Announcements

VFP-111 Hosting Cindy Sheehan's Bellingham Appearance

Veterans Call For Release of Detainee Abuse Photos

Three Groups Urge Veterans to Sign Letter to President Obama

Saint Louis, MO - Three military veteran organizations call on the Obama Administration to release photographs depicting abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. Veterans For Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Common Sense wrote a joint letter to President Obama describing how releasing the pictures is crucial to U.S. national security, upholding international law and safe guarding democracy at home. The organizations published the joint letter and asked veterans to co-sign before it is sent to the President.

The veterans’ letter rejects the premise that the release will do more harm than good. The letter quotes Harith al Obaidi, the head of the largest Sunni Muslim bloc in Iraq’s Parliament and the deputy chairman of the Committee on Human Rights, saying “The people who want to express their opinions through violence are already trying their best to do so. Showing them a few pictures wouldn't make them any more able to do it.” He added that keeping the pictures secret will only bolster suspicions that the American government is trying to suppress evidence of more widespread abuse.

President of Veterans For Peace and former Navy Corpsman, Mike Ferner said, “The biggest threat to our service members and our Republic is that we forget what has happened and do it again,” He continued, “Withholding these photographs makes it more likely that the people of our country can push these horrendous acts to the edge of our collective memory. This will not serve our nation well.”

Veterans for Common Sense Executive and Gulf War veteran Director Paul Sullivan stated, “These documents must be made public and they must be turned over to a special war crimes prosecutor. Never again should our nation’s leaders order torture with impunity.”

Iraq War veteran and Board Chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War Camilo Mejia stated, “Being open about our mistakes by releasing these pictures is not only a way to ensure this dark episode in our history will not be repeated, but also a crucial step in our healing process as a nation.”

As part of their efforts to have the photos released Veterans For Peace has launched www.picturenomoretorure.org. The organization is asking the public to take photos of themselves with messages supporting the end of torture and the release of the photographs. The pictures will later be taken to the White House.

The full text of the letter can be found at Veterans For Peace website, www.veteransforpeace.org.

July 2, 2009

Total Cost of Wars to Whatcom County Since 2001:

$491,385,488

Cost of War in Iraq
$383,594,273

Cost of War in Afghanistan
$107,431,125

CostofWar is brought to you by National Priorities Project.

BURN PIT TOXIC EMISSIONS Update 08:

Two lawmakers have unveiled a bill that would bar the military from operating burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan for longer than six months and also would require the Defense Department to identify service members who already may have been exposed to such toxins. “We should not continue to recklessly use burn pits to dispose of hazardous waste across Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY), who introduced the bill with Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH). “Disturbing reports are coming to light every day about these burn pits and the toll they are taking on the health of many of our service men and women ...  Our troops should be free to focus on fighting the enemy without worrying how their lives may be further endangered by the actions of private contractors operating under different rules,” Bishop said.
 
    The bill comes in the wake of a series of stories in Military Times documenting that hundreds of tons of waste are burned daily in Afghanistan and Iraq with little oversight. Troops report burning everything from dioxin-producing plastic bottles to petroleum waste to amputated limbs.  In a memo dated 20 DEC 06, Air Force Lt. Col. Darrin Curtis, former bioenvironmental flight commander for Joint Base Balad, wrote of the burn pit at that Iraq base: “In my professional opinion, there is an acute health hazard for individuals. There is also the possibility for chronic health hazards associated with the smoke.” He said contaminants, many highly poisonous, that troops may have been exposed to include benzene, an aircraft fuel known to cause leukemia; arsenic; dichlorofluoromethane, or Freon; carbon monoxide; ethylbenzene; formaldehyde; hydrogen cyanide; nitrogen dioxide; sulfuric acid; and xylene. For more information,refer to www.burnpits.org . To be added to a list of those potentially affected by the burn pits, e-mail Kerry Baker baker22@comcast.net  at Disabled American Veterans.

