the North, they were able to invest capital in order to fertilize farm land, but in the South they didn’t do that. So there was an endless need for more land. According to Eugene Genovese’s The Political Economy of Slavery (1967), by 1858 some 40 percent of the South’s cotton land was already exhausted.
2. Political. The three-fifths compromise was designed to give the South more power than its population warranted, but it still could not allow the North to obtain more free states. Every free state needed to be offset by a slave state, to prevent the North from getting the upper hand.
3. Domestic slave trade. Less important, but still real, was that the slaveholders in the older states, like Virginia and Maryland, raised money by selling slaves to the Lower South, so they had an interest in keeping slavery expanding.
So the whole politics of the South was one of expanding slavery, and they saw any interference with the growth and expansion of slavery as a dagger aimed at the heart of the entire slave system.
But the free North also needed to expand. The key reason was, as we all know, that capitalism has to have expanding markets as its productivity increases. Capitalism depends on growing markets, and although a fair number of capitalists made a profit on selling to the South, slaves were not very big consumers, and there was a limit to the planters’ demand for goods. So from the point of view of the North, the South was really a stagnant economy, compared to the West, which the Northeastern and Northern capitalists saw as a vast potential market. They were increasingly selling to the West, but this depended on the expansion of free labor and not slavery to the West.
The second reason was political. The North did not want to be dominated by the South more than it already was, so it needed to offset the growth of slave states. Both the North and the South had agreed in theory that expansion was good. This was the period of so-called “Manifest Destiny”—the idea that God had uniquely blessed the United States with the job of civilizing the American continent. This idea was popular in the North and in the South, but the devil was in the details, and the question was what to do about the land that became part of the United States.
The first real crisis came with the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Missouri was the second state admitted from the Louisiana Purchase, and essentially what was agreed on in 1820 was the temporary measure of drawing a line, anything north of which would become free, and anything south of which would become slave. But the problem was broached again every several years.
A key thing, to which I’m going to give a lot less attention than it deserves, was Texas. In the 1830s, slaveholders had moved to Texas, and they basically engineered a split from Mexico. The South supported this because they wanted Texas to join the country as a slave state. The so-called Texas Revolution of 1835-36 was basically a rebellion against Mexico in order to protect slavery. The North did not want Texas to join as a slave state or, God forbid, several slave states.
So, a lot of the roots of the immediate struggle over slavery in the 1840s and ’50s go back to how to deal with the question of Texas. Mexico, for obvious reasons, did not want its former territory to be annexed by the United States, and when in 1845 the Southern states essentially were able to annex Texas, that act provoked a war with Mexico. And so, in 1846 the United States invaded Mexico and ended up occupying Mexico City and important cities like Veracruz and Monterrey. As a result of the 1846-48 war, the U.S. took over half of Mexico’s territory, and the acquisition of these new territories gave rise to disputes between the North and South that helped lead to the Civil War (see “Mexican-American War: Prelude to American Civil War,” WV Nos. 933 and 934, 27 March and 10 April).
The situation created compromise after compromise. Many Northerners preferred to compromise with the South, and so there were a series of compromises, but the crisis over Texas and the invasion of Mexico basically made continued compromises impossible. Northerners, including Democrats, had been less willing to support the invasion of Mexico because it was seen as a war to expand slavery. Not just the abolitionists—although the abolitionists were the most fervent—but many people in the North were against the invasion of Mexico because they thought it was a pro-slavery conspiracy, which to a large degree it was.
The U.S. obviously won the war against Mexico, which had important effects on the development of both U.S. and Mexican capitalism. Yet the immediate result of the victory was to bring the United States even closer to civil war. The first sign of this was the Wilmot Proviso, in which Northern states refused to finance the war against Mexico so long as it was seen as increasing the number of slave states. The Wilmot Proviso declared that the war would only be funded if the states that were gained from it did not become slave. This cut across party lines—Wilmot was a Democrat from Pennsylvania—and it heralded the realignment of American politics along sectional lines.
Soon after the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which finalized the taking over of half of Mexico, there was the Compromise of 1850, and by this time the split of the country was already posed; it was already talked about. And in fact Calhoun, who would die shortly afterward, all but advocated a division of the country, that is, the secession of the South. The Compromise of 1850 allowed California to become a free state, but it put off deciding on the rest of the former Mexican territories, and this was seen as allowing the possibility of slavery there. More grotesquely, it also created the Fugitive Slave Act, which made Northern states complicit in “returning” slaves who had run away from the South to the North. When they attempted to capture Anthony Burns, a runaway slave, in Boston and provoked angry mass protests, it really posed the question of the relationship between the North and the South. Frederick Douglass spelled this out when the Fugitive Slave Act was passed:
“By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason and Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women and children, as slaves, remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the star-spangled banner, and American Christianity.”
—“The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro” (1852)
From the 1850 Compromise on—there were still more compromises—the Southern states were increasingly pushing the envelope. There was the Dred Scott decision, where the Supreme Court ruled, as we mention in our Mumia articles, that slavery was not only the law of the land in the South, but was the law of the land anyplace. It ruled that slave property must be protected, including in free states and that, in its famous statement, blacks had “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” This really gave rise to what would be a final showdown between the capitalist system in the North and the slavocracy in the South.
I want to make the point, however, that it was not something that even at the time was obvious, or that even many of the bourgeoisie accepted. When John Brown carried out his raid in 1859, he was roundly denounced by many, including by Abraham Lincoln. But it posed the question: How was the United States going to be ruled? Was it going to develop as a capitalist country or as a slave society? This is something that the Civil War, which is the subject of the next class, would decide, in what we call the Second American Revolution.
Monday, July 04, 2011
*Why Communists Do Not Celebrate July 4th- Another Guest Commentary
Click on the title to link to a Workers Vanguard, Number 942, September 11, 2009 article entitled Slavery and The Origins of American Capitalism, Part 1 which provided added details to the premise of this entry. For Parts Two and Three check today's other entry Why Communists Do Not Celebrate July 4- A Guest Commentary.
Guest Commentary:
"Why We Don't Celebrate July 4-Marxism and the "Spirit Of '76"- Workers Vanguard, Number 116, July 2, 1976
The burned-out tenements of America's decaying slums are plastered with red, white and blue posters celebrating a 200-year-old revolution. From factory bulletin boards and the walls of unemployment offices, patriotic displays urge American working people to join with Gerald Ford and the butchers of Vietnam in commemorating the "Spirit of '76." Class-conscious workers and militant blacks, like the colonial masses ground down under the economic and military heel of arrogant American imperialism, must recoil in revulsion from the U.S. bourgeoisie's hypocritical pieties about "liberty."
The Fourth of July is not our holiday. But the chauvinist ballyhoo of the "People's Bicentennial" does not negate the need for a serious Marxist appreciation of colonial America's war of independence against monarchical/ mercantilist England. Marxists have always stressed the powerful impact of the classic bourgeois-democratic revolutions in breaking feudal-aristocratic barriers to historical progress.
In appealing for support for the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin in his Letter to American Workers (1918) wrote:
"The history of modern, civilized America opened with one of those really
great, really liberating, really revolutionary wars of which there have been
so few compared to the vast number of wars of conquest which, like the present
imperialist war, were caused by squabbles among kings, landowners or
capitalists over the division of usurped land or ill-gotten gains. That was the
war the American people waged against the British robbers who oppressed
America and held her in colonial slavery. "
It is also legitimate for revolutionaries to appeal to the most radical-democratic traditions of the great bourgeois revolutions. Yet the fact remains that the Fourth of July is a fundamentally chauvinist holiday, a celebration of national greatness. In no sense does it commemorate a popular uprising against an oppressive system, or even pay tribute to democratic principles and individual freedom. Attempts to lend the Fourth of July a populist coloration (or the Communist Party's popular-front period slogan that "Communism is 20th century Americanism") only express the capitulation of various fake-socialists to the democratic pretensions of American imperialism.
But neither can the traditions of 1776 justly be claimed by the imperialist bourgeoisie. Compared to the leadership of the colonial independence struggle, the present American capitalist class is absolutely degenerate. One has only to think of Franklin or Jefferson, among the intellectual giants of their time, and then consider Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter. The twentieth-century United States is the gendarme of world reaction, the backer of every torture-chamber regime from Santiago to Tehran.
The "founding fathers" would have been revolted by the men who today represent their class. The degeneration of the American bourgeoisie is appropriate to the passing of its progressive mission. The attitude toward religion is a good indicator. Virtually none of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were orthodox Christians; they held a rationalist attitude toward the concept of god. Jefferson would have walked out in protest at today's prayer-intoning presidential inaugurations.
The America of 1976 is the contemporary analogue of the tsarist Russia which the "founding fathers" held in contempt as the bastion of world reaction—the tsarist Russia against whose tyranny Lenin and the Bolsheviks organized the proletariat. It is to the world working class that the liberating mission now falls.
Was the War of Independence a Social Revolution?
Like the Fourth of July, Bastille Day in France is an official, patriotic holiday, replete with military marches and chauvinist speeches. Yet the events Bastille Day commemorates retain a certain revolutionary significance to this day. The French people's understanding of 1789 is as a violent overthrow by the masses of an oppressive ruling class. The French imperialist bourgeoisie's efforts to purge the French revolution of present-day revolutionary significance have not succeeded. A Charles De Gaulle or a Valery Giscard d'Estaing cannot embrace Robespierre or Marat, for the latter stand too close to the primitive communist Gracchus Babeuf, who considered himself a true Jacobin.
The American war of independence was also a classic bourgeois-democratic revolution, but it was not really a social revolution which overthrew the existing ruling class. The British loyalists were largely concentrated in the propertied classes and governing elite. However pro-independence forces among the planters and merchants were strong enough to prevent any significant class polarization during the war.
The English and French bourgeois-democratic revolutions had to destroy an entrenched aristocratic order. That destruction required a radical, plebeian terrorist phase associated with the figures of Cromwell and Robespierre. For the American colonies, winning independence from England did not require a regime based on plebeian terror. The war of independence did not produce a Cromwell or a Robespierre because it did not need one. Nor did it give rise to radical egalitarian groups like the Levellers and Diggers, or the Enrages and Babouvists. It never remotely threatened the wealthiest, most conservative planters and merchants who supported secession from Britain.
The consolidation of bourgeois rule in the Puritan and French revolutions required a political counterrevolution in which the Cromwellians and Jacobins were overthrown, persecuted and vilified. The radical opposition which sprung up in resistance to this counterrevolution became part—through the Babouvists in France—of the revolutionary tradition which Marx embraced.
Because the American war of independence did not experience a plebeian terrorist phase, neither did it experience a conservative bourgeois counterrevolution. The leaders of the independence struggle went on to found and govern the republic; greatly venerated, they died of old age.
The men who met in Philadelphia's Convention Hall 200 years ago realized their aims more satisfactorily than any other similarly placed, insurrectionary group in history. This achievement does not bespeak their greatness, but the limited, essentially conservative nature of their goals. The legitimization of black chattel slavery in the Constitution, without significant opposition, demonstrates the bourgeois conservatism of the leaders of the American Revolution. The "founding fathers" had no children who could claim that the principles of 1776 had been betrayed in the interests of the rich and powerful. The era of the war of independence did not give rise to a living revolutionary tradition.
John Brown's Body
There is a social revolution in American history which troubles the imperialist bourgeoisie to this day. It did not begin in 1776, but in the anti-slavery confrontations. The issue rose by the civil war and particularly the period of Radical Reconstruction—the intimate relationship between capitalism in America and racial oppression—awaits its fundamental resolution in future revolutionary struggle. The wasn't-it-tragic attitude of the bourgeoisie to the civil war era contrasts sharply with their celebratory attitude toward the war of independence. The signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, unlike the Declaration of Independence, will never be a holiday in racist, imperialist America.
It is in the civil war era that there are parallels with the plebeian component of the French Revolution. The contemporary bourgeois treatment of John Brown resembles the French ruling class attitude toward Robespierre. They cannot disown the anti-slavery cause outright, but they condemn John Brown for his fanatical commitment and violent methods. The Reconstruction era of 1867-1877 is the only period in U.S. history which the present ruling class rejects an un-American extremism. Two important films, D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and the later Gone With the Wind, are outright apologies for white supremacist terror against the only radical-democratic governments this country has ever experienced. The Compromise of 1877, when the black freedmen were abandoned to the merciless regimes of the ex-slaveholders, was the American bourgeois-democratic revolution betrayed. And the reversal of that historic betrayal awaits the victory of American communism.
