&4P9:AXdb(anܰ өlqu@hy@쭰?*ٖbgO3@ld6S\QhXͬÙ턚T'LC$tHy#RZE { .٦CM6 }M@9TNԝXodOy)U`q0~Glq5xQSn˦ /%躙1%Až~۟2ȱ* cיf"WvgAܵ~>rAmawQ."~Q ![_9N {ꘓHx!(X#N@Qp.@MNJxwIyONs, x2ݸvcś$cHdFϲJ z)#ﾮZSTğ.a '#7 dB 2,G-ɷŒ>>  &,)δ7ki-I_->TmPXKmIH!lGI bсl|r) )58\I{va؉u $lͳsGFr\wqe˖5(i,A%atqpr7zf26P+T@PpQ8]WgL"GOTjφpP5_r{c>uSUݱXx.Ys&aCtldw,I wHs->+7g} zGGNX!F0CCR`QTER,c^i}<^Lh3P3;n5ť6})~L! h49PHM5i&yr#SD0u?ÚR4\6-DeuȆ2M$hUfH*ZP`o@Vf,pAxw+#(qG x7B A'w H̓"Nw\(gw#6LzdF@L_7ĝ}8TzFPGĐz똑J؝89폥].8Wdz8b8T&ɀoQ>I-ҿY`nR|p Aj(PPW ;Org)/bnw2rbER ^z IOC(0~kd#=}wu9<'k"$y9ET%GKXg2#.Ϩ77"1R{d|uM?J-q+==cDJ Eka^pM>WƝ5\R)cHyTCȄ}[Νȕ TT:s\lؚ L`ٻec=urB"K0 V=,@8SӍ)(~}%c1$I%ћ~SbM2氖)AA|g$i ۈK Uw m5%Jcu#.ݿ )v w>P|+}W[o~׀3֋"@PMTukz5oȚjďiCfNS|IMQJd؝Y]Uܻ{}zb; (.{g}wÃR_;& rHhB0>`ĖM#k9y |hkz9>]` Xn,99Jͨ QAR,Cfl=DIxt@UW.:L&F~fd?F HJΤINOU1oFkAKٷ_RQkLILp't7|XkF-hRScq1Nizܒϫz'A^ j5'Eo}ZN 6`͞r7O;rkB 9WF/E(@PbF?%A4TJ z~0ﵾ>E f#i"0eG=} .u/|}v lp&JnҷyWD):>|t ȤkcߤN!̱ɥG' ; 5U8F9փ%?_2sQU?kl ^GKD y@#aS_uk9+E=D nYԒp,P8ub vj.99E吣N ƇT򻱡 Q542vrځTqәM>ЄOg]sQt#51z~/quR6ey݄@ˬ7m*F9|>f%7S->)YL{p>N)(CdrL İP$ƥc-Ɉ6 9|nfЄz?vBkڒ˃FhIjC2K*g+=B7z姳ix@৐!M68=!߳U,#IW.m8~N \&-eNUQ""}%'[#jJ* N陾MaW$:ׯ]T8n/W /"±:EߟLItHU!{KuS#`@'Jmx׎vѥ~Y y@1w)a/k^YV3V41@LM'KƋ&(sN[Fui= |_QRZ'ga*/2!,hX=zVݯM4Is=@ f'_ɱֻHߩeċİ4vH TliES7ӱ l!q<[l1;y"T}b FVa|FZ~O/ b/f [hı "Zܠk QqifHZjd௵ /dw nA,3]gړJkhB-bYqwCD/{ػ
Even though Courts are very slow and limited, they have provided some restorative balance to our Constitutional rights to express our viewpoints. The Seattle win of significant damages and improvements in police training is a win, but more limited than several other wins around the country. In Oakland, California, a settlement there after a police attack at a Port protest in 2003 led to the first agreement of a policy banning the use of less lethal weapons for crowd control, including wooden bullets, sting ball grenades, shot filled bean bags, rubber bullets, and pepper spray. In Washington, DC, a lawsuit led to legislation that limits use of police lines to encircle protesters, states police cannot use riot gear at protests unless a specific need is shown, and that eligible protesters be released within 4 hrs. Los Angeles policy was changed so less lethal weapons can only be used on armed or combative suspects, that motorcycles may not be used for crowd control, and limits were placed on declaring a protest an unlawful assembly. Note however, that the LA police viscously attacked a Mayday immigrants' rights rally with less lethal weapons this year, illustrating that police respect for Constitutional rights of protesters will be an ongoing struggle.

For more details, and a somber evaluation of the context for protests now, see the new National Lawyers Guild publication, Punishing Protest, available as a free download, online at the Guild's website.