     Defense officials say the burn pits do not pose serious health risks, only temporary issues, such as coughing or red eyes. However, more than 200 people have contacted Military Times with similar symptoms that they believe are linked to their exposure to burn-pit smoke, such as lymphomas, leukemia, sudden onset of asthma, chronic coughs, sleep apnea and headaches. Nine class-action lawsuits have been filed against KBR, the contractor that ran several of the burn pits. Troops ran their own burn pits at the beginnings of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and continue to do so at some smaller bases. Under military regulations, burn pits are supposed to be a short-term solution for waste disposal in combat zones. But some pits in Afghanistan and Iraq have operated for years. The new legislation, “Military Personnel War Zone Toxic Exposure Prevention Act,” H.R.2419, would:

• Ask the Defense Department to identify troops who were potentially exposed to a “hazardous disposal site” as well as any negative health effects that might be related to that exposure.
• Require exposed troops and their commanders to be notified of their exposure, and would require the military to keep track of how far each person lived from a burn pit, what was exposed in that pit, how long each person was exposed, what symptoms the person had while deployed and any symptoms the person has after returning home. Those service members also would be examined within 30 days of determining they were exposed to a burn pit, and every year after that.
• Direct the Defense Department to submit a report detailing the illnesses of troops exposed to the pits within one year after enactment. “Exposure” includes anyone who was at a base with a burn pit for more than a year, was exposed to “intense” amounts of fumes, and displays symptoms that might be linked to exposure.
• Prohibit burn pits from operating for longer than six months if they burn environmental toxins, a combination of toxins that could lead to negative health effects, or low levels of toxins that exceed military exposure guidelines.

See Military Times Update (www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=14045) on www.michaelmore.com.

Monday, April 13, 2009

CONVENTION REGISTRATION AVAILABLE!

The 2009 Veterans For Peace Annual Convention will be held at the University of Maryland.  Convention registration is now available!  Register early, for prices go up as the convention gets closer.

CONVENTION REGISTRATION FEES - Register
Register by June 1 - $200
Register in the month of June - $225
Register after July 1 - $250

CONVENTION HOUSING REGISTRATION PACKAGE - Register
PACKAGE A: Includes 4 nights lodging checking in on August 5 and checking out on August 9.  *Prices do not include 6% Maryland State Sales Tax
Double Room Lodging Package - $215.00 per person
Single Room Lodging Package - $355.00 per person
PACKAGE B: Includes 3 nights lodging checking in on August 6 and checking out on August 9.   *Prices do not include 6% Maryland State Sales Tax
Double Room Lodging Package - $165.00 per person
Single Room Lodging Package - $270.00 per person

CONVENTION WORKSHOP PROPOSALS - Submit Proposal
Proposals will be accepted between April 3 and May 15. Accepted Workshops will be announced on or about June 15. If your workshop is chosen, you will need to provide a more extensive description and can request any media needs.

www.vfpnationalconvention.org

For more information contact
Ellen Barfield at ellene4pj@yahoo.com
Patrick McCann at unityact2@aol.com

WAR RESISTERS
NEED OUR SUPPORT

There are hundreds of war resisters in Canada and the U.S.  
They need and deserve our support.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Support the War Resisters’ STRUGGLE for Sanctuary in Canada (www.resisters.ca)

Call on President Obama to grant AMNESTY to all war resisters. (www.SoldierSayNo.blogspot.com)

DONATE to the War Resister Support Fund of Veterans For Peace (www.vfp92.org)

JOIN THE WAR RESISTER SUPPORT VIGIL

4th Saturday of every month

11 am – 1 pm

Westlake Mall Plaza

4th & Pine, downtown Seattle

Veterans For Peace www.vfp92.org

For more information, email ProjectSafeHaven@hotmail.com or call 206-499-1220

GI Coffeehouse Up and Running

Coffee Strong is the second antiwar GI Coffeehouse to open its doors in the US since Vietnam, and serves as a safe space for military veterans, active duty soldiers and progressive minds to discuss issues like the wars, deployment, PTSD, and the hardships of military life. Coffee Strong is completely funded by community donations.

Bellingham City Council Unanimously Passes Resolution Opposing
U.S. Military Intervention in Iran

Monday night, July 14, after almost an hour of testimony and a unanimous City Council 7 to 0 vote, Bellingham became the first community in Washington State to take a stand against possible U. S. military intervention in Iran.