Because of the American revolution's limited social mobilization, those whose principles ultimately clashed with bourgeois rule—the likes of Tom Paine and Sam Adams—were easily disposed of. The radical abolitionists—John Brown, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass— are the only figures in American history before the emergence of the workers movement whose commitment to democratic principles actually threatened bourgeois rule. For the same reason that the present-day bourgeoisie denounces John Brown as a dangerous extremist, we communists can claim the radical abolitionists as ours. Only a victorious American socialist revolution can give to the heroes and martyrs of Harper's Ferry and the "underground railway" the honor that is their historic right.
Guest Commentary:
"Why We Don't Celebrate July 4-Marxism and the "Spirit Of '76"- Workers Vanguard, Number 116, July 2, 1976
The burned-out tenements of America's decaying slums are plastered with red, white and blue posters celebrating a 200-year-old revolution. From factory bulletin boards and the walls of unemployment offices, patriotic displays urge American working people to join with Gerald Ford and the butchers of Vietnam in commemorating the "Spirit of '76." Class-conscious workers and militant blacks, like the colonial masses ground down under the economic and military heel of arrogant American imperialism, must recoil in revulsion from the U.S. bourgeoisie's hypocritical pieties about "liberty."
The Fourth of July is not our holiday. But the chauvinist ballyhoo of the "People's Bicentennial" does not negate the need for a serious Marxist appreciation of colonial America's war of independence against monarchical/ mercantilist England. Marxists have always stressed the powerful impact of the classic bourgeois-democratic revolutions in breaking feudal-aristocratic barriers to historical progress.
In appealing for support for the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin in his Letter to American Workers (1918) wrote:
"The history of modern, civilized America opened with one of those really
great, really liberating, really revolutionary wars of which there have been
so few compared to the vast number of wars of conquest which, like the present
imperialist war, were caused by squabbles among kings, landowners or
capitalists over the division of usurped land or ill-gotten gains. That was the
war the American people waged against the British robbers who oppressed
America and held her in colonial slavery. "
It is also legitimate for revolutionaries to appeal to the most radical-democratic traditions of the great bourgeois revolutions. Yet the fact remains that the Fourth of July is a fundamentally chauvinist holiday, a celebration of national greatness. In no sense does it commemorate a popular uprising against an oppressive system, or even pay tribute to democratic principles and individual freedom. Attempts to lend the Fourth of July a populist coloration (or the Communist Party's popular-front period slogan that "Communism is 20th century Americanism") only express the capitulation of various fake-socialists to the democratic pretensions of American imperialism.
But neither can the traditions of 1776 justly be claimed by the imperialist bourgeoisie. Compared to the leadership of the colonial independence struggle, the present American capitalist class is absolutely degenerate. One has only to think of Franklin or Jefferson, among the intellectual giants of their time, and then consider Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter. The twentieth-century United States is the gendarme of world reaction, the backer of every torture-chamber regime from Santiago to Tehran.
The "founding fathers" would have been revolted by the men who today represent their class. The degeneration of the American bourgeoisie is appropriate to the passing of its progressive mission. The attitude toward religion is a good indicator. Virtually none of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were orthodox Christians; they held a rationalist attitude toward the concept of god. Jefferson would have walked out in protest at today's prayer-intoning presidential inaugurations.
The America of 1976 is the contemporary analogue of the tsarist Russia which the "founding fathers" held in contempt as the bastion of world reaction—the tsarist Russia against whose tyranny Lenin and the Bolsheviks organized the proletariat. It is to the world working class that the liberating mission now falls.
Was the War of Independence a Social Revolution?
Like the Fourth of July, Bastille Day in France is an official, patriotic holiday, replete with military marches and chauvinist speeches. Yet the events Bastille Day commemorates retain a certain revolutionary significance to this day. The French people's understanding of 1789 is as a violent overthrow by the masses of an oppressive ruling class. The French imperialist bourgeoisie's efforts to purge the French revolution of present-day revolutionary significance have not succeeded. A Charles De Gaulle or a Valery Giscard d'Estaing cannot embrace Robespierre or Marat, for the latter stand too close to the primitive communist Gracchus Babeuf, who considered himself a true Jacobin.
The American war of independence was also a classic bourgeois-democratic revolution, but it was not really a social revolution which overthrew the existing ruling class. The British loyalists were largely concentrated in the propertied classes and governing elite. However pro-independence forces among the planters and merchants were strong enough to prevent any significant class polarization during the war.
The English and French bourgeois-democratic revolutions had to destroy an entrenched aristocratic order. That destruction required a radical, plebeian terrorist phase associated with the figures of Cromwell and Robespierre. For the American colonies, winning independence from England did not require a regime based on plebeian terror. The war of independence did not produce a Cromwell or a Robespierre because it did not need one. Nor did it give rise to radical egalitarian groups like the Levellers and Diggers, or the Enrages and Babouvists. It never remotely threatened the wealthiest, most conservative planters and merchants who supported secession from Britain.
The consolidation of bourgeois rule in the Puritan and French revolutions required a political counterrevolution in which the Cromwellians and Jacobins were overthrown, persecuted and vilified. The radical opposition which sprung up in resistance to this counterrevolution became part—through the Babouvists in France—of the revolutionary tradition which Marx embraced.
Because the American war of independence did not experience a plebeian terrorist phase, neither did it experience a conservative bourgeois counterrevolution. The leaders of the independence struggle went on to found and govern the republic; greatly venerated, they died of old age.
The men who met in Philadelphia's Convention Hall 200 years ago realized their aims more satisfactorily than any other similarly placed, insurrectionary group in history. This achievement does not bespeak their greatness, but the limited, essentially conservative nature of their goals. The legitimization of black chattel slavery in the Constitution, without significant opposition, demonstrates the bourgeois conservatism of the leaders of the American Revolution. The "founding fathers" had no children who could claim that the principles of 1776 had been betrayed in the interests of the rich and powerful. The era of the war of independence did not give rise to a living revolutionary tradition.
John Brown's Body
There is a social revolution in American history which troubles the imperialist bourgeoisie to this day. It did not begin in 1776, but in the anti-slavery confrontations. The issue rose by the civil war and particularly the period of Radical Reconstruction—the intimate relationship between capitalism in America and racial oppression—awaits its fundamental resolution in future revolutionary struggle. The wasn't-it-tragic attitude of the bourgeoisie to the civil war era contrasts sharply with their celebratory attitude toward the war of independence. The signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, unlike the Declaration of Independence, will never be a holiday in racist, imperialist America.
It is in the civil war era that there are parallels with the plebeian component of the French Revolution. The contemporary bourgeois treatment of John Brown resembles the French ruling class attitude toward Robespierre. They cannot disown the anti-slavery cause outright, but they condemn John Brown for his fanatical commitment and violent methods. The Reconstruction era of 1867-1877 is the only period in U.S. history which the present ruling class rejects an un-American extremism. Two important films, D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and the later Gone With the Wind, are outright apologies for white supremacist terror against the only radical-democratic governments this country has ever experienced. The Compromise of 1877, when the black freedmen were abandoned to the merciless regimes of the ex-slaveholders, was the American bourgeois-democratic revolution betrayed. And the reversal of that historic betrayal awaits the victory of American communism.
Because of the American revolution's limited social mobilization, those whose principles ultimately clashed with bourgeois rule—the likes of Tom Paine and Sam Adams—were easily disposed of. The radical abolitionists—John Brown, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass— are the only figures in American history before the emergence of the workers movement whose commitment to democratic principles actually threatened bourgeois rule. For the same reason that the present-day bourgeoisie denounces John Brown as a dangerous extremist, we communists can claim the radical abolitionists as ours. Only a victorious American socialist revolution can give to the heroes and martyrs of Harper's Ferry and the "underground railway" the honor that is their historic right.
Colonizing Libya by Military, Financial, Political and Propaganda Terrorism - by Stephen Lendman
Monday, July 04, 2011
Colonizing Libya by Military, Financial, Political and Propaganda Terrorism
Colonizing Libya by Military, Financial, Political and Propaganda Terrorism - by Stephen Lendman
After three and a half terror bombing months and counting, destroying Libya for wealth and power continues, each imperial nation playing its part in this sinister dirty game, masquerading as liberation.
France finally admitted what's already known, that it's been supplying mercenary cutthroats with automatic weapons, rocket launchers, assault rifles, anti-tank missiles, and who knows what else. So have Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, perhaps other US imperial allies, and the Pentagon itself. In mid-April, The New York Times said Benghazi-based rebels got weapons from abroad without naming names.
For months, US and UK special forces provided training, The Times saying "professional training centers" were used to do it. In fact, recruiting, funding, and arming rebels began well before bombing began. America's war was planned many months, perhaps years earlier. Obama picked his moment to launch it.
Even the International Criminal Court (ICC) is complicit, functioning as an imperial tool, not a legitimate tribunal. Its chief prosecutor Jose Luis Moren-Ocampo, in fact, targets victims, not criminal Washington, London and Paris conspirators, attacking a nonbelligerent country. It's been standard US practice since WW II.
In May, Ocampo sought arrest warrants for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and brother-in-law intelligence chief, Abdullah Al-Sanousi, on "charges of orchestrating systematic attacks against civilians (amounting) to crimes against humanity," with no evidence whatever to prove it.
Then end of June he issued arrest warrants against all three on alleged crimes against humanity, saying reasonable grounds exist to believe they're "criminally responsible as indirect perpetrators of civilian killings and repression" - again with no corroborating evidence or authority. Libya, in fact, isn't an ICC member, nor are America, China, Russia and India, some nations, openly critical of how it operates with good reason.
On June 28 in Tripoli, Franklin Lamb reported about Libyan Ministry of Health (MOH) "Current Statistics of Civilian Victims of NATO Bombardments on Libya (3/19/11 - 6/27/11" he obtained. Libya's Red Crescent Society, neighborhood civil defense workers, and Tripoli's Nassar University researchers confirmed them.
They include:
-- 6,121 killed or injured;
-- among them were 3,093 men injured, another 668 killed; 1,318 women injured, another 260 killed; and 641 children injured, another 141 killed; and
-- among those seriously hurt, 655 are still hospitalized, another 4,397 released for outpatient care.
Except for one major incident killing 15 men, women and children, NATO claims only military targets are struck, even though many are schools, a university, commercial sites, hospitals, ports, airports, and residential neighborhoods unrelated to military necessity.
On July 1, up to one million pro-Gaddafi Tripoli residents massed in Green Square to hear him speak by telephone. Western media, including The New York Times, called it "defiant," threatening to attack Europe if NATO bombing didn't stop.
The Times misquoted him, claiming he said he'd take the battle "to Europe, target your homes, offices, families, which have become legitimate military targets, like you have targeted our homes."
In fact, writer Kareen Fahim lied as part of a systematic anti-Gaddafi propaganda campaign. Al- Jazeera was just as duplicitous, repeating the above fabrications instead of reporting what he said.
In part, he challenged "Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama to switch on their TVs and watch the crowds, (so) they will find out that they are delusional because they entered a war which they (can) never win."
He didn't threaten to retaliate but said "we can (because) Europe is not far away, but (he added) lets not do this and watch the crowds, kids and women. They are not here because I ordered them to (come. It's their) free will. In this war you are not facing me, you are facing these crowds. I am nothing. If you want peace with Libyans, it is up to the crowds. If you want anything, negotiate with (them)."
"The regime is not a Gaddafi regime. It is a Libyan (one). Is it a democracy to bomb the civilians? We don't want a democracy which comes with bombs."
"The socialist Jamahyria will win, the real democracy which serves the people....The Libyans said their words. They marched. Their tribes made it clear that the future is for Libyans. The oil is for Libya. Libya is ours. You are delusional, a group of traitors convinced (that) Libya is easy to get....You Libyan people are the only one(s) who can finish this war with a victory."
"If they want to negotiate we welcome that. Otherwise we are continuing and they are definitely losing no matter how many weapons they drop (to) rebels. We will not betray our history nor our children and their future. The glory is for you brave Libyans. The struggle will continue."
Growing numbers of Libyans support him the longer NATO terror bombings continue, mostly killing civilian men, women and children, NATO and major media denials notwithstanding.
Months into Obama's war, Der Spiegel's June 28 Matthias Gebauer article headlined, "Berlin Willing to Supply Weapons for Libya war because munitions running out," saying:
Germany offered to help "despite its fundamental opposition to the war. (Its) defense minister (Thomas de Maiziere) has already approved (the) request" to supply bomb components, missiles, sensitive guidance technology, and more on request, making Germany openly complicit in terror bombing crimes.
Britain said it can't continue its campaign much longer without help, facing shortages of air-to-ground missiles and perhaps other weapons and/or munitions. Back home, however, it's not short of ways to force feed austerity on millions of Brits to wage global terror wars for power, privilege and plunder.
Merkel's government wants its share. Germany's Federal Security Council approval isn't needed for her to act. However, the Bundestag (its parliament) wasn't told about weapon shipments. Although Germany isn't directly engaged in combat, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle "promised the rebels massive civilian aid after the possible toppling of Gaddafi's regime." Berlin also offered to help train post-Gaddafi era security forces. Clearly, Germany is complicit up to its ears in NATO terror. Direct or indirect hardly matters.
