: ON POLITICAL REPRESSION AT HOME AND ABROAD : FROM
CENTER FOR THE ADVANCED STUDY OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS AND SOCIAL
Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
The grim news seemed to be multiplying these past few days. A growing concern that war criminals are no longer held accountable is now expressed at every level of American society.
Every institution in capitalist societies across the world is in danger of becoming a site for copycat behavior, by imitation of the rich and powerful in higher circles of authority, where lawlessness and the abuse of power is exercised with impunity, and where criticism is met routinely by silence, if not by outright intimidation. This end to dialogue, this contempt for democratic decision-making, at the local level and at the national level, is a tactic that can lead only to a rise in violence. At the international level this practice will end in an escalation of violence to a degree perilous to humanity itself.
We must join the millions of citizens throughout the world who ask that those responsible for crimes against humanity be held accountable and that the victims, past and present, be awarded reparations in acknowledgement of the failures of our limited democracy and as a re-commitment to democratic values, such as tolerance, justice and equality.
Among the items below, are disturbing documents that any mature student of American society should examine as part of a serious effort to come to terms with the decay within American institutions today. We encourage our readers to contribute to the effort of putting an end to the imperialist violence we now witnessed day after day in the Middle East and to the repression that tens of thousands of Americans are suffering today for their stance against the war in
Item A. below is a shocking video clip depicting what appears to be insane drive-by killings by paramilitary personnel associated with the imperialist forces in
Item B. is an article by Noam Chomsky in which he warns that the war in Iraq might be nothing less than the detonator of something bigger, much bigger, and for this reason alone it must be stopped now.
[We invite readers read Newsletter N30 on the CEIMSA web site which is Professor Jean Bricmont's account of the French betrayal of its heritage of tolerance from the time of the Enlightenment. In the 18th Century, Voltaire became famous for his declared trust in human reason: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." This proud and noble cry for humanity has been all but silenced, momentarily, as Professor Bricmont explains in our Newsletter N30.]
Item C. is part of the newly released documents made available by the National Security Archives in Washington, D.C., which reveal for the first time the political process by which the United States government gave strategic support to the horrendous crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor that lasted for a quarter of a century, beginning in 1975.
Item D. is an article by award-winning investigative reporter, by Seymour Hersh. In this article, Where is the Iraq war headed next?, he attempts to describe the hysterical escalation of the war in the Middle East which is now being conducted by the Bush II administration, and which includes the formation of a new composite American Special Forces team, known as an S.M.U. (special-mission unit) that has begun invading Syria.
Item E. is news from the home front: Bill Moyers reports in an interview with John Eggerton on the right-wing "serial abusers" who now control Public Broadcasting Service in
Item F. is a public invitation from the Council for the National Interest Foundation, in
Item G. is a message from Presidential Candidate, Ralph Nader, who again rallies support for a confrontation with pro-war political forces in the
Item H. is a petition forwarded to us by Professor Judith Ezekiel at the
Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies/
Director of Research
from Truthout :
28 November 2005
Video Allegedly Exposes Security Contractors
http :// www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm
A "trophy" video made by private security guards showing them randomly shooting Iraqi civilians as they drive their car in the streets of Baghdad. The discovery of this film has sparked two investigations after it was posted on the internet. This video has renewed concern that private security companies, which are not subject to any form of regulation either in
from Noam Chomsky :
4 July 2005
It's Imperialism, Stupid
Times, July 4, 2005
In his June 28 speech, President Bush asserted that the invasion of
Half-truths, misinformation and hidden agendas have characterized official pronouncements about
In 2002 the
The answer to the "single question" was given shortly after the invasion, and reluctantly conceded: The WMD didn't exist. Scarcely missing a beat, the government and media doctrinal system concocted new pretexts and justifications for going to war.
"Americans do not like to think of themselves as aggressors, but raw aggression is what took place in Iraq," national security and intelligence analyst John Prados concluded after his careful, extensive review of the documentary record in his 2004 book "Hoodwinked."
Prados describes the Bush "scheme to convince
The memo came from a meeting of Blair's war cabinet on July 23,
The memo also quotes British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the
British journalist Michael Smith, who broke the story of the memo, has elaborated on its context and contents in subsequent articles. The "spikes of activity" apparently included a coalition air campaign meant to provoke
Warplanes began bombing in southern
"In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against
The bombing was presented as defensive action to protect coalition planes in the no-fly zone.