Testimonies during the public open discussion period unanimously supported the city of Bellingham's opposition to Bush Administration rhetoric, equating recent sabre-rattling by proponents of a pre-emptive strike against Iran to the misinformation force-fed a gullible post-911, flag waving public during the run-up to shock and awe in Iraq. It was obvious from the first speaker that blind patriotism wasn't going to sell this time, in spite of the Bellingham Herald's, eleventh-hour attempt to editorialize the Council's supposed misplaced involvement in national issues in its Monday edition, calling a city of Bellingham resolution on such issues "meaningless".

"It's about as meaningless as Schindler's list," said Marie Marchand, Executive Director of Whatcom Peace and Justice.

The Resolution Opposing Military Intervention in Iran, inspired by the version introduced by Mayor Bob Kiss of Burlington, Vermont at June's Mayoral Conference in Miami, was sponsored by Councilman Terry Borneman, a co-sponsor of Bellingham's successful Troops Home Now! resolution in 2006. Local Veterans for Peace and Whatcom Peace and Justice organizers Gene Marx and Marchand choreographed the groundwork and outreach resulting in Monday night's successful conclusion. Also speaking in support of the resolution was Doris Kent, Gold Star mother of local VFP Chapter namesake, Corporal Jonathan Santos.

Bellingham joined thirteen other cities with similar resolutions and organizers were hoping this effort would lead to a groundswell of support in Washington State and elsehere.

"Bellingham has once again - as in 2006 - been given the opportunity to define itself, for the rest of the State," said Marx, a Vietnam vet and parent of a two-tour Iraq veteran. "I am immensely proud of Bellingham - again - and proud of the courage our city council demonstrated tonight."

To thank the Bellingham City Council, phone (360) 778-8200 or email at www.cob.org/contact/council.aspx. Additional updates on Cities for Peace (www.citiesforpeace.org).

Scroll down for complete text of final version of resolution. 

RESOLUTION OPPOSING MILITARY INTERVENTION IN IRAN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WA

1. WHEREAS, the President and members of his Administration have alleged that Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States, U.S. troops in the Middle East, and U.S. allies; and

2. WHEREAS, these allegations are similar to the lead-up to the Iraq War and U.S. Occupation, with the selective use of information and unsubstantiated accusations about Iran's nuclear program and its supply of weapons to Iraqi forces as centerpieces of a case to the American people for aggression against Iran; and

3. WHEREAS, the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives are currently considering non-binding resolutions S. R. 580 and H. Con. Res. 362, respectively, encouraging President Bush to increase pressure on Iran, including authorization for a Naval Blockage, which could be perceived to be an Act of War; and

4. WHEREAS, Iran has not threatened to attack the United States, and no compelling evidence has been presented to document that Iran poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the U.S. that would justify an unprovoked unilateral pre-emptive military attack; and

5. WHEREAS, a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), representing the consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran froze its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and an earlier NIE concluded that Iran's involvement in Iraq "is not likely to be a major driver of violence" there; and

6. WHEREAS, Mohammed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the world’s nuclear weapons inspectorate, insisted that he does not consider Iran a danger and said he will resign if a military strike is carried out; and

7. WHEREAS, we cannot ignore the history of U.S. government misinformation used to inspire U.S. aggression in Vietnam and again in Iraq, as embodied in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and more recently in what we know now as false claims of weapons of mass destruction; and

8. WHEREAS, we support the people of Iran who are struggling for freedom and democracy, and nothing herein should be misconstrued as support for the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it should be understood that a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran would be counterproductive to the cause of promoting freedom and democracy there; and

9. WHEREAS, an attack on Iran is likely to cause untold thousands of American and Iranian casualties, lead to major economic dislocations, and threaten even greater destabilization in the Middle East; and

10. WHEREAS, a pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran would violate international law and our commitments under the U.N. Charter and further isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world; and

11. WHEREAS, an attack on Iran is likely to inflame hatred for the U.S. in the Middle East and elsewhere, inspire terrorism, and lessen the security of Americans; and

12. WHEREAS, the Iraq war and occupation has already cost the lives of 4,119 American service men and women, the wounding of over 30,000,  with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) cases in excess of 300,000 from both Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a Rand Corporation study dated April 2008; and