Like all US wars, Orwellian doublespeak defines the campaign, including "humanitarian intervention," liberation, "Operation Unified Protector," and NATO's "Partnership for Peace" program to create trust among non-member states.
NATO, of course, is code language for the Pentagon. Trusting it is like befriending a rattlesnake or shark, concerned only with devouring their next meal. NATO does it globally from 30,000 feet and ancillary tentacles everywhere, reigning "liberal interventionism" death and destruction to "protect civilians" by murdering them.
Through July 1, NATO's Allied Command Operations site (http://www.aco.nato.int/page424201235.aspx) mentions 13,460 sorties since March, including 5,047 "strike" ones "to protect civilians and civilian-population areas under attack or threat of attack" by "shock and awe" killing and destruction.
What do you call a war not called war? In mid-June, Obama did in 38 doublespeak pages sent Congress, using duplicitous reasoning to do what he damn pleases, law or no law, and whether or not congressional and/or popular approval backs him.
Russia's NATO representative Dmitry Rogozin believes "we are witnessing the preparation stage of a ground operation which NATO, or at least some of its members (are) preparing to begin."
In fact, plans have been in place for months, involving US (and very likely) other NATO forces, though whether or not it will be implemented isn't known. On June 15, Infowar contributor Aaron Dykes claimed that:
"alarming reports from within the ranks of military stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas (confirm) plans to initiate a full-scale US-led ground invasion in Libya and deploy troops by October."
Access his full article through the following link:
http://www.infowars.com/u-s-invasion-of-libya-set-for-october/
Ahead of it he said additional Special Forces are coming in advance this month. Overall, about 30,000 troops are involved, suggesting a major operation if true.
He also said "numerous calls and e-mails from other military personnel" confirm it, perhaps with a large contingent by September. "Among these supporting sources is a British SAS (special forces) officer confirming that US Army Rangers are already in Libya."
Moreover, someone in USCENTCOM called "Specialist H....revealed that there have already been American casualties inside Libya. He confirmed that at least 2 soldiers and 3 civilians have died from combat bullet wounds" - what Obama, the Pentagon or America's media won't admit or discuss.
In fact, Obama assured Congress and the public that no US forces will be deployed. He lied. Special Forces and perhaps others have been there for months, providing training, support, and perhaps actual combat against Gaddafi.
It's another reason why he should be impeached, removed, and tried for crimes of war and against humanity, as if more are needed with a litany already known.
Stay tuned. America's Libya war and five others show no signs of ending. In fact, they're intensifying. Obama, the peace candidate, is even more belligerent than his predecessor.
A Final Comment
Israel, Washington and complicit allies have waged propaganda, intimidation, sabotage, and other ways to prevent Freedom Flotilla II from reaching Gaza with humanitarian aid.
Two vessels were disabled, at least one unable to continue. Eight others are illegally prevented from departing Greek ports, its government Israel's latest pro-siege ally, complicit in its slow-motion genocidal campaign.
Quartet members representing America, Russia, the EU and UN issued a July 3 anti-Flotilla statement, saying:
"Israel has legitimate security concerns that must continue to be safeguarded," when, in fact, none exist against the region's most powerful military and haven't since 1973.
Nonetheless, "(m)embers of the Quartet are committed to working with Israel (a lawless rogue state), Egypt (its complicit ally), and the international community to prevent 'illicit' trafficking of arms and ammunition into Gaza...." In other words, Gazans have no right to self-defense against an illegal occupier attacking them regularly.
At the same time, a coalition of Israeli and Palestinian organizations expressed strong Flotilla support, saying:
Palestinians and Jews "declare our support for the Gaza-bound Freedom Flotilla and its declared goals: to break the Israeli siege on Gaza - both on the sea and land - which represents part of the ongoing Israeli occupation. We denounce (Israel's) slanderous campaign against (it and) call on (its) government and security forces to permit the ships to enter Gaza and unload their humanitarian cargo in peace....We (also) call on the government of Israel to immediately end the siege of Gaza."
The endorsing organizations include:
Alternative Information Center (AIC)
Coalition of Women for Peace
Combatants for Peace
Gush Shalom
Hithabrut-Tarabut
Israeli Committee against House Demolitions (ICAHD)
New Profile
Ta'ayush
Yesh Gvul
On Independence Day eve, US Boat to Gaza/Audacity of Hope participants Medea Benjamin, Ken Mayers, Paki Wieland, Kathy Kelly, Ray McGovern, Helaine Meisler, Nic Abramson, and Carol Murry began an open-ended fast in front of America's Athens embassy, after delivering an urgent letter to officials inside that they "plan to sleep overnight outside (its) gates," defying Washington's complicity with Israel.
Following orders from Washington, however, Greek authorities detained, then released them. Greece, of course, is now colonized by predatory Western bankers, defying international law and rights of their people to serve them. Moreover, when they, America and Israel make demands, the thuggish Papandreou government salutes and obeys.
Nonetheless, at 7PM Athens time (noon US EDT), along with Greek activists, a march was held supporting the Flotilla. It demanded freeing the US ship captain imprisoned unjustly since Friday and letting all Flotilla ships sail.
"This July 4, it's time for our government to declare independence from Israel and start supporting its own citizens." Doing less adds shamefully to America's legacy of disgrace.
On July 3, Haaretz writer (and Flotilla participant) Amira Hass headlined, "Gaza flotilla to set sail Monday (July 4) despite numerous setbacks," saying:
Participating vessels are ready to leave, "following several days of deliberations on the subject, and the exact number (participating still not known). In contrast to recent reports, most (on board) are still" committed to pursue a just cause despite risking their safety.
In fact, they protested Greek government actions, prohibiting their departure indefinitely, accusing the Papandreou government "of caving in to Israeli pressure."
Whether or not they'll, in fact, be able to depart isn't known. Pressure to deter them remains strong, notably from Obama officials backing its rogue Israeli partner.
Further updates will cover new developments. Despite delays, intimidation and sabotage, participants are determined to press on.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
posted by Steve Lendman @ 1:09 AM
Colonizing Libya by Military, Financial, Political and Propaganda Terrorism
Colonizing Libya by Military, Financial, Political and Propaganda Terrorism - by Stephen Lendman
After three and a half terror bombing months and counting, destroying Libya for wealth and power continues, each imperial nation playing its part in this sinister dirty game, masquerading as liberation.
France finally admitted what's already known, that it's been supplying mercenary cutthroats with automatic weapons, rocket launchers, assault rifles, anti-tank missiles, and who knows what else. So have Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, perhaps other US imperial allies, and the Pentagon itself. In mid-April, The New York Times said Benghazi-based rebels got weapons from abroad without naming names.
For months, US and UK special forces provided training, The Times saying "professional training centers" were used to do it. In fact, recruiting, funding, and arming rebels began well before bombing began. America's war was planned many months, perhaps years earlier. Obama picked his moment to launch it.
Even the International Criminal Court (ICC) is complicit, functioning as an imperial tool, not a legitimate tribunal. Its chief prosecutor Jose Luis Moren-Ocampo, in fact, targets victims, not criminal Washington, London and Paris conspirators, attacking a nonbelligerent country. It's been standard US practice since WW II.
In May, Ocampo sought arrest warrants for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and brother-in-law intelligence chief, Abdullah Al-Sanousi, on "charges of orchestrating systematic attacks against civilians (amounting) to crimes against humanity," with no evidence whatever to prove it.
Then end of June he issued arrest warrants against all three on alleged crimes against humanity, saying reasonable grounds exist to believe they're "criminally responsible as indirect perpetrators of civilian killings and repression" - again with no corroborating evidence or authority. Libya, in fact, isn't an ICC member, nor are America, China, Russia and India, some nations, openly critical of how it operates with good reason.
On June 28 in Tripoli, Franklin Lamb reported about Libyan Ministry of Health (MOH) "Current Statistics of Civilian Victims of NATO Bombardments on Libya (3/19/11 - 6/27/11" he obtained. Libya's Red Crescent Society, neighborhood civil defense workers, and Tripoli's Nassar University researchers confirmed them.
They include:
-- 6,121 killed or injured;
-- among them were 3,093 men injured, another 668 killed; 1,318 women injured, another 260 killed; and 641 children injured, another 141 killed; and
-- among those seriously hurt, 655 are still hospitalized, another 4,397 released for outpatient care.
Except for one major incident killing 15 men, women and children, NATO claims only military targets are struck, even though many are schools, a university, commercial sites, hospitals, ports, airports, and residential neighborhoods unrelated to military necessity.
On July 1, up to one million pro-Gaddafi Tripoli residents massed in Green Square to hear him speak by telephone. Western media, including The New York Times, called it "defiant," threatening to attack Europe if NATO bombing didn't stop.
The Times misquoted him, claiming he said he'd take the battle "to Europe, target your homes, offices, families, which have become legitimate military targets, like you have targeted our homes."
In fact, writer Kareen Fahim lied as part of a systematic anti-Gaddafi propaganda campaign. Al- Jazeera was just as duplicitous, repeating the above fabrications instead of reporting what he said.
In part, he challenged "Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama to switch on their TVs and watch the crowds, (so) they will find out that they are delusional because they entered a war which they (can) never win."
He didn't threaten to retaliate but said "we can (because) Europe is not far away, but (he added) lets not do this and watch the crowds, kids and women. They are not here because I ordered them to (come. It's their) free will. In this war you are not facing me, you are facing these crowds. I am nothing. If you want peace with Libyans, it is up to the crowds. If you want anything, negotiate with (them)."
"The regime is not a Gaddafi regime. It is a Libyan (one). Is it a democracy to bomb the civilians? We don't want a democracy which comes with bombs."
"The socialist Jamahyria will win, the real democracy which serves the people....The Libyans said their words. They marched. Their tribes made it clear that the future is for Libyans. The oil is for Libya. Libya is ours. You are delusional, a group of traitors convinced (that) Libya is easy to get....You Libyan people are the only one(s) who can finish this war with a victory."
"If they want to negotiate we welcome that. Otherwise we are continuing and they are definitely losing no matter how many weapons they drop (to) rebels. We will not betray our history nor our children and their future. The glory is for you brave Libyans. The struggle will continue."
Growing numbers of Libyans support him the longer NATO terror bombings continue, mostly killing civilian men, women and children, NATO and major media denials notwithstanding.
Months into Obama's war, Der Spiegel's June 28 Matthias Gebauer article headlined, "Berlin Willing to Supply Weapons for Libya war because munitions running out," saying:
Germany offered to help "despite its fundamental opposition to the war. (Its) defense minister (Thomas de Maiziere) has already approved (the) request" to supply bomb components, missiles, sensitive guidance technology, and more on request, making Germany openly complicit in terror bombing crimes.
Britain said it can't continue its campaign much longer without help, facing shortages of air-to-ground missiles and perhaps other weapons and/or munitions. Back home, however, it's not short of ways to force feed austerity on millions of Brits to wage global terror wars for power, privilege and plunder.
Merkel's government wants its share. Germany's Federal Security Council approval isn't needed for her to act. However, the Bundestag (its parliament) wasn't told about weapon shipments. Although Germany isn't directly engaged in combat, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle "promised the rebels massive civilian aid after the possible toppling of Gaddafi's regime." Berlin also offered to help train post-Gaddafi era security forces. Clearly, Germany is complicit up to its ears in NATO terror. Direct or indirect hardly matters.
Like all US wars, Orwellian doublespeak defines the campaign, including "humanitarian intervention," liberation, "Operation Unified Protector," and NATO's "Partnership for Peace" program to create trust among non-member states.
NATO, of course, is code language for the Pentagon. Trusting it is like befriending a rattlesnake or shark, concerned only with devouring their next meal. NATO does it globally from 30,000 feet and ancillary tentacles everywhere, reigning "liberal interventionism" death and destruction to "protect civilians" by murdering them.
Through July 1, NATO's Allied Command Operations site (http://www.aco.nato.int/page424201235.aspx) mentions 13,460 sorties since March, including 5,047 "strike" ones "to protect civilians and civilian-population areas under attack or threat of attack" by "shock and awe" killing and destruction.
What do you call a war not called war? In mid-June, Obama did in 38 doublespeak pages sent Congress, using duplicitous reasoning to do what he damn pleases, law or no law, and whether or not congressional and/or popular approval backs him.
Russia's NATO representative Dmitry Rogozin believes "we are witnessing the preparation stage of a ground operation which NATO, or at least some of its members (are) preparing to begin."
In fact, plans have been in place for months, involving US (and very likely) other NATO forces, though whether or not it will be implemented isn't known. On June 15, Infowar contributor Aaron Dykes claimed that:
"alarming reports from within the ranks of military stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas (confirm) plans to initiate a full-scale US-led ground invasion in Libya and deploy troops by October."