Shortly after the invasion of
It is a rational calculation, on the assumption that human survival is not particularly significant in comparison with short-term power and wealth. And that is nothing new. These themes resonate through history. The difference today in this age of nuclear weapons is only that the stakes are enormously higher.
from National Security Archives :
November 28, 2005
A Quarter Century
East Timor Truth
report uses declassified U.S. documents to reveal support for
invasion and occupation of East Timor from 1975 until U.N. sponsored
National Security Archive provides more than 1000 documents to East Timor Truth Commission after Bush administration refuses cooperation
For more information contact:
Brad Simpson - 443/845-4462
"I'm assuming you're really going to keep your mouth shut on this subject?"
- National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger to his staff in October
Washington D.C., November 28, 2005 - Today, East Timorese President Xanana Gusm㯠transmits to Parliament the final report of East Timor's Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR) on human rights violations committed in East Timor between 1974 and 1999, and the National Security Archive is making available to the public some of the more than 1,000 formerly classified U.S. documents that it provided to assist the work of the CAVR.
According to the CAVR, the timing of the release to the public of either the 2,500 page report or its executive summary will now be determined by
"We expect the final report of the CAVR to demonstrate, as these documents do, that Indonesia's invasion and occupation of East Timor and the resulting crimes against humanity occurred in an international context in which the support of powerful nations, especially the United States, was indispensable," said Brad Simpson, assistant professor of history at University of Maryland, Baltimore County and Director of the National Security Archive's Indonesia and East Timor Documentation Project. "These documents also point to the need for genuine international accountability for East Timor's suffering, especially as
The documents included in this briefing book were declassified in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the Archive's
Among the revelations in these formerly secret documents:
* U.S. officials adopted a "policy of silence" and sought to suppress news and discussion of East Timor, though they knew of Indonesian plans to invade nearly a year in advance;
* The Ford Administration knew that Indonesia had invaded East Timor almost entirely using U.S. equipment, knew the use of this equipment was illegal, and discussed circumventing any possible Congressional ban on military aid to Indonesia;
* In 1977, Carter Administration officials blocked declassification of the explosive cable transcribing President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger's December 6, 1975 meeting with Indonesian President Suharto in which they explicitly approved of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor;
* Through the 1980s, U.S. officials continued to receive - and deny or dismiss - credible reports of Indonesian massacres of Timorese civilians;
* In 1993, the U.S. Ambassador in Jakarta concluded that the Suharto regime's effort to integrate East Timor into Indonesia had failed, and that "the repressive and pervasive Indonesian military presence is the main obstacle to the government's goal of integration.";
* In September 1999 the CIA reported on Indonesian military and militia violence following East Timor's vote for independence as a form of terrorism, reporting that "the military has supported or worked alongside the militias."
from ICH :
28 November 2005
Where is the
11/28/05 " New Yorker" -- -- In recent weeks, there has been widespread speculation that
George W. Bush, confronted by diminishing approval ratings and dissent
his own party, will begin pulling American troops out of Iraq next
Administrations best-case scenario is that the parliamentary election
for December 15th will produce a coalition government that will join
Administration in calling for a withdrawal to begin in the spring. By
White House hopes, the new government will be capable of handling the
In a speech on November 19th, Bush repeated the latest Administration
catchphrase: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. He added, When our commanders on the ground tell me that
can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they
earned. One sign of the political pressure on the Administration to
a withdrawal came last week, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
News that the current level of American troops would not have to be
for very much longer, because the Iraqis were getting better at
A high-level Pentagon war planner told me, however, that he has seen scant indication that the President would authorize a significant pullout of American troops if he believed that it would impede the war against the insurgency. There are several proposals currently under review by the White House and the Pentagon; the most ambitious calls for American combat forces to be reduced from a hundred and fifty-five thousand troops to fewer than eighty thousand by next fall, with all American forces officially designated combat to be pulled out of the area by the summer of
A key element of the drawdown plans, not mentioned in the Presidents public statements, is that the departing American troops will be replaced by American airpower. Quick, deadly strikes by
Were not planning to diminish the war, Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me. Clawsons views often mirror the thinking of the men and women around Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. We just want to change the mix of the forces doing the fightingIraqi infantry with American support and greater use of airpower. The rule now is to commit Iraqi forces into combat only in places where they are sure to win. The pace of commitment, and withdrawal, depends on their success in the battlefield.