13. WHEREAS, Iraqi mortality estimates exceed one million since the start of the Iraq War and Occupation according to recent surveys conducted by Lancet and British ORB (Opinion Research Survey), with Iranian casualties projected to be higher should Iran take retaliatory action following a U.S. pre-emptive attack, according to the Oxford Research Group; and

14. WHEREAS, the Iraq War and occupation has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $500 billion, depriving our cities of much-needed funds for services and infrastructure; and

15. WHEREAS, any conflict with Iran is likely to incur far greater costs and divert more precious national resources away from critical human needs; and

16. WHEREAS, the City of Bellingham declared itself a Troops Home! City on October 9, 2006, thus setting precedent in favor of peace and nonviolence as cornerstones of our nation’s foreign policy; and

17. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Bellingham hereby urges the Bush Administration to pursue diplomatic engagement with Iran on nuclear issues; in pursuit of good faith negotiations toward peaceful resolutions as outlined for signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the United Nations Charter; and

18. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Bellingham urges Congress to prohibit the use of funds to carry out any military action against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization; and

19. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that suitable copies of this resolution be forwarded to President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, UN General Assembly President Sheikha Haya Al Khalifa, US Congressman Rick Larsen, and US Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray.

Opposition to US military Intervention in Iran Resolution by Bellingham City Council Talking Points 

Nuclear weapon production is unlikely. You can’t use low-enriched uranium to make a bomb.  It has to be highly enriched.  Iran—as far as anyone has proved—is only making the low-enriched kind, and from all accounts it isn’t doing such a great job of that, either.  If it made high-enriched uranium, that could be detected by the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, who regularly inspect Iran’s facilities.  It just isn’t there and the idea that Iran could have enough to make a bomb by next year is ridiculous.  Now if it turned all of its centrifuges to this task, then maybe it could achieve that result, though most experts think that Iran’s ability to enrich is still exaggerated.  It could not highly enrich without creating atomic signatures detectable by the inspectors.  Juan Cole, President of the Global Americana Institute, July 1, 2008 

According to last year’s U.S.National Intelligence Estimate, Iran may be able to develop a nuclear weapon between 2010 and 2015 — but the  country halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003 due to international pressure, according to a December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate report.  The findings, which contradict claims by the Bush administration, suggest that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium, and that it could acquire enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon after 2010, and possibly not until after 2015.
Iran has installed 3,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium - enough to begin industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel and build a warhead within a year, according to a May 2008 report by the UN's nuclear watchdog.  This report by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), confirms the installation of 3,000 fully-functioning centrifuges at Iran's enrichment plant at Natanz.
When spinning at full speed they are capable of producing sufficient weapons-grade uranium (enriched to over 90% purity) for a nuclear weapon within a year.  However, in a briefing to accompany the report, a senior IAEA official said that it would take at least 18 months and would be possible only if the centrifuges were configured in a different way.  The IAEA says the uranium being produced is only fuel grade (enriched to 4%).  National Intelligence Estimate, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, November 2007 and International Atomic Energy Agency Report on Iran to United Nations Security Council, May 2008.

U.S. officials have failed thus far to provide evidence that would support that claim, and a long-delayed U.S. military report on Iranian arms is unlikely to offer any data on what proportion of the weapons in the hands of Shiite fighters are from Iran and what proportion comes from purchases on the open market.  Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service, Where are those Iranian Weapons in Iran?, May 21, 2008

The primary threat to the United States by Iran has been the strict control by the Iranian Republic of its oil and energy resources, as well as its strategic neighborhood.  In 1951, the elected prime minister of then-democratic Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, announced his intention to nationalize Iran’s oil, stripping the U.S. and Great Britain of their privileged access and control; and in 1979 the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran was overthrown, resulting in an embassy takeover for more than a year.  Beyond these actions, the rest of Iran’s threats have been rhetoric, from “Death to America” in street protests to the rantings of Ahmadinejad, with virtually no military control or the capacity to do real harm.  Phyllis Bennis, Iran Primer, 2008 