So where does this leave us? Do we have to risk arrest or police violence to express our views? Certainly many people have come to fear this and recognize the chilling effect this has on speech. 1999 was an important moment in the history of the globalization movement and for the power of people united in their causes - but it also marked a new beginning for the suppression of free speech via intimidation and excessive police response. Cities and police departments learned from 1999 but, by and large, they learned the WRONG lessons! All of the case mentioned above stem from actions after the WTO protest. September 11 and the fears that emerged in this country about our vulnerabilities paved the way for these lessons to go seemingly unchallenged and uncorrected for several years. This case and others like it have been working their way through the courts all this time. Combined with the slowly awakening populous, victories such as the WTO class action case provide some real hope that we can not only right some of the wrongs done to people exercising their right to free speech but also now teach the lesson that those sworn to serve the constitution must protect our rights. Hopefully cities across the country are paying attention and are ready to learn the lesson that (for the time being) the Constitution still has a First and a Fourth Amendment.

-- Scott McClay and Erica Kay



The Battle In Seattle

Sometime early next year this big budget movie about the WTO protests will be showing around the country. It presents a good opportunity for activists everywhereboth because it does show some of the issues around the WTO, and it conveys some of the excitement of the protest and our victories. It could be used as a recruiting tool to draw people into activism and will be a great time for us to reclaim our own history and voices. People will be listening again so why not tell our stories!

Since the fictionalized film is made for the mainstream, activists no doubt will take issue with some of the portrayals of people and situations in the film. Once past our frustration if we see parts of our story once again misrepresented, the opportunists amongst us may welcome the conversations that arise because of these characterizations. For example, lets talk to folks about why, even though the film gives voice to a protester who sees a tactical role for destruction of corporate property, the person who disagrees is the only one we really get to know as a character. And if activists motivations for their actions in the film dont ring true to you, what better reason for talking to someone about YOUR motivation for the work you do?

If you would like to receive more info about organizing around the film in your community, please feel free to contact the Community Action Network.



2008 War Tax Boycott

After nearly two years of planning, the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee has launched the 2008 War Tax Boycott. The new campaign is designed to enlist a broad range on Iraq war opponents in a war tax resistance and redirection efforts. Currently the campaign is collecting pledges that ask participants to commit to resisting any amount of taxes in April 2008. The campaign has developed a brochure called "Getting Started in War Tax Resistance" that describes different types and levels of resistance. The campaign has also selected two recommended redirection projects, one for Iraq war refugees and the other for Katrina recovery in New Orleans.

Unlike previous campaigns promoting mass war tax resistance, the boycott is specific about time and not specific about method. In the past, weve mounted campaigns that promote a specific type of symbolic resistance on an ongoing basis. This campaign invites participants to choose their own level and method of resistance, thus embracing both symbolic and higher risk forms of WTR. On the other hand, the campaign is only asking for a one-year commitment from pledge signers. According to organizers, they are hoping that this one-year campaign will introduce the concept of WTR to a large number of activists who can then incorporate it as an ongoing part of their lives and anti-war activism.

The war tax boycott has reached out to direct action anti-war groups, and gained a significant level of support. Current endorsers include the War Resisters League, Voices for Creative Nonviolence, the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, Veterans for Peace, and the Nonviolent Direct Action Working Group of United for Peace and Justice. The campaign also has an Internet presence with background information, on-line pledge forms, introductory WTR information, and downloadable outreach materials. All the materials look good, including flyers that can be handed out at local events.

Most of us here at NACC have signed the pledge form, which took about three minutes, and we handed out information cards on October 27. This is great opportunity to spread the word about WTR at a time when many people will be receptive to our message and looking for ways to engage in meaningful protest. Check it out!

-- Carolyn Stevens



2008 NACC Grant Applications

It's time, time, once again, to give away pitifully meagre sums of money!

That's right, we're talking about NACC's annual grants cycle. And meagre though the sums may be, we're always shocked, amazed, and delighted at the quality of the applications we receive, the shoestring budgets on which the applicant organisations operate, and the vitality of the organisations' good works.

The grants are, of course, funded by interest generated from NACC's CMTC Escrow Account for resisted War Taxes. Now in its sixth year, the program has been very popular not only with potential applicants (we received more requests for information this year than ever before), but also with the Escrow Account depositors upon whom the program depends.

That's great news. Also great is that, owing to some rearrangement of the Account's funds, it was able to generate more interest this year than usual, so we should be able to give out a bit more money than usual.

Which is not to say that we don't expect the decisions to be as excruciating as ever; surely they will be just that.

In the last two years, we've granted to a lot of projects focusing on Counter-Recruitment. That wasn't our plan go into either year, but it just happened that a great many of the applications, including many of the most exciting ones, happened to be geared to exposing and countering the military's presence in the schools. While we're still quite happy to continue funding Counter-Recruitment efforts, those organisations needing funding for general anti-war and social justice projects should not be discouraged to apply as well!

Incidentally, for those who may be wondering, you didn't miss out on the 2007 grant applications. The "annual" cycle actually runs pretty consistently at about fourteen months. So, the 2006 cycle occurred rather late in that year, while the 2008 cycle will be occurring quite early in that year.