He continued, We want to draw down our forces, but the President is prepared to tough this one out. There is a very deep feeling on his part that the issue of
One Pentagon adviser told me, There are always contingency plans, but why withdraw and take a chance? I dont think the President will go for ituntil the insurgency is broken. Hes not going to back off. This is bigger than domestic politics.
Current and former military and intelligence officials have told me that the President remains convinced that it is his personal mission to bring democracy to
Bushs closest advisers have long been aware of the religious nature of his policy commitments. In recent interviews, one former senior official, who served in Bushs first term, spoke extensively about the connection between the Presidents religious faith and his view of the war in
The former senior official said that after the election he made a lengthy inspection visit to
I tried to tell him, the former senior official said. And he couldnt hear it.
There are grave concerns within the military about the capability of the U.S. Army to sustain two or three more years of combat in
Many of the militarys most senior generals are deeply frustrated, but they say nothing in public, because they dont want to jeopardize their careers. The Administration has so terrified the generals that they know they wont go public, a former defense official said. A retired senior C.I.A. officer with knowledge of
One person with whom the Pentagons top commanders have shared their private views for decades is Representative John Murtha, of
Murthas call for a speedy American pullout only seemed to strengthen the White Houses resolve. Administration officials are beyond angry at him, because he is a serious threat to their policyboth on substance and politically, the former defense official said. Speaking at the Osan Air Force base, in
The President is more determined than ever to stay the course, the former defense official said. He doesnt feel any pain. Bush is a believer in the adage People may suffer and die, but the Church advances. He said that the President had become more detached, leaving more issues to Karl Rove and Vice-President Cheney. They keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway, the former defense official said. Bushs public appearances, for example, are generally scheduled in front of friendly audiences, most often at military bases. Four decades ago, President Lyndon Johnson, who was also confronted with an increasingly unpopular war, was limited to similar public forums. Johnson knew he was a prisoner in the White House, the former official said, but Bush has no idea.
Within the military, the prospect of using airpower as a substitute for American troops on the ground has caused great unease. For one thing, Air Force commanders, in particular, have deep-seated objections to the possibility that Iraqis eventually will be responsible for target selection. Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and blame someone else? another senior military planner now on assignment in the Pentagon asked. Will some Iraqis be targeting on behalf of Al Qaeda, or the insurgency, or the Iranians?
Its a serious business, retired Air Force General Charles Horner, who was in charge of allied bombing during the 1991 Gulf War, said. The Air Force has always had concerns about people ordering air strikes who are not Air Force forward air controllers. We need people on active duty to think it out, and they will. There has to be training to be sure that somebody is not trying to get even with somebody else. (Asked for a comment, the Pentagon spokesman said there were plans in place for such training. He also noted that
The American air war inside
In recent months, the tempo of American bombing seems to have increased. Most of the targets appear to be in the hostile, predominantly Sunni provinces that surround
The insurgency operates mainly in crowded urban areas, and Air Force warplanes rely on sophisticated, laser-guided bombs to avoid civilian casualties. These bombs home in on targets that must be painted, or illuminated, by laser beams directed by ground units. The pilot doesnt identify the target as seen in the pre-briefthe instructions provided before takeoffa former high-level intelligence official told me. The guy with the laser is the targeteer. Not the pilot. Often you get a hot-read from a military unit on the groundand you drop your bombs with no communication with the guys on the ground. You dont want to break radio silence. The people on the ground are calling in targets that the pilots cant verify. He added, And were going to turn this process over to the Iraqis?
The second senior military planner told me that there are essentially two types of targeting now being used in
This military planner added that even today, with Americans doing the targeting, there is no sense of an air campaign, or a strategic vision. We are just whacking targetsits a reversion to the Stone Age. Theres no operational art. Thats what happens when you give targeting to the Armythey hit what the local commander wants to hit.