Access his full article through the following link:
http://www.infowars.com/u-s-invasion-of-libya-set-for-october/
Ahead of it he said additional Special Forces are coming in advance this month. Overall, about 30,000 troops are involved, suggesting a major operation if true.
He also said "numerous calls and e-mails from other military personnel" confirm it, perhaps with a large contingent by September. "Among these supporting sources is a British SAS (special forces) officer confirming that US Army Rangers are already in Libya."
Moreover, someone in USCENTCOM called "Specialist H....revealed that there have already been American casualties inside Libya. He confirmed that at least 2 soldiers and 3 civilians have died from combat bullet wounds" - what Obama, the Pentagon or America's media won't admit or discuss.
In fact, Obama assured Congress and the public that no US forces will be deployed. He lied. Special Forces and perhaps others have been there for months, providing training, support, and perhaps actual combat against Gaddafi.
It's another reason why he should be impeached, removed, and tried for crimes of war and against humanity, as if more are needed with a litany already known.
Stay tuned. America's Libya war and five others show no signs of ending. In fact, they're intensifying. Obama, the peace candidate, is even more belligerent than his predecessor.
A Final Comment
Israel, Washington and complicit allies have waged propaganda, intimidation, sabotage, and other ways to prevent Freedom Flotilla II from reaching Gaza with humanitarian aid.
Two vessels were disabled, at least one unable to continue. Eight others are illegally prevented from departing Greek ports, its government Israel's latest pro-siege ally, complicit in its slow-motion genocidal campaign.
Quartet members representing America, Russia, the EU and UN issued a July 3 anti-Flotilla statement, saying:
"Israel has legitimate security concerns that must continue to be safeguarded," when, in fact, none exist against the region's most powerful military and haven't since 1973.
Nonetheless, "(m)embers of the Quartet are committed to working with Israel (a lawless rogue state), Egypt (its complicit ally), and the international community to prevent 'illicit' trafficking of arms and ammunition into Gaza...." In other words, Gazans have no right to self-defense against an illegal occupier attacking them regularly.
At the same time, a coalition of Israeli and Palestinian organizations expressed strong Flotilla support, saying:
Palestinians and Jews "declare our support for the Gaza-bound Freedom Flotilla and its declared goals: to break the Israeli siege on Gaza - both on the sea and land - which represents part of the ongoing Israeli occupation. We denounce (Israel's) slanderous campaign against (it and) call on (its) government and security forces to permit the ships to enter Gaza and unload their humanitarian cargo in peace....We (also) call on the government of Israel to immediately end the siege of Gaza."
The endorsing organizations include:
Alternative Information Center (AIC)
Coalition of Women for Peace
Combatants for Peace
Gush Shalom
Hithabrut-Tarabut
Israeli Committee against House Demolitions (ICAHD)
New Profile
Ta'ayush
Yesh Gvul
On Independence Day eve, US Boat to Gaza/Audacity of Hope participants Medea Benjamin, Ken Mayers, Paki Wieland, Kathy Kelly, Ray McGovern, Helaine Meisler, Nic Abramson, and Carol Murry began an open-ended fast in front of America's Athens embassy, after delivering an urgent letter to officials inside that they "plan to sleep overnight outside (its) gates," defying Washington's complicity with Israel.
Following orders from Washington, however, Greek authorities detained, then released them. Greece, of course, is now colonized by predatory Western bankers, defying international law and rights of their people to serve them. Moreover, when they, America and Israel make demands, the thuggish Papandreou government salutes and obeys.
Nonetheless, at 7PM Athens time (noon US EDT), along with Greek activists, a march was held supporting the Flotilla. It demanded freeing the US ship captain imprisoned unjustly since Friday and letting all Flotilla ships sail.
"This July 4, it's time for our government to declare independence from Israel and start supporting its own citizens." Doing less adds shamefully to America's legacy of disgrace.
On July 3, Haaretz writer (and Flotilla participant) Amira Hass headlined, "Gaza flotilla to set sail Monday (July 4) despite numerous setbacks," saying:
Participating vessels are ready to leave, "following several days of deliberations on the subject, and the exact number (participating still not known). In contrast to recent reports, most (on board) are still" committed to pursue a just cause despite risking their safety.
In fact, they protested Greek government actions, prohibiting their departure indefinitely, accusing the Papandreou government "of caving in to Israeli pressure."
Whether or not they'll, in fact, be able to depart isn't known. Pressure to deter them remains strong, notably from Obama officials backing its rogue Israeli partner.
Further updates will cover new developments. Despite delays, intimidation and sabotage, participants are determined to press on.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
posted by Steve Lendman @ 1:09 AM
Sunday, July 03, 2011
From The Veterans For Peace Website- Veterans For Peace Supports the Audacity of Hope, Condemns Israeli Naval Blockade
June 30, 2011
Veterans For Peace Supports the Audacity of Hope, Condemns Israeli Naval Blockade
This week, five members of Veterans For Peace are joining 40 other American citizens in a peaceful attempt to break Israel's illegal naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. The U.S. ship Audacity of Hope will be part of a flotilla expected to consist of 10 boats carrying human rights advocates from around the world and humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza.
VFP members, retired Colonel Ann Wright; former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern; retired Marine Corps Major, Ken Mayers; Nic Abramson and Hedy Epstein, an Honorary VFP member and 87 year-old Holocaust survivor. Other U.S. passengers include Alice Walker, and two time Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Kathy Kelly. About 25% of the passengers are Jewish.
The U.S. ship will bring over 3,000 letters of support to a population suffering its fifth continuous decade of de facto occupation, now in the form of a military blockade controlling Gaza's sea and sky, punctuated by frequent deadly military incursions, that has starved Gaza's economy and people.
Although the Audacity of Hope will be sailing unarmed and has no intention of entering Israel or Israeli waters, the U.S. State Department has issued an unusually specific and blunt travel advisory, warning Americans against traveling to Gaza. Without giving any details, State Department officials also suggested that Americans taking part in the flotilla might be violating U.S. law.
HILLARY CLINTON GIVES GREEN LIGHT FOR ISRAELI ASSAULT ON FLOTILLA
The next day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused flotilla organizers of trying to "provoke actions," claiming erroneously that they were going to enter Israeli waters. Clinton said that "the Israelis have the right to defend themselves," implying they can violently attack the boats with U.S. government permission. This is inexcusable and a total betrayal of her duty to protect law abiding American citizens.
Last year the international flotilla to Gaza was brutally attacked by Israeli commandos, murdering nine Turkish activists, one of whom was also an U.S. citizen. Flotilla passengers were also attacked with water cannons, taser guns, stink bombs, sound bombs, stun guns, tear gas, and pepper spray, before being taken to Israel, jailed and deported.
Israel Defense Forces are reportedly training for a fierce assault intended to "secure" each boat in the Freedom Flotilla 2. U.S. organizer Kathy Kelly believes that passengers on the U.S. boat may be spared the most violent responses. But with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton giving Israel the green light for an assault, Kelly said, "We are preparing ourselves not to panic and to practice disciplined nonviolence whatever scenario Israel decides to enact."
The slogan of the flotilla is "Stay Human," advice which Kelly says, "exposure to violence, real or imagined, always tempts us to forget."
The Audacity of Hope was inspected by Greek officials on Monday, June 27 after a complaint was lodged by an Israeli group that the vessel was not seaworthy. Organizers of the Gaza flotilla accused Israel of pressuring Greece to halt the ships' departure.
Colonel Ann Wright told a news conference that Israel is mounting a "tremendous diplomatic offensive" to prevent the flotilla from setting sail. Organizers urged the Greek government not to "become complicit in Israel's illegal actions by succumbing to this pressure."
ISRAEL AND U.S. RATCHET UP PRESSURE
According to Kate Wickman at Raw Story, Israeli officials have threatened to punish activists who plan to set sail from Greece to Gaza, with the aim of breaking the Israeli embargo on the Palestinian territory. Journalists, the Israeli officials say, will also be punished if they choose to cover the activists' mission, the Christian Science Monitor reported.
Journalists who cover the flotilla's attempt to reach the Gaza strip will be denied entry to the country for 10 year, The National reported. The government press office released a statement that called the pro-Palestinian activists' actions "a dangerous provocation" and an "international violation of Israeli law."
Israel's Foreign Press Association, however, issued a statement calling the government threats "a chilling message to the international media and raises serious questions about Israel's commitment to freedom of the press".
Flotilla organizers now say that two of their ships have been intentionally damaged by unknown saboteurs.
Ratcheting up the pressure, Israeli defense officials have claimed that flotilla members are armed with chemical weapons (bags of sulphur) to use against Israeli soldiers. But other Israeli military sources have disputed this claim, dismissing it as "spin."
"This is truly a shameful and desperate tactic on the part of the Israeli government. They know full well that the passengers have no intention of being anything but peaceful," said passenger Paki Wieland.
In the latest outrage, Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., says the United States should "make available all necessary special operations and naval support to the Israeli Navy to effectively disable flotilla vessels before they can pose a threat to Israeli coastal security or put Israeli lives at risk."
Clearly, the 40 brave representatives of the U.S. people on the Audacity of Hope are up against huge opposition from powerful, dark forces. They very much need and deserve the support of all who believe in peace and justice.
VETERANS FOR PEACE IS PROUD TO SUPPORT THE AUDACITY OF HOPE.
We call upon the U.S. government to take the necessary steps to guarantee the safety of all the activists on the Free Gaza Flotilla. We call upon all VFP chapters and members to act now to ensure the safety of our fellow activists and members, and to help them to successfully complete their mission to bring comfort to the people of Gaza and to end the illegal Israeli blockade. See the list of suggested actions, below.
THE ISRAELI BLOCKADE OF GAZA IS ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Four years ago Israel imposed a draconian blockade on Gaza, effecting a paralysis of commerce and severe shortages of basic foods. The result has been deprivation and death to innocent people. This blockade was imposed, in the words of Israel's leaders, to "put Gaza on a diet" as a punitive action for Palestinian's electing Hamas to power.
Foreign Policy Magazine compiled a large volume of information from reports issued by the United Nations and various NGOs working in Gaza. Just a few highlights:
Electricity: In 2006, Israel carried out an attack on Gaza's only power plant and never permitted the rebuilding to its pre-attack capacity.... The majority of houses have power cuts at least eight hours per day. Some have no electricity for long as 12 hours a day. The lack of electricity has led to reliance on generators, many of which have exploded from overwork, killing and maiming civilians.
Water: Israel has not permitted supplies into the Gaza Strip to rebuild the sewage system. Amnesty International reports that 90-95 percent of the drinking water in Gaza is contaminated and unfit for consumption.
Health: According to UN OCHA, infrastructure for 15 of 27 of Gaza's hospitals, 43 of 110 of its primary care facilities, and 29 of its 148 ambulances were damaged or destroyed during the war. Without rebuilding materials like cement and glass due to Israeli restrictions, the vast majority of the destroyed health infrastructure has not been rebuilt.
Food: A 2010 World Health Organization report stated that "chronic malnutrition in the Gaza Strip has risen over the past few years and has now reached 10.2%. ... According to UN OCHA: "Over 60 percent of households are now food insecure ...
Industry: A World Health Organization report from this year states: "In the Gaza Strip, private enterprise is practically at a standstill as a consequence of the blockade. Almost all (98%) industrial operations have been shut down.
A blockade that restricts the local population's access to vital goods violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, which specifies that an occupying force has a legally binding duty to protect an occupied population. Moreover, collective punishment is specifically barred under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Veterans for Peace condemns this inhumane blockade of Gaza and demands that the U.S. government end its support for Israel's illegal assault on Palestinian human rights and self-determination.
U.S. WEAPONS WERE USED IN ISRAELI COMMANDO ASSAULT ON FIRST FREE GAZA FLOTILLA
U.S. weapons provided with U.S. taxpayer money were used in the Israeli commando attack, which violates our Arms Export Control Act prohibiting use of American weapons against civilians. These included boats, helicopters and probable murder weapons used, made by ten U.S. companies:
The Sa'ar 5-class corvette warship built by Northrup Grumman, armed with Honeywell torpedoes and surface-to- surface missiles made by McDonnell Douglas
Sikorsky UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters that dropped the commandoes
Morena Rigid-Hull Inflatable Boats made by U.S.M.I. Louisiana with Caterpillar 3126 turbocharged diesel engines
US M4 Carbine Rifles, a magazine-fed, selective fire, shoulder-fired weapon made by Colt
Hellfire SSM laser-guided missiles made by Boeing
Raytheon radar systems
MK13 Stun Grenades made by American Rheinmetall
AS AMERICAN CITIZENS AND U.S. MILITARY VETERANS, WE REPUDIATE U.S. COMPLICITY IN THESE CRIMES.