Iran is not a threat to the U.S. As a non-nuclear signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it has the right (like all the 185 or so such signatories) to build and use nuclear power plants, and to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. (We may believe this to be a huge problem for the NPT, since the technology for nuclear power is essentially the same as that required for nuclear weapons, but nonetheless it is the law. And in the context of our own government's refusal to abide by its own disarmament obligations under the NPT, American officials are particularly ill-placed to deny Iran's right to enrichment technology.) The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has expressed concern over some lack of transparency in Iran's program, but it has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies, Escalating Threats of U.S. Attacks Against Iran, February 15, 2007

The U.S. would have almost no international support for an attack on Iran and our image throughout the world—especially the Muslim world—would be seriously damaged. But the real problem would be Iran's potential retaliation. This would almost certainly include efforts to destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan (including attacks on our 150,000 troops in those two places), support for terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and interests and threats to the free passage of oil through the straits of Hormuz.

Retaliatory action against Israel by the Lebanese-based Hezbollah group would be inevitable, which has missiles capable of hitting Haifa and several other Israeli cities; and Iranian paramilitary units in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates would undoubtedly activate attack contingencies.

If these weren’t enough, a pre-emptive attack on Iran “would likely strengthen Iranian extremists and undermine reformers, that any setback to the program would likely only be temporary, and that any debate within Iran about the utility of a nuclear weapons program would end.  Phillip H. Gordon, Will America Attack Iran?, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Brookings Institute, June 1, 2006

What about Iranian casualties?

A study conducted by Oxford Research Group researcher Paul Rogers compares likely civil deaths in Iran with those in Iraq:  “The civilian population in that country had three weeks to prepare for war in 2003, giving people the chance to flee potentially dangerous sites. But … attacks on Iranian facilities, most of which are in densely populated areas, would be surprise ones, allowing no time for such evacuations or other precautions. Military deaths in this first wave of attacks would be expected to be in the thousands, civilian deaths would be in the many hundreds at least, particularly with the requirement to target technical support for the nuclear and missile infrastructure, with many of the factories being located in urban areas. The death toll would eventually be much higher if Iran took retaliatory action and the United States responded, or if the U.S. took pre-emptive military action in addition to strikes on nuclear sites.”    Ewen MacAskill, “Thousands Would Die in US Strikes on Iran, Says Study,” The Guardian, February 13, 2006.

The United States is in violation of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, which ruled in 1996 that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.”  Also beyond its specific nuclear violations, the United States is in violation of the UN Charter and all the principles of international law that prohibit preventive war. Beyond its specific nuclear violations, the United States is in violation of the UN Charter and all the principles of international law that prohibit preventive war...without even the claim of an imminent threat (generally understood to mean missiles being loaded onto a launch pad, or a similarly urgent and immediate danger). 

The U.S., not Iran, would stand in violation of international law and the UN Charter. Article 2, Sections 3 and 4 of the Charter require that “all Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Phyllis Bennis, Iran Primer, 2008 

The reasons have not changed since the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in1953. Iran is one of only two countries in the Middle East that contains the three prerequisites for indigenous power: oil/wealth, water, large land and population. The only other country is (or was) Iraq. Iran and Iraq traditionally competed for territory, oil rights, military control, and regional influence; this competition was always that of national interests - economic, military, influence. The two nation-states competed - not because Iran was Shi'a and Iraq's government privileged its minority Sunnis and was allied with largely Sunni Arab regimes, but for the same reason that Germany and France or Argentina and Brazil historically fought regional wars -for territory, money and power.
Later the U.S. moved strategically to prevent either regional power from challenging overall U.S. domination of the Middle East. It was on that basis that the U.S. backed Saddam Hussein's Iraq throughout the Gulf War - because Iran was stronger, so the U.S. weighed in on the side of the weaker competitor to keep the war going and encourage both regional challengers to waste their blood and treasure fighting each other, rather than turning on the U.S. So U.S. interest has always been in controlling Iran's oil (less for direct access, which was never a real necessity or real problem, than for control of pricing and supply, and to be able to act as guarantor of access for Washington's allies and now competitors such as China and India) and suppressing its regional influence.  Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies, Escalating Threats of U.S. Attacks Against Iran, February 15, 2007

Additional Resources