One senior Pentagon consultant I spoke to said he was optimistic that American air will immediately make the Iraqi Army that much better. But he acknowledged that he, too, had concerns about Iraqi targeting. We have the most expensive eyes in the sky right now, the consultant said. But a lot of Iraqis want to settle old scores. Who is going to have authority to call in air strikes? Theres got to be a behavior-based rule.
General John Jumper, who retired last month after serving four years as the Air Force chief of staff, was in favor of certification of those Iraqis who will be allowed to call in strikes, the Pentagon consultant told me. I dont know if it will be approved. The regular Army generals were resisting it to the last breath, despite the fact that they would benefit the most from it.
A Pentagon consultant with close ties to the officials in the Vice-Presidents office and the Pentagon who advocated the war said that the Iraqi penchant for targeting tribal and personal enemies with artillery and mortar fire had created impatience and resentment inside the military. He believed that the Air Forces problems with Iraqi targeting might be addressed by the formation of U.S.-Iraqi transition teams, whose American members would be drawn largely from Special Forces troops. This consultant said that there were plans to integrate between two hundred and three hundred Special Forces members into Iraqi units, which was seen as a compromise aimed at meeting the Air Forces demand to vet Iraqis who were involved in targeting. But in practice, the consultant added, it meant that the Special Ops people will soon allow Iraqis to begin calling in the targets.
Robert Pape, a political-science professor at the
Even American bombing on behalf of an improved, well-trained Iraqi Army would not necessarily be any more successful against the insurgency. Its not going to work, said Andrew Brookes, the former director of airpower studies at the Royal Air Forces advanced staff college, who is now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in
The Air Forces worries have been subordinated, so far, to the political needs of the White House. The Administrations immediate political goal after the December elections is to show that the day-to-day conduct of the war can be turned over to the newly trained and equipped Iraqi military. It has already planned heavily scripted change-of-command ceremonies, complete with the lowering of American flags at bases and the raising of Iraqi ones.
Some officials in the State Department, the C.I.A., and British Prime Minister Tony Blairs government have settled on their candidate of choice for the December electionsIyad Allawi, the secular Shiite who served until this spring as Iraqs interim Prime Minister. They believe that Allawi can gather enough votes in the election to emerge, after a round of political bargaining, as Prime Minister. A former senior British adviser told me that Blair was convinced that Allawi is the best hope. The fear is that a government dominated by religious Shiites, many of whom are close to
Blair has assigned a small team of operatives to provide political help to Allawi, the former adviser told me. He also said that there was talk late this fall, with American concurrence, of urging Ahmad Chalabi, a secular Shiite, to join forces in a coalition with Allawi during the post-election negotiations to form a government. Chalabi, who is notorious for his role in promoting flawed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction before the war, is now a deputy Prime Minister. He and Allawi were bitter rivals while in exile.
A senior United Nations diplomat told me that he was puzzled by the high American and British hopes for Allawi. I know a lot of people want Allawi, but I think hes been a terrific disappointment, the diplomat said. He doesnt seem to be building a strong alliance, and at the moment it doesnt look like he will do very well in the election.
The second Pentagon consultant told me, If Allawi becomes Prime Minister, we can say, Theres a moderate, urban, educated leader now in power who does not want to deprive women of their rights. He would ask us to leave, but he would allow us to keep Special Forces operations inside Iraqto keep an American presence the right way.
A former high-level intelligence official cautioned that it was probably too late for any American withdrawal plan to work without further bloodshed. The constitution approved by Iraqi voters in October will be interpreted by the Kurds and the Shiites to proceed with their plans for autonomy, he said. The Sunnis will continue to believe that if they can get rid of the Americans they can still win. And there still is no credible way to establish security for American troops.
The fear is that a precipitous
Meanwhile, as the debate over troop reductions continues, the covert war in
from Bill Moyers :
28 November 2005
Moyers Has His Say
By John Eggerton
Former NOW host on media bias and his feud with former CPB Chairman Ken Tomlinson.
became the central figure in absentia in the controversy surrounding former Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)
Kenneth Tomlinson. It was Tomlinson who pointed to Moyers' NOW newscast
as a chief reason for his efforts to bring "balance" to public
broadcasting by adding conservative shows. Moyers has since left NOW
currently president of the
You are the exemplar of liberal PBS bias, according to Ken Tomlinson. Was your show liberally biased?