WE DEMAND AN END TO U.S. MILITARY AID TO ISRAEL.
WE DEMAND AN END TO ISRAEL'S ILLEGAL BLOCKADE OF GAZA.
WE DEMAND JUSTICE FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE.
WE DEMAND SAFE PASSAGE FOR THE FREE GAZA FLOTILLA
Veterans For Peace Supports the Audacity of Hope, Condemns Israeli Naval Blockade
This week, five members of Veterans For Peace are joining 40 other American citizens in a peaceful attempt to break Israel's illegal naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. The U.S. ship Audacity of Hope will be part of a flotilla expected to consist of 10 boats carrying human rights advocates from around the world and humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza.
VFP members, retired Colonel Ann Wright; former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern; retired Marine Corps Major, Ken Mayers; Nic Abramson and Hedy Epstein, an Honorary VFP member and 87 year-old Holocaust survivor. Other U.S. passengers include Alice Walker, and two time Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Kathy Kelly. About 25% of the passengers are Jewish.
The U.S. ship will bring over 3,000 letters of support to a population suffering its fifth continuous decade of de facto occupation, now in the form of a military blockade controlling Gaza's sea and sky, punctuated by frequent deadly military incursions, that has starved Gaza's economy and people.
Although the Audacity of Hope will be sailing unarmed and has no intention of entering Israel or Israeli waters, the U.S. State Department has issued an unusually specific and blunt travel advisory, warning Americans against traveling to Gaza. Without giving any details, State Department officials also suggested that Americans taking part in the flotilla might be violating U.S. law.
HILLARY CLINTON GIVES GREEN LIGHT FOR ISRAELI ASSAULT ON FLOTILLA
The next day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused flotilla organizers of trying to "provoke actions," claiming erroneously that they were going to enter Israeli waters. Clinton said that "the Israelis have the right to defend themselves," implying they can violently attack the boats with U.S. government permission. This is inexcusable and a total betrayal of her duty to protect law abiding American citizens.
Last year the international flotilla to Gaza was brutally attacked by Israeli commandos, murdering nine Turkish activists, one of whom was also an U.S. citizen. Flotilla passengers were also attacked with water cannons, taser guns, stink bombs, sound bombs, stun guns, tear gas, and pepper spray, before being taken to Israel, jailed and deported.
Israel Defense Forces are reportedly training for a fierce assault intended to "secure" each boat in the Freedom Flotilla 2. U.S. organizer Kathy Kelly believes that passengers on the U.S. boat may be spared the most violent responses. But with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton giving Israel the green light for an assault, Kelly said, "We are preparing ourselves not to panic and to practice disciplined nonviolence whatever scenario Israel decides to enact."
The slogan of the flotilla is "Stay Human," advice which Kelly says, "exposure to violence, real or imagined, always tempts us to forget."
The Audacity of Hope was inspected by Greek officials on Monday, June 27 after a complaint was lodged by an Israeli group that the vessel was not seaworthy. Organizers of the Gaza flotilla accused Israel of pressuring Greece to halt the ships' departure.
Colonel Ann Wright told a news conference that Israel is mounting a "tremendous diplomatic offensive" to prevent the flotilla from setting sail. Organizers urged the Greek government not to "become complicit in Israel's illegal actions by succumbing to this pressure."
ISRAEL AND U.S. RATCHET UP PRESSURE
According to Kate Wickman at Raw Story, Israeli officials have threatened to punish activists who plan to set sail from Greece to Gaza, with the aim of breaking the Israeli embargo on the Palestinian territory. Journalists, the Israeli officials say, will also be punished if they choose to cover the activists' mission, the Christian Science Monitor reported.
Journalists who cover the flotilla's attempt to reach the Gaza strip will be denied entry to the country for 10 year, The National reported. The government press office released a statement that called the pro-Palestinian activists' actions "a dangerous provocation" and an "international violation of Israeli law."
Israel's Foreign Press Association, however, issued a statement calling the government threats "a chilling message to the international media and raises serious questions about Israel's commitment to freedom of the press".
Flotilla organizers now say that two of their ships have been intentionally damaged by unknown saboteurs.
Ratcheting up the pressure, Israeli defense officials have claimed that flotilla members are armed with chemical weapons (bags of sulphur) to use against Israeli soldiers. But other Israeli military sources have disputed this claim, dismissing it as "spin."
"This is truly a shameful and desperate tactic on the part of the Israeli government. They know full well that the passengers have no intention of being anything but peaceful," said passenger Paki Wieland.
In the latest outrage, Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., says the United States should "make available all necessary special operations and naval support to the Israeli Navy to effectively disable flotilla vessels before they can pose a threat to Israeli coastal security or put Israeli lives at risk."
Clearly, the 40 brave representatives of the U.S. people on the Audacity of Hope are up against huge opposition from powerful, dark forces. They very much need and deserve the support of all who believe in peace and justice.
VETERANS FOR PEACE IS PROUD TO SUPPORT THE AUDACITY OF HOPE.
We call upon the U.S. government to take the necessary steps to guarantee the safety of all the activists on the Free Gaza Flotilla. We call upon all VFP chapters and members to act now to ensure the safety of our fellow activists and members, and to help them to successfully complete their mission to bring comfort to the people of Gaza and to end the illegal Israeli blockade. See the list of suggested actions, below.
THE ISRAELI BLOCKADE OF GAZA IS ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Four years ago Israel imposed a draconian blockade on Gaza, effecting a paralysis of commerce and severe shortages of basic foods. The result has been deprivation and death to innocent people. This blockade was imposed, in the words of Israel's leaders, to "put Gaza on a diet" as a punitive action for Palestinian's electing Hamas to power.
Foreign Policy Magazine compiled a large volume of information from reports issued by the United Nations and various NGOs working in Gaza. Just a few highlights:
Electricity: In 2006, Israel carried out an attack on Gaza's only power plant and never permitted the rebuilding to its pre-attack capacity.... The majority of houses have power cuts at least eight hours per day. Some have no electricity for long as 12 hours a day. The lack of electricity has led to reliance on generators, many of which have exploded from overwork, killing and maiming civilians.
Water: Israel has not permitted supplies into the Gaza Strip to rebuild the sewage system. Amnesty International reports that 90-95 percent of the drinking water in Gaza is contaminated and unfit for consumption.
Health: According to UN OCHA, infrastructure for 15 of 27 of Gaza's hospitals, 43 of 110 of its primary care facilities, and 29 of its 148 ambulances were damaged or destroyed during the war. Without rebuilding materials like cement and glass due to Israeli restrictions, the vast majority of the destroyed health infrastructure has not been rebuilt.
Food: A 2010 World Health Organization report stated that "chronic malnutrition in the Gaza Strip has risen over the past few years and has now reached 10.2%. ... According to UN OCHA: "Over 60 percent of households are now food insecure ...
Industry: A World Health Organization report from this year states: "In the Gaza Strip, private enterprise is practically at a standstill as a consequence of the blockade. Almost all (98%) industrial operations have been shut down.
A blockade that restricts the local population's access to vital goods violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, which specifies that an occupying force has a legally binding duty to protect an occupied population. Moreover, collective punishment is specifically barred under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Veterans for Peace condemns this inhumane blockade of Gaza and demands that the U.S. government end its support for Israel's illegal assault on Palestinian human rights and self-determination.
U.S. WEAPONS WERE USED IN ISRAELI COMMANDO ASSAULT ON FIRST FREE GAZA FLOTILLA
U.S. weapons provided with U.S. taxpayer money were used in the Israeli commando attack, which violates our Arms Export Control Act prohibiting use of American weapons against civilians. These included boats, helicopters and probable murder weapons used, made by ten U.S. companies:
The Sa'ar 5-class corvette warship built by Northrup Grumman, armed with Honeywell torpedoes and surface-to- surface missiles made by McDonnell Douglas
Sikorsky UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters that dropped the commandoes
Morena Rigid-Hull Inflatable Boats made by U.S.M.I. Louisiana with Caterpillar 3126 turbocharged diesel engines
US M4 Carbine Rifles, a magazine-fed, selective fire, shoulder-fired weapon made by Colt
Hellfire SSM laser-guided missiles made by Boeing
Raytheon radar systems
MK13 Stun Grenades made by American Rheinmetall
AS AMERICAN CITIZENS AND U.S. MILITARY VETERANS, WE REPUDIATE U.S. COMPLICITY IN THESE CRIMES.
WE DEMAND AN END TO U.S. MILITARY AID TO ISRAEL.
WE DEMAND AN END TO ISRAEL'S ILLEGAL BLOCKADE OF GAZA.
WE DEMAND JUSTICE FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE.
WE DEMAND SAFE PASSAGE FOR THE FREE GAZA FLOTILLA
From The Private Bradley Manning Support Network-Update 6/30/11: Bradley’s lawyer on his new treatment conditions
Update 6/30/11: Bradley’s lawyer on his new treatment conditions
Bradley Manning’s lawyer, David E. Coombs, issued a statement two nights ago about Bradley’s current treatment and condition. He states,
“Since being moved to the JRCF, PFC Manning’s overall mood and demeanor has greatly improved. PFC Manning is able to maintain regular contact with his defense team. He receives weekly written updates, phone calls and visits from defense counsel. In addition, he receives regular visits from family. Finally, PFC Manning also receives hundreds of letters from supporters every week. He wishes to extend his sincere appreciation to those who have taken the time to send along their thoughts and well-wishes.”
Let’s keep Bradley’s mood up as he approaches a pre-trial hearing this summer by continuing to send him letters of support. Mr. Coombs’ blog has more information regarding the rules around mail and Bradley’s address.
Bradley Manning’s lawyer, David E. Coombs, issued a statement two nights ago about Bradley’s current treatment and condition. He states,
“Since being moved to the JRCF, PFC Manning’s overall mood and demeanor has greatly improved. PFC Manning is able to maintain regular contact with his defense team. He receives weekly written updates, phone calls and visits from defense counsel. In addition, he receives regular visits from family. Finally, PFC Manning also receives hundreds of letters from supporters every week. He wishes to extend his sincere appreciation to those who have taken the time to send along their thoughts and well-wishes.”
Let’s keep Bradley’s mood up as he approaches a pre-trial hearing this summer by continuing to send him letters of support. Mr. Coombs’ blog has more information regarding the rules around mail and Bradley’s address.
From The Private Bradley Manning Support Network-David House’s statement on the WikiLeaks Grand Jury-Hands Off David House!
David House’s statement on the WikiLeaks Grand Jury
David House is a founding member of the Bradley Manning Support Network. He was subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury today in Alexandria, VA. House is among several Boston area residents who have been ordered to testify before the grand jury, which is investigating WikiLeaks.
House and his lawyer entered the courthouse this morning at approximately 10:00am ET, amidst a gathering of supporters who held signs with messages of support for House. The rally also called for government transparency and protection for whistle-blowers — and for freedom for accused WikiLeaks source PFC Bradley Manning.
The prosecution initially attempted to prevent David House from taking notes. This was the reason for the recess and reconvening at 4:00pm ET. There was no legal basis for this order, and House was ultimately permitted to take notes.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
House was questioned for approximately one hour, beginning at 4:00pm ET. He invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent. He read from the below statement at 5:00pm ET in the plaza outside of the United States District Court at 401 Courthouse Square in Alexandria, VA.
The Department of Justice (DoJ) is attempting to codify a task it started over 40 years ago: the political regulation of journalism. The same climate of intimidation that surrounded the Pentagon Papers trial persists to this day as the DoJ seeks to limit the freedoms of the Fourth Estate, using the pretense of alleged violations of the Espionage Act.
The show trial that is now underway in Alexandria VA has the potential to set a dangerous precedent for regulating the media. Using Nixonian fear tactics that were honed during the Pentagon Papers investigation, the DoJ is attempting to dismantle a major media organization—WikiLeaks—and indict its editor, Julian Assange. The DoJ’s ever-widening net has now come to encompass academics, students, and journalists in the Cambridge area. The Administration’s goal is to force these individuals to testify against this media organization in an attempt to cast its publications and those of its media partners — the New York Times, the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El Pais — as acts of espionage. The government has also violated my Fourth Amendment rights by executing a warrantless seizure on my laptop in an attempt to identify, target and ensnare Cambridge-based supporters of WikiLeaks.
It is my conviction that the American people must call for a cessation of the Department of Justice’s politically motivated harassment.
David House is a founding member of the Bradley Manning Support Network. He was subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury today in Alexandria, VA. House is among several Boston area residents who have been ordered to testify before the grand jury, which is investigating WikiLeaks.
House and his lawyer entered the courthouse this morning at approximately 10:00am ET, amidst a gathering of supporters who held signs with messages of support for House. The rally also called for government transparency and protection for whistle-blowers — and for freedom for accused WikiLeaks source PFC Bradley Manning.
The prosecution initially attempted to prevent David House from taking notes. This was the reason for the recess and reconvening at 4:00pm ET. There was no legal basis for this order, and House was ultimately permitted to take notes.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
House was questioned for approximately one hour, beginning at 4:00pm ET. He invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent. He read from the below statement at 5:00pm ET in the plaza outside of the United States District Court at 401 Courthouse Square in Alexandria, VA.
The Department of Justice (DoJ) is attempting to codify a task it started over 40 years ago: the political regulation of journalism. The same climate of intimidation that surrounded the Pentagon Papers trial persists to this day as the DoJ seeks to limit the freedoms of the Fourth Estate, using the pretense of alleged violations of the Espionage Act.
The show trial that is now underway in Alexandria VA has the potential to set a dangerous precedent for regulating the media. Using Nixonian fear tactics that were honed during the Pentagon Papers investigation, the DoJ is attempting to dismantle a major media organization—WikiLeaks—and indict its editor, Julian Assange. The DoJ’s ever-widening net has now come to encompass academics, students, and journalists in the Cambridge area. The Administration’s goal is to force these individuals to testify against this media organization in an attempt to cast its publications and those of its media partners — the New York Times, the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El Pais — as acts of espionage. The government has also violated my Fourth Amendment rights by executing a warrantless seizure on my laptop in an attempt to identify, target and ensnare Cambridge-based supporters of WikiLeaks.
It is my conviction that the American people must call for a cessation of the Department of Justice’s politically motivated harassment.
From The Private Bradley Manning Support Network-Help us rent billboards for Bradley in Kansas City
Help us rent billboards for Bradley in Kansas City
June 17, 2011, by the Bradley Manning Support Network.
View the billboards, donate to make it happen, and help choose the design at:
http://epicstep.com/campaign/280/support-bradley
Private First Class Bradley Manning will soon have his own billboards in the Kansas City area, a short distance from where he is held in pre-trial confinement at Fort Leavenworth. PFC Manning is accused of releasing classified government information to WikiLeaks and to the public. His supporters are launching a campaign to rent two billboards, at a total cost of $7,000, to bolster regional support for the accused whistle-blower.
This campaign begins on the heels of a successful effort to rent high-profile ad space in the Washington DC metro area. That effort, funded by 326 supporters, will result in a billboard that will coincide with Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing. That hearing date is expected to be announced soon, and is expected to be held at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
“Americans deserve to know the truth. We want to make sure the truth is visible during Bradley’s pre-trial hearing,” explained Bradley Manning Support Network organizer Jeff Paterson. “The information Bradley Manning is accused of releasing should have been in the public domain. Whoever revealed it is an American hero.”
The revelations include the videotaped massacre of Reuters journalists. WikiLeaks was the recipient of the classified information.
Supporters who donate to fund the billboard can cast votes for three different designs. One option features a picture of PFC Manning and reads, “Bradley Manning | Whistle-Blowers Protect Democracy.” Another option reads like a dictionary definition: “Whis•tle-Blow•er: noun. a person who tells the people what the government doesn’t want us to know. See also hero, patriot, Bradley Manning.”
The three designs can be viewed at: http://epicstep.com/campaign/239/support-bradley
PFC Manning will be flown to Washington DC for all military court proceedings. The billboard will be up for at least 30 days. If successful, supporters anticipate also purchasing DC Metro and bus ads for June and July.
Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, 23-years-old, was arrested in Iraq one year ago on May 26, 2010. He still awaits his first public court hearing, now expected to begin in June. Over 4,300 individuals have contributed $333,000 towards PFC Manning’s legal fees and related public education efforts. The Bradley Manning Support Network is dedicated to securing due process and a public trial for PFC Manning — and to eventually winning his freedom.
“Never before has a person been charged with ‘aiding the enemy through indirect means’ by making information public,” noted Emma Cape of Courage to Resist. “The outcome of Bradley’s trial will set precedent for the future of whistle-blowing and government transparency.”
June 17, 2011, by the Bradley Manning Support Network.
View the billboards, donate to make it happen, and help choose the design at:
http://epicstep.com/campaign/280/support-bradley
Private First Class Bradley Manning will soon have his own billboards in the Kansas City area, a short distance from where he is held in pre-trial confinement at Fort Leavenworth. PFC Manning is accused of releasing classified government information to WikiLeaks and to the public. His supporters are launching a campaign to rent two billboards, at a total cost of $7,000, to bolster regional support for the accused whistle-blower.
This campaign begins on the heels of a successful effort to rent high-profile ad space in the Washington DC metro area. That effort, funded by 326 supporters, will result in a billboard that will coincide with Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing. That hearing date is expected to be announced soon, and is expected to be held at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
“Americans deserve to know the truth. We want to make sure the truth is visible during Bradley’s pre-trial hearing,” explained Bradley Manning Support Network organizer Jeff Paterson. “The information Bradley Manning is accused of releasing should have been in the public domain. Whoever revealed it is an American hero.”
The revelations include the videotaped massacre of Reuters journalists. WikiLeaks was the recipient of the classified information.
Supporters who donate to fund the billboard can cast votes for three different designs. One option features a picture of PFC Manning and reads, “Bradley Manning | Whistle-Blowers Protect Democracy.” Another option reads like a dictionary definition: “Whis•tle-Blow•er: noun. a person who tells the people what the government doesn’t want us to know. See also hero, patriot, Bradley Manning.”
The three designs can be viewed at: http://epicstep.com/campaign/239/support-bradley
PFC Manning will be flown to Washington DC for all military court proceedings. The billboard will be up for at least 30 days. If successful, supporters anticipate also purchasing DC Metro and bus ads for June and July.
Private First Class Bradley E. Manning, 23-years-old, was arrested in Iraq one year ago on May 26, 2010. He still awaits his first public court hearing, now expected to begin in June. Over 4,300 individuals have contributed $333,000 towards PFC Manning’s legal fees and related public education efforts. The Bradley Manning Support Network is dedicated to securing due process and a public trial for PFC Manning — and to eventually winning his freedom.
“Never before has a person been charged with ‘aiding the enemy through indirect means’ by making information public,” noted Emma Cape of Courage to Resist. “The outcome of Bradley’s trial will set precedent for the future of whistle-blowing and government transparency.”
From The Private Bradley Manning Support Network- Support For Bradley At Gay Pride Events- The Struggle Continues!
Click on the headline to link to the Private Bradley Manning Support Network website to read about and watch Private Bradley Manning Support efforts at various Gay Pride events in late June.
From The Private Bradley Manning Support Network- Hillary’s shocking comments about Bradley Manning-By: Logan Price
Hillary’s shocking comments about Bradley Manning-By: Logan Price
Thursday June 30, 2011 3:07 pm
For those who don’t believe that Bradley’s personal life and sexuality may be used against him by officials or media critics, this gem of information was presented in a recent Vanity Fair article about Hillary Clinton, while on tour in the Middle East:
“Hillary told staff that she could not fathom how an army private, Bradley Manning, with psychological problems and a drag-queen boyfriend could single-handedly cause the United States unprecedented embarrassment just by labeling massive downloads as Lady Gaga songs.”
Were those comments verbatim, or just the ill-chosen words of the author? We probably won’t know, but one thing is for sure: they were published in a major pop-culture outlet, so there is no taking them back.
Here, is a good take-down of the allegation that Manning had “psychological problems.” As for the comments about Bradley’s sexuality, you can be the judge of that.
If Hillary did indeed say anything of the sort, it is yet another reminder of the Obama administration’s willingness, almost as retaliation for their own embarrassment, to disregard public outcry about Bradley Manning’s charges and detainment and the fact that he has not yet been convicted of any crime.
At a fundraiser in San Francisco in April, Obama told me that Bradley Manning “broke the law,” a legally irresponsible and inappropriate statement that could constitute the ‘unlawful command influence’ of any military judge or jury that may preside over Bradley’s case.
Should the President and commander-in-chief –or the Secretary of State for that matter– really be saying such things about a high profile prisoner like Bradley Manning who has not yet been to trial?
The release of the Diplomatic Cables may have been embarrassing for the Obama Administration, but the life (not political career) of the most important whistleblower of my generation hangs in the balance.
It seems unlikely that we will hear any response from Hillary about this. This administration seems content to say one thing and mean another. Remember the sad irony felt when former white-house briefer Ray McGovern was rather brutally arrested last January for standing up in silent protest during Hillary Clinton’s lecture about free speech at George Washington University?
Not to mention Obama’s unexpected persecution of more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than any previous administration, while giving this speech about the Arab Spring,
“Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard – whether it’s a big news organization or a blogger. In the 21st century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens. Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview.”
Ironically, that sounds a lot like Bradley’s alleged chat logs, which are being held by the Pentagon as evidence that Bradley was ‘aiding the enemy.’
“I want people to see the truth, regardless of who they are… because without the truth you can’t make informed decisions as a public.”
Doubly ironic is that the cables Manning is alleged to have leaked have been hailed as a catalyst of the growing democracy in the Arab world.
The triple irony is that the greatest charge against him is that of ’aiding the enemy.’ Despite campaign promises our leaders act at home as if democracy is only good for us on their terms — in fact it just might be ‘the enemy.’ Or we are. Same thing, really.
Democracy, as the Arab world is showing us, is a do-it-yourself skill that requires courage, humility, and commitment to the truth– no matter the stakes. If Bradley Manning is indeed guilty, it is of these “psychological problems.” He is our Egyptian.
Logan Price is a member of the Bradley Manning Support Network. You can follow him on twitter @kstrel.
Thursday June 30, 2011 3:07 pm
For those who don’t believe that Bradley’s personal life and sexuality may be used against him by officials or media critics, this gem of information was presented in a recent Vanity Fair article about Hillary Clinton, while on tour in the Middle East:
“Hillary told staff that she could not fathom how an army private, Bradley Manning, with psychological problems and a drag-queen boyfriend could single-handedly cause the United States unprecedented embarrassment just by labeling massive downloads as Lady Gaga songs.”
Were those comments verbatim, or just the ill-chosen words of the author? We probably won’t know, but one thing is for sure: they were published in a major pop-culture outlet, so there is no taking them back.
Here, is a good take-down of the allegation that Manning had “psychological problems.” As for the comments about Bradley’s sexuality, you can be the judge of that.
If Hillary did indeed say anything of the sort, it is yet another reminder of the Obama administration’s willingness, almost as retaliation for their own embarrassment, to disregard public outcry about Bradley Manning’s charges and detainment and the fact that he has not yet been convicted of any crime.
At a fundraiser in San Francisco in April, Obama told me that Bradley Manning “broke the law,” a legally irresponsible and inappropriate statement that could constitute the ‘unlawful command influence’ of any military judge or jury that may preside over Bradley’s case.
Should the President and commander-in-chief –or the Secretary of State for that matter– really be saying such things about a high profile prisoner like Bradley Manning who has not yet been to trial?
The release of the Diplomatic Cables may have been embarrassing for the Obama Administration, but the life (not political career) of the most important whistleblower of my generation hangs in the balance.
It seems unlikely that we will hear any response from Hillary about this. This administration seems content to say one thing and mean another. Remember the sad irony felt when former white-house briefer Ray McGovern was rather brutally arrested last January for standing up in silent protest during Hillary Clinton’s lecture about free speech at George Washington University?
Not to mention Obama’s unexpected persecution of more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than any previous administration, while giving this speech about the Arab Spring,
“Through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard – whether it’s a big news organization or a blogger. In the 21st century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens. Such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview.”
Ironically, that sounds a lot like Bradley’s alleged chat logs, which are being held by the Pentagon as evidence that Bradley was ‘aiding the enemy.’
“I want people to see the truth, regardless of who they are… because without the truth you can’t make informed decisions as a public.”
Doubly ironic is that the cables Manning is alleged to have leaked have been hailed as a catalyst of the growing democracy in the Arab world.
The triple irony is that the greatest charge against him is that of ’aiding the enemy.’ Despite campaign promises our leaders act at home as if democracy is only good for us on their terms — in fact it just might be ‘the enemy.’ Or we are. Same thing, really.
Democracy, as the Arab world is showing us, is a do-it-yourself skill that requires courage, humility, and commitment to the truth– no matter the stakes. If Bradley Manning is indeed guilty, it is of these “psychological problems.” He is our Egyptian.
Logan Price is a member of the Bradley Manning Support Network. You can follow him on twitter @kstrel.
From The United National Anti-War Committee- Statement In Support Of The Gaza Flotilla
The United National Antiwar Committee calls for the resignation of Secretary of State Clinton because of her statement saying that Israel could use violence against a humanitarian flotilla of boats, including one U.S. flagged ship that is trying to reach the GazaStrip. Also, a report from UNAC steering committee member, Kathy Kelly, who will be on the boat, follows the UNAC statement.