Right-wing partisans like Tomlinson have always attacked aggressive reporting as liberal.
We were biased, all right - in favor of uncovering the news that powerful people wanted to keep hidden: conflicts of interest at the Department of Interior, secret meetings between Vice President Cheney and the oil industry, backdoor shenanigans by lobbyists at the FCC, corruption in Congress, neglect of wounded veterans returning from Iraq, Pentagon cost overruns, the manipulation of intelligence leading to the invasion of Iraq.
We were way ahead of the news curve on these stories, and the administration turned its hit men loose on us.
Tomlinson actually told The Washington Post that he was irate over one of our documentary reports from a small town in
If reporting on what's happening to ordinary people thrown overboard by circumstances beyond their control and betrayed by
It is an old canard of right-wing ideologues like Tomlinson to equate tough journalism with liberalism. They hope to distract people from the message by trying to discredit the messenger.
NOW threw the fear of God into Tomlinson's crowd because they couldn't dispute the accuracy of our reporting.
And when we weren't reporting the truth behind the news, we were interviewing a wide variety of people: Ralph Reed and Ralph Nader; Cal Thomas and Molly Ivins; Robert Bartley, editor of the Wall Street Journal; Katrina Vandenheuval, editor of The Nation; The Conservative Union's David Keene; Dorothy Rabinowitz (also of the Wall Street Journal); Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity; the Club for Growth's Stephen Moore; historian Howard Zinn; and Indian activist Arundhati Roy. And on and on.
Did you get any direct pressure from Tomlinson or CPB to change the content of your show?
The people at PBS told me they were getting excruciating pressure because of our reporting, including threats to de-fund public television unless "Moyers is dealt with." They never identified the source of that pressure.
We know now it was Tomlinson. [Tomlinson] even told some people [we have confirmed it with two people who were present] that "Moyers is a coward because he doesn't want to talk to people who disagree with him."
Hello? See the above list of all the conservatives who appeared on the show.
What happened to the debate idea between you two?
I asked him repeatedly. He refused. He didn't even respond. But when all this started to unfold early last year, I asked three times to meet with the CPB board and try to find out what was going on.
I thought we could reason together and maybe agree on how to cooperate to protect Public Broadcasting's independence. I mean, I not only read the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, I helped to create it. CPB's job was to be a firewall between guys like them and the producers, journalists, and content of public broadcasting.
I thought at the time that I was dealing with people who cared about this institution. I didn't realize they had gone over to the dark side.
What prompted your departure from NOW?
I needed a break, and I also sensed that we were up against serial abusers and that I could fight back more effectively if I weren't on the air.
from Council for the National Interest Foundation :
November 29, 2005
(North side of the
Thursday, December 1st, 2005
2:30 to 4:30 PM
Paul Findley served in the U.S. Congress for 22 years, 1961 to 1983, on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. During his tenure on Capitol Hill, Mr. Findley was widely respected for his efforts to bring a fair and balanced American Middle East policy. He is the author of the bestselling book "They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront
Joining him will be Prof. Lawrence Davidson and his wife Janet Amighi, two recent visitors to
from Ralph Nader :
29 November 2005
Lets keep this short and sweet.
The Democrats are now in a corner.
Many voted to authorize the war in
They have two choices.
They can either do as John Murtha and John Edwards did, admit they were wrong, and call for a pullout policy.
Or they can keep their heads in the sand a
If they go the Hillary route they lose again in 2006 and 2008 and beyond.
If they follow the two Johns, they have a chance.
For the sake of the country, I hope they follow the two Johns.
But don't hold your breath.
Democrats and their supporters have a lot to answer for.
They have a lot on their minds and on their collective conscience.
Many Democrats in Congress voted to authorize this war that has cost more than 2,000 young American deaths and tens of thousands of serious injuries. Iraqi civilian casualties are enormous.
You on the other hand our brave, and steadfast supporters you opposed the war when it was unfashionable to do so.
You opposed the war when the two Johns and Kerry and Clinton and the rest were giving Bush cover.
You opposed the war tickets of Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards.
You stood tall with us, at the November 1st Cooper Union Speech in
You were abused, misused, and refused for standing tall.
And of course, so were we.
One last point:
John Edwards, in his November 13, 2005 op-ed piece in the Washington Post, leads with these three words:
I was wrong.
As we pointed out during the 2004 campaign, at Cooper Union:
Kerry/Edwards was wrong about the war.
Bush/Cheney was wrong about the war.
And whats the flip side?
Nader/Camejo was right about the war.
You were right about the war.
We were right about the war.
Its important to set the record straight.
Armed with the truth, we will move together in the New Year with a majority of the American people to end this disaster.
And rebuild a new politics from the ground up.
Thank you for your steady support and bright horizons.
from Judith Ezekiel :
30 November 2005
7 students at
Please read, forward, and join Howard ! Zinn, Michael Eric Dyson and others in adding your name to the enclosed statement defending these students.
To add your name, send an email to: email@example.com, or firstname.lastname@example.org. Please specify how you would like to be identified.
Co-Initiator of the World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime
Drop the Charges and
Harassment Against the
Students who act! to Drive Out the Bush Regime, especially when they remain firm in the face of police and administrative threats, are heroic. They must be defended. Their example must be followed.
On Friday, November 18th, 3 student organizers were issued summons for a hearing on over possible expulsion the following Monday morning, giving them no time during the working week to contact lawyers, parents, or campus administrators. After hundreds of phone-calls from around the country to the Dean⪙s Office, their hearing was postponed. Days later, 4 more students were issued summons and campus police shut down an interview being filmed by the local media, attempting to prevent their story from getting out.
The attacks on the student organizers at Hampton University, a historically black college with a mostly Republican administration, is an ugly harbinger of the ⪜dissent-free⪝ future the Bush regime is trying to lock into place. These attacks are part of a pattern of repression against high school and college students nation-wide on November 2nd that disproportionately targeted black, Latino and other oppressed students.
A standard cannot be set where the President of the United States can stay on vacation as a major city⪙s poor and black people are left for five days without food or water, where influential friends of this President are allowed to float out genocidal notions of aborting all black babies to bring crime rates down, and where the President⪙s policies of ⪜abstinence-only⪝ in the face of an international AIDS pandemic threaten millions of lives, but where students who dare to act to end this are silenced and expelled from school.
As it says in the Call for The World Can⪙t Wait ⪓ Drive Out! the Bush Regime, ⪜This will not be easy. If we speak the truth, they will try to silence us. If we act, they will to try to stop us. But we speak for the majority, here and around the world, and as we get this going we are going to reach out to the people who have been so badly fooled by Bush and we are NOT going to stop.⪝
We, the undersigned, demand that the Hampton University administration to drop all charges against, cease their political harassment of, and to apologize to these students. These students must not be expelled! We also call on students at campuses nation-wide to send statements of s! upport, and to join, strengthen and support the movement to Drive Out the Bush Regime because the World Can⪙t Wait!
Rosalyn Baxandall, Distinguished Teaching Professor, SUNY Old Westbury*
Edget Betru, Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative- Center for Constitutional Rights*
Eileen Boris, University of California, Santa Barbara*
Judith Ezekiel, Universite de Toulouse le Mirail*
Carl Dix, National Spokesperson, Revolutionary Communist Party
Bea Kreloff, director Art Workshop International*
Allen Lang, National Student Organizer, The World Can⪙t Wait ⪓ Drive Out the Bush Regime!
Efia Nwangaza, Executive Director, African American Institute for Policy Studies & Planning
Katha Pollitt, writer The Nation*
Sonia Jaffe Robins, freelance writer and editor
Sunsara Taylor, Co-Initiator of The World Can⪙t Wait ⪓ Drive Out the Bush Regime!
Laura X, Women⪙s History Library*
Howard Zinn, Historian and Author
*affiliations for identification purposes only
Demand that the 7 students facing expulsion be cleared of any disciplinary measures and that the intimidation and punishment for student protest stop!
Call the Dean of Men (Woods! on Hopewell Jr.) at 757-727-5303, the Dean of Women at 757-727-5486.
Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies/
Director of Research