Secretary of State Clinton stated that in response to the humanitarian and totally peaceful mission of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla II, “the Israelis have the right to defend themselves”, implying they can violently attack the boats with U.S. government permission. She has given approval for an attack by a foreign power on a U.S. flagged boat carrying nearly40 Americans who are on a completely legal and admirable mission. This is inexcusable and a total betrayal of her duty to protect law abiding American citizens.
The United National Antiwar Committee, which is a coalition whose last convention had nearly 800 participants, condemns Clinton’s statement, and calls for her resignation as Secretary of State. We call for a clear statement by the Obama Administration that it will not tolerate any Israeli interference in the Freedom Flotilla voyage to the Gaza Strip.
Washington has also threatened to use "material support to terrorism" laws against boat participants-- the same laws which have been used to criminalize the totally legal and peaceful antiwar, solidarity and humanitarian activities of the 23 FBI/grand jury targets in the Midwest, and hundreds of others, mostly Muslim/Arab/South Asian."
At a recent meeting of the UNAC leadership, the organization voted unanimously to support the Freedom Flotilla and called for major demonstrations in the event the boat was attacked.
The U.S. Boat to Gaza website is www.ustogaza.org
END THE SIEGE OF GAZA!
NO US AID TO ISRAEL!
END THE OCCUPATION! SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF RETURN!
SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE PALESTINIANS
Secretary of State Clinton stated that in response to the humanitarian and totally peaceful mission of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla II, “the Israelis have the right to defend themselves”, implying they can violently attack the boats with U.S. government permission. She has given approval for an attack by a foreign power on a U.S. flagged boat carrying nearly40 Americans who are on a completely legal and admirable mission. This is inexcusable and a total betrayal of her duty to protect law abiding American citizens.
The United National Antiwar Committee, which is a coalition whose last convention had nearly 800 participants, condemns Clinton’s statement, and calls for her resignation as Secretary of State. We call for a clear statement by the Obama Administration that it will not tolerate any Israeli interference in the Freedom Flotilla voyage to the Gaza Strip.
Washington has also threatened to use "material support to terrorism" laws against boat participants-- the same laws which have been used to criminalize the totally legal and peaceful antiwar, solidarity and humanitarian activities of the 23 FBI/grand jury targets in the Midwest, and hundreds of others, mostly Muslim/Arab/South Asian."
At a recent meeting of the UNAC leadership, the organization voted unanimously to support the Freedom Flotilla and called for major demonstrations in the event the boat was attacked.
The U.S. Boat to Gaza website is www.ustogaza.org
END THE SIEGE OF GAZA!
NO US AID TO ISRAEL!
END THE OCCUPATION! SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF RETURN!
SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE PALESTINIANS
*From The Archives-The Struggle To Win The Youth To The Fight For Our Communist Future-“Campus Spartacist”-(Austin, 1969)
Click on the headline to link to the Campus Spartacist archival website for an online copy of the issue mentioned in the headline. I am not familiar with the Riazanov Library as a source, although the choice of the name of a famous Russian Bolshevik intellectual, archivist, and early head of the Marx-Engels Institute there, as well as being a friend and , at various points a political confederate of the great Bolshevik leader, Leon Trotsky, sits well with me.
*********
Campus Spartacist
Campus Spartacus was published as a stand alone newsletter irregularly in localized version of the SL's national collage network, with issues published in Austin, NYC, and the Bay Area from 1965 through 1971. The list below reflects these local versions.
—Riazanov Library
******
Markin comment:
One of the declared purposes of this space is to draw the lessons of our left-wing past here in America and internationally, especially from the pro-communist wing. To that end I have made commentaries and provided archival works in order to help draw those lessons for today’s left-wing activists to learn, or at least ponder over. More importantly, for the long haul, to help educate today’s youth in the struggle for our common communist future. That is no small task or easy task given the differences of generations; differences of political milieus worked in; differences of social structure to work around; and, increasingly more important, the differences in appreciation of technological advances, and their uses.
There is no question that back in my youth I could have used, desperately used, many of the archival materials available today. When I developed political consciousness very early on, albeit liberal political consciousness, I could have used this material as I knew, I knew deep inside my heart and mind, that a junior Cold War liberal of the American For Democratic Action (ADA) stripe was not the end of my leftward political trajectory. More importantly, I could have used a socialist or communist youth organization to help me articulate the doubts I had about the virtues of liberal capitalism and be recruited to a more left-wing world view. As it was I spent far too long in the throes of the left-liberal/soft social-democratic milieu where I was dying politically. A group like the Young Communist League (W.E.B. Dubois Clubs in those days), the Young People’s Socialist League, or the Young Socialist Alliance representing the youth organizations of the American Communist Party, American Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (U.S.) respectively would have saved much wasted time and energy. I knew they were around but not in my area.
The archival material to be used in this series is weighted heavily toward the youth movements of the early American Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (U.S). For more recent material I have relied on material from the Spartacus Youth Clubs, the youth group of the Spartacist League (U.S.), both because they are more readily available to me and because, and this should give cause for pause, there are not many other non-CP, non-SWP youth groups around. As I gather more material from other youth sources I will place them in this series.
Finally I would like to finish up with the preamble to the Spartacist Youth Club’s What We Fight For statement of purpose:
"The Spartacus Youth Clubs intervene into social struggles armed with the revolutionary internationalist program of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. We work to mobilize youth in struggle as partisans of the working class, championing the liberation of black people, women and all the oppressed. The SYCs fight to win youth to the perspective of building the Leninist vanguard party that will lead the working class in socialist revolution, laying the basis for a world free of capitalist exploitation and imperialist slaughter."
This seems to me be somewhere in the right direction for what a Bolshevik youth group should be doing these days; a proving ground to become professional revolutionaries with enough wiggle room to learn from their mistakes, and successes. More later.
********
Markin comment on this issue:
I have noted elsewhere (in the commentaries to the GI Voice archival documents, see archives May 11-18 2011) that I would have given much gold, or at least saved myself some very anxious political wilderness years, if I had run into the writer of this Campus Spartacist polemic in 1969 (or 1970) when I made a dramatic shift left-ward in my political understandings of the world.
Not that I would have adhered to, or even agreed with, what she was saying at the time. Far from it. I had only half-broken form bourgeois society and politics but I was learning, learning fast. I was, frankly, still only “toying around with” Marxist concepts at that time, but I would, as is my wont and had always been my way, made a mental note of who she was, and what political organization she represented. And it was not the CP, SWP, or even PL that even then left me cold.
Although her letter to a friend (a nice touch, a well-honored way to make political points, and a form used by all the revolutionary politicians in the old days when they wanted to ‘talk” serious without evoking their organizational affiliations) is not “high Trotskyism” by any means she has the traditional Stalinist/Maoist analysis down pretty well for someone who probably was fairly new to the world of high Trostkyism. And in the end when you think about it if there could have been fifty or one hundred more like her, not fully formed “Trots” but ardent, a lot of the inner turmoil of the 1969 SDS fight could have been directed toward the main historic (and real) fight in the international working class, Stalinism vs. Trotskyism. A flat-out, no holds barred fight for the heart and soul of those thousands, and maybe tens of thousands, of student and youth radicals who knew the CP, the SWP, and to a lesser extent PL were not the road to revolution. Or, as here, later pretenders like the RU (and the October League).
*********
Campus Spartacist
Campus Spartacus was published as a stand alone newsletter irregularly in localized version of the SL's national collage network, with issues published in Austin, NYC, and the Bay Area from 1965 through 1971. The list below reflects these local versions.
—Riazanov Library
******
Markin comment:
One of the declared purposes of this space is to draw the lessons of our left-wing past here in America and internationally, especially from the pro-communist wing. To that end I have made commentaries and provided archival works in order to help draw those lessons for today’s left-wing activists to learn, or at least ponder over. More importantly, for the long haul, to help educate today’s youth in the struggle for our common communist future. That is no small task or easy task given the differences of generations; differences of political milieus worked in; differences of social structure to work around; and, increasingly more important, the differences in appreciation of technological advances, and their uses.
There is no question that back in my youth I could have used, desperately used, many of the archival materials available today. When I developed political consciousness very early on, albeit liberal political consciousness, I could have used this material as I knew, I knew deep inside my heart and mind, that a junior Cold War liberal of the American For Democratic Action (ADA) stripe was not the end of my leftward political trajectory. More importantly, I could have used a socialist or communist youth organization to help me articulate the doubts I had about the virtues of liberal capitalism and be recruited to a more left-wing world view. As it was I spent far too long in the throes of the left-liberal/soft social-democratic milieu where I was dying politically. A group like the Young Communist League (W.E.B. Dubois Clubs in those days), the Young People’s Socialist League, or the Young Socialist Alliance representing the youth organizations of the American Communist Party, American Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (U.S.) respectively would have saved much wasted time and energy. I knew they were around but not in my area.
The archival material to be used in this series is weighted heavily toward the youth movements of the early American Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (U.S). For more recent material I have relied on material from the Spartacus Youth Clubs, the youth group of the Spartacist League (U.S.), both because they are more readily available to me and because, and this should give cause for pause, there are not many other non-CP, non-SWP youth groups around. As I gather more material from other youth sources I will place them in this series.
Finally I would like to finish up with the preamble to the Spartacist Youth Club’s What We Fight For statement of purpose:
"The Spartacus Youth Clubs intervene into social struggles armed with the revolutionary internationalist program of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. We work to mobilize youth in struggle as partisans of the working class, championing the liberation of black people, women and all the oppressed. The SYCs fight to win youth to the perspective of building the Leninist vanguard party that will lead the working class in socialist revolution, laying the basis for a world free of capitalist exploitation and imperialist slaughter."
This seems to me be somewhere in the right direction for what a Bolshevik youth group should be doing these days; a proving ground to become professional revolutionaries with enough wiggle room to learn from their mistakes, and successes. More later.
********
Markin comment on this issue:
I have noted elsewhere (in the commentaries to the GI Voice archival documents, see archives May 11-18 2011) that I would have given much gold, or at least saved myself some very anxious political wilderness years, if I had run into the writer of this Campus Spartacist polemic in 1969 (or 1970) when I made a dramatic shift left-ward in my political understandings of the world.
Not that I would have adhered to, or even agreed with, what she was saying at the time. Far from it. I had only half-broken form bourgeois society and politics but I was learning, learning fast. I was, frankly, still only “toying around with” Marxist concepts at that time, but I would, as is my wont and had always been my way, made a mental note of who she was, and what political organization she represented. And it was not the CP, SWP, or even PL that even then left me cold.
Although her letter to a friend (a nice touch, a well-honored way to make political points, and a form used by all the revolutionary politicians in the old days when they wanted to ‘talk” serious without evoking their organizational affiliations) is not “high Trotskyism” by any means she has the traditional Stalinist/Maoist analysis down pretty well for someone who probably was fairly new to the world of high Trostkyism. And in the end when you think about it if there could have been fifty or one hundred more like her, not fully formed “Trots” but ardent, a lot of the inner turmoil of the 1969 SDS fight could have been directed toward the main historic (and real) fight in the international working class, Stalinism vs. Trotskyism. A flat-out, no holds barred fight for the heart and soul of those thousands, and maybe tens of thousands, of student and youth radicals who knew the CP, the SWP, and to a lesser extent PL were not the road to revolution. Or, as here, later pretenders like the RU (and the October League).
From The National Defend The Cuban Five Committee-Help place an ad about the Cuban Five in the Washington Post-Let's Tell Obama: Free the Cuban Five Now!!
Click on the headline to link to the National Committee To Free The Cuban Five website.
Help place an ad about the Cuban Five in the Washington Post-Let's Tell Obama: Free the Cuban Five Now!!
Donate Now
The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five announces the launching of a campaign to place a full-page ad in the Washington Post, the most prominent newspaper in the nation's capital. The Post is read daily by everyone in the U.S. political establishment and all international media outlets.
We think the time is now to put the demands for freedom of the Cuban Five as publicly -- and directly -- as possible, to President Obama and the U.S. government, and say:
Free the Cuban Five Now!
Grant visas immediately to Adriana and Olga!
Support actions for the Cuban Five in the United States and around the world are building exciting momentum in the struggle to free Gerardo, Ramón, Antonio, Fernando and René. At the same time, this summer the news was filled with headlines in the U.S. press about prisoner swaps and releases:
The 10 people accused of being Russian agents, who were sent home within weeks of their arrest by the U.S. government
Jimmy Carter traveling to North Korea to get the release of a U.S. citizen
New Mexico governor Bill Richardson going to Cuba to advocate for the release of suspected spy Alan Gross.
The obvious question to Washington is: What about the Cuban Five?
The New York Times ad on March 3, 2004 had a major impact
We ask all supporters of the Five Cuban Heroes to join with us in placing a full-page ad in the Washington Post, to call for the unconditional and immediate release of the Cuban Five, who have endured 12 years of harsh and unjust imprisonment at the hands of the U.S. government, simply because they were defending their people from terrorism.
Please Help with a Generous Donation to Get The Washington Post Ad Published
The cost of a full-page ad is $62,000. Through your donation and that of many other organizations and individuals, together we can help make the Cuban Five's freedom struggle a public debate in Washington, as we did with the New York Times full-page ad (shown at right) in March 2004. Already, our European friends in Germany, Italy, France, as well as organizations in Puerto Rico, Brazil, Canada, have pledged contributions.
Help place an ad about the Cuban Five in the Washington Post-Let's Tell Obama: Free the Cuban Five Now!!
Donate Now
The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five announces the launching of a campaign to place a full-page ad in the Washington Post, the most prominent newspaper in the nation's capital. The Post is read daily by everyone in the U.S. political establishment and all international media outlets.
We think the time is now to put the demands for freedom of the Cuban Five as publicly -- and directly -- as possible, to President Obama and the U.S. government, and say:
Free the Cuban Five Now!
Grant visas immediately to Adriana and Olga!
Support actions for the Cuban Five in the United States and around the world are building exciting momentum in the struggle to free Gerardo, Ramón, Antonio, Fernando and René. At the same time, this summer the news was filled with headlines in the U.S. press about prisoner swaps and releases:
The 10 people accused of being Russian agents, who were sent home within weeks of their arrest by the U.S. government
Jimmy Carter traveling to North Korea to get the release of a U.S. citizen
New Mexico governor Bill Richardson going to Cuba to advocate for the release of suspected spy Alan Gross.
The obvious question to Washington is: What about the Cuban Five?
The New York Times ad on March 3, 2004 had a major impact
We ask all supporters of the Five Cuban Heroes to join with us in placing a full-page ad in the Washington Post, to call for the unconditional and immediate release of the Cuban Five, who have endured 12 years of harsh and unjust imprisonment at the hands of the U.S. government, simply because they were defending their people from terrorism.
Please Help with a Generous Donation to Get The Washington Post Ad Published
The cost of a full-page ad is $62,000. Through your donation and that of many other organizations and individuals, together we can help make the Cuban Five's freedom struggle a public debate in Washington, as we did with the New York Times full-page ad (shown at right) in March 2004. Already, our European friends in Germany, Italy, France, as well as organizations in Puerto Rico, Brazil, Canada, have pledged contributions.
From The "Cindy Sheehan Soapbox"- Interview with Angela Davis on Latin America
Click on the headline to link to a Cindy Sheehan Soapbox entry, an interview with Angela Davis on Latin American and the so-called Bolivarian revolution. Of course we all called for her defense in the old days when she was under the gun of the American imperialist state around the Black Panthers, George Jackson and Ruchell McGee stuff but, apparently, her Stalinist two-stage theory of socialist revolution from her American Communist Party days, including here in the heartland, is still deeply ingrained in her political psyche-Markin.
Out In The 1950s Crime Noir Night- Hey Guys, Crime Doesn’t Pay- John Huston’s “The Asphalt Jungle” - A Film Review
Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for John Huston's, The Asphalt Jungle.
DVD Review
The Asphalt Jungle, starring Sam Jaffe, Sterling Hayden, James Whitimore, (and a small, but striking, role by a very young Marilyn Monroe) directed by John Huston, M-G-M Pictures, 1950
No question I am a film noir, especially a crime film noir, aficionado. Recently I have been on a tear reviewing various crime noir efforts and drawing comparisons between the ones that “speak” to me and those that, perhaps, should have been left on the cutting room floor. The classics are easy: films like Out Of the Past, Gilda, The Lady From Shang-hai, and The Big Sleep need no additional comment from me as their plot lines stand on their own merits. Others, because they have a fetching, or wicked, for that matter, femme fatale to muddy the waters also get a pass, or as in Gilda a double nod for the plot and for the femme fatale. (Be still my heart, at the thought of Rita Hayworth, ah, dancing and singing, okay lip synching, and looking, well, fetching while doing those difficult tasks.) I have even tried to salvage some noir efforts by touting their plot lines, and others by their use of shadowy black and white cinematography to overcome plot problems. Like The Third Man (and, in that case, the edgy musical score, with more zither than you probably ever thought possible, as well). That brings us this film under review, 1950's The Asphalt Jungle, starring Sam Jaffee as the wizened, harden old con trying for one last chance at “easy street” with a big caper, and Sterling Hayden as, well, the “hooligan,” the “muscle”, the guy who has to clean up after, but also is looking for his own version of that easy street.
From the headline to this review you can tell that I have kind of telegraphed the problem here; crime doesn’t pay, okay. But that “wisdom” has not stopped a million "from hunger" guys (and not a few dames) from taking the quick plunge to easy street since way back, way back in phaoroah’s times probably. And it has not stopped Hollywood directors and producers from using that theme as the plot line for their cinematic efforts, some good, some bad, here very good. But in this film the beauty of the thing, despite the familiarity of the plot line and the predictable ending, is that the acting carries the day, especially by Jaffee and Hayden.
Doc (the role played by Sam Jaffee), old time con that he is, just released from stir for some previous big plan crime, had plenty of time on his hands up at the pen to work through his latest plan for easy street. A big plan involving knocking over a big jewelry store, having the merchandise “fenced,” and then off he goes to sun and senoritas, young senoritas by the way, the dirty old man, down in Mexico. Mexico before the drug cartels.
Such an effort need up front cash, and some major backing, to procure the master safe cracker, the expert wheelman and, just in case things get rough, the hooligan,(here Bix, played by Sterling Hayden), the guy who takes all the pot-shots for short money and also to secure a conduit to fence this high roller stuff after the heist. And that is where things start to go awry.
See, one of reasons that crime doesn’t pay, pay in the long or short haul, is that not everybody is on the level. Sure the safe cracker, the wheel man, and the hooligan, the “proles” are on the level. Especially farm boy Bix turned loose in the ugly, asphalt jungle city just looking for a stake to get back home to Kentucky and out of the city soils. Problem is the up-front dough guys, one way or the other, are not on the level. One has no dough (although it was easy to see why that was so since he was, well let’s just call it “keeping time” with a young honey, played by Marilyn Monroe, and even I could see where keeping her "happy”, and gladly, would eat up a guy’s wallet), and the other will wilt under the slightest pressure, police pressure. A few slap arounds and he will sing like a bird, the rat. But who had time to check with the Better Business Bureau when you are in the rackets to check the “fence’s” references (and bank book). Needless to say that while the jewel heist is pulled off, although not without complications, deadly complications in the end, the rest of the story is one where everyone in the theater gets the very painful message already telegraphed above.
Director Huston, however, is aiming at more, as he mentions in the introduction to the film, he wants to investigate that thin line between the bad guys and the good guys, and the good guys are not always the cops and respectable folks. Doc, for instance, is cool customer, and although he makes a few serious mistakes of judgment in whom to, and who not, trust he is a likeable crook. Bix, ditto, because he is a stand-up guy, gives one hundred per cent, for what he is paid to do, and does not leave his buddies in the lurch.
There is no real femme fatale here driving the male action forward to their oblivions but there is Doll, and Doll, Doll has got it bad for Bix, ya, real bad, and so the tensions between them help round out this film. Doll though never figured out the ABCs-that hanging around wrong gees, even stand-up gees, was anything but heartbreak hotel. But sometimes that is the way dames are, thankfully.
Note: I have on previous occasions needed to act the scold in regard to certain actions of the characters in crime noir films. Here I have to take Brother Hayden to task for not learning that crime does not pay. Hayden played Johnny in the 1953 crime noir The Killing, also a caper involving big dough, big dough from a racetrack handle and another perfect plan gone awry. The Asphalt Jungle precedes The Killing, so Brother Hayden shouldn’t you have learned by 1953 that these perfect plans, cinematically at least, are bound to go awry. Smarten up.
DVD Review
The Asphalt Jungle, starring Sam Jaffe, Sterling Hayden, James Whitimore, (and a small, but striking, role by a very young Marilyn Monroe) directed by John Huston, M-G-M Pictures, 1950
No question I am a film noir, especially a crime film noir, aficionado. Recently I have been on a tear reviewing various crime noir efforts and drawing comparisons between the ones that “speak” to me and those that, perhaps, should have been left on the cutting room floor. The classics are easy: films like Out Of the Past, Gilda, The Lady From Shang-hai, and The Big Sleep need no additional comment from me as their plot lines stand on their own merits. Others, because they have a fetching, or wicked, for that matter, femme fatale to muddy the waters also get a pass, or as in Gilda a double nod for the plot and for the femme fatale. (Be still my heart, at the thought of Rita Hayworth, ah, dancing and singing, okay lip synching, and looking, well, fetching while doing those difficult tasks.) I have even tried to salvage some noir efforts by touting their plot lines, and others by their use of shadowy black and white cinematography to overcome plot problems. Like The Third Man (and, in that case, the edgy musical score, with more zither than you probably ever thought possible, as well). That brings us this film under review, 1950's The Asphalt Jungle, starring Sam Jaffee as the wizened, harden old con trying for one last chance at “easy street” with a big caper, and Sterling Hayden as, well, the “hooligan,” the “muscle”, the guy who has to clean up after, but also is looking for his own version of that easy street.
From the headline to this review you can tell that I have kind of telegraphed the problem here; crime doesn’t pay, okay. But that “wisdom” has not stopped a million "from hunger" guys (and not a few dames) from taking the quick plunge to easy street since way back, way back in phaoroah’s times probably. And it has not stopped Hollywood directors and producers from using that theme as the plot line for their cinematic efforts, some good, some bad, here very good. But in this film the beauty of the thing, despite the familiarity of the plot line and the predictable ending, is that the acting carries the day, especially by Jaffee and Hayden.
Doc (the role played by Sam Jaffee), old time con that he is, just released from stir for some previous big plan crime, had plenty of time on his hands up at the pen to work through his latest plan for easy street. A big plan involving knocking over a big jewelry store, having the merchandise “fenced,” and then off he goes to sun and senoritas, young senoritas by the way, the dirty old man, down in Mexico. Mexico before the drug cartels.
Such an effort need up front cash, and some major backing, to procure the master safe cracker, the expert wheelman and, just in case things get rough, the hooligan,(here Bix, played by Sterling Hayden), the guy who takes all the pot-shots for short money and also to secure a conduit to fence this high roller stuff after the heist. And that is where things start to go awry.
See, one of reasons that crime doesn’t pay, pay in the long or short haul, is that not everybody is on the level. Sure the safe cracker, the wheel man, and the hooligan, the “proles” are on the level. Especially farm boy Bix turned loose in the ugly, asphalt jungle city just looking for a stake to get back home to Kentucky and out of the city soils. Problem is the up-front dough guys, one way or the other, are not on the level. One has no dough (although it was easy to see why that was so since he was, well let’s just call it “keeping time” with a young honey, played by Marilyn Monroe, and even I could see where keeping her "happy”, and gladly, would eat up a guy’s wallet), and the other will wilt under the slightest pressure, police pressure. A few slap arounds and he will sing like a bird, the rat. But who had time to check with the Better Business Bureau when you are in the rackets to check the “fence’s” references (and bank book). Needless to say that while the jewel heist is pulled off, although not without complications, deadly complications in the end, the rest of the story is one where everyone in the theater gets the very painful message already telegraphed above.
Director Huston, however, is aiming at more, as he mentions in the introduction to the film, he wants to investigate that thin line between the bad guys and the good guys, and the good guys are not always the cops and respectable folks. Doc, for instance, is cool customer, and although he makes a few serious mistakes of judgment in whom to, and who not, trust he is a likeable crook. Bix, ditto, because he is a stand-up guy, gives one hundred per cent, for what he is paid to do, and does not leave his buddies in the lurch.
There is no real femme fatale here driving the male action forward to their oblivions but there is Doll, and Doll, Doll has got it bad for Bix, ya, real bad, and so the tensions between them help round out this film. Doll though never figured out the ABCs-that hanging around wrong gees, even stand-up gees, was anything but heartbreak hotel. But sometimes that is the way dames are, thankfully.
Note: I have on previous occasions needed to act the scold in regard to certain actions of the characters in crime noir films. Here I have to take Brother Hayden to task for not learning that crime does not pay. Hayden played Johnny in the 1953 crime noir The Killing, also a caper involving big dough, big dough from a racetrack handle and another perfect plan gone awry. The Asphalt Jungle precedes The Killing, so Brother Hayden shouldn’t you have learned by 1953 that these perfect plans, cinematically at least, are bound to go awry. Smarten up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)