So here are the dates of importance:

  • Applications are available now, from NACC's website. If you're unable to download an application, contact the NACC office, and we'll hook you up with a copy via the mails.
  • Applications are due by January 15, 2008.
  • Grants will be awarded on or before March 1, 2008.
As always, we'd be pleased as punch to receive help with outreach. There's a notice at the above-mentioned web page which can be cut-and-pasted into one's e-mail application, to be sent to any and all organisations which may seem like a worthy fit for the program (we almost always award at least one grant to an international project, as well, so the scope need not be limited to domestic organisations only). There's also a display ad (see page six of this newsletter) which can be downloaded from that site, to be used in any appropriate publications, bulletins, notices, and cetera.

Good luck to all applicants! Below, we include a report from one of last year's recipients, The Military & Draft Counseling Project, of Portland, Oregon.

-- Eddie Tews


July 14, 2007

Dear Friends,

Please accept this letter as our six-month report for the $500.00 grant received from NACC last January. This grant, in combination with donations received in response to two funding appeal letters, has allowed The Military Draft & Counseling Project to successfully organize and implement student outreach efforts, public protest against militarism and military recruiting, and the lobbying of candidates participating in this year's Portland School Board elections.

Specific student outreach efforts included: (1) distributing approximately 3,200 bookmark-sized handouts to students and staff in front of all ten Portland high schools (March through May), (2) placing counter-recruiting ads in 22 student newspapers at Portland-area schools, and (3) giving seven classroom presentations at three Portland high schools. We also worked closely with other local activists to host a Career and Educational Opportunities Fair at Portland State University last April. Representatives from local colleges, businesses, and community groups presented information and held workshops with students from Portland high schools most heavily targeted by military recruiters.

In March, we attended school board candidate forums and, later, followed up by meeting individually with newly elected board members to lobby for more restricting policy with respect to military access on school campuses. We also participated with Portland Peaceful Response and other activist groups in regular picketing of recruiting stations, protesting the arrival of Navy warships during the annual Rose Festival, and distributing GI rights information to sailors on shore leave during the festival.

Granted funds were spent primarily on printing and photocopying, student newspaper ads, and expenses from the career and education fair. Thank you again for your support of the work of The Military Draft & Counseling Project and for making these grants available in support of much-needed political and social change.

-- John Grueschow, Coordinator



Some Talking Points On Iran

Concerned that the war-mad occupants of the White House might launch yet another disastrous war with a fusillade of lies? You have every right to be. The propaganda campaign is well under way, and Congress is (surprise!) not offering much resistance. Yet. They need the public to show them how.

Yes, it's time once again to go chasing after a bunch of scurrilous war-happy lies with a dose of, well, you know, reality. With much of the military hierarchy itself opposed to attacking Iran, public sentiment might actually make a difference this time. Talk up the insanity of a military attack on Iran. Talk about it with your friends, neighbors, students, co-workers, relatives, strangers on the street. Here are a few things you can offer up:

THE FALSE RATIONALES FOR ATTACK
The Bush administration has three major arguments for war with Iran: Its nuclear program, alleged support for Iraqi insurgents, and its fundamentalism and support of allied terrorist groups.

  • Iran is five to ten years away from having usable nuclear weapons. That's not a crisis; there's plenty of time for solutions other than military force.
  • Iran is cooperating with the IAEA (the U.N.'s arms control agency). It is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and so far its nuclear program is completely legal within the framework of the NPT.
  • The U.S. is threatening war against Iran, yet the three countries known to have nuclear weapons in defiance of international law -- Israel, India, and Pakistan -- are all now receiving military aid from the U.S.
  • The U.S. has been claiming that Iran is arming insurgents against U.S. troops in Iraq, but the majority of attacks against U.S. forces are from Sunni militias that are also opposed to Shiite Iran.
  • There is an enormous black market in weapons in Iraq, including some Iranian weapons but mostly American ones. There has been no evidence the Iranian government is connected to the presence or use of Iranian weapons in Iraq. The Iraqi militia most closely aligned with Iran (the Badr Organization) is sponsored primarily by the largest faction in Prime Minister al-Maliki's (American-supported) Iraqi government.
  • Any number of countries sponsor or "harbor" terror groups, including countless U.S. allies and almost every U.S. ally in the Middle East. We don't attack them to solve the problem. Iran has some measure of democracy, and U.S. hawkishness has undermined reform efforts and strengthened the hardliners.
  • Iran has never attacked the United States, and poses no threat to it.
  • How can we trust any intelligence, prediction, or analysis from this administration after Iraq?

    POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
  • An attack against Iran would be unpopular, immoral, illegal, and would have enormous ramifications within and beyond the Middle East. The doctrine of "preemptive attack" against a country that has not attacked the U.S. and is not in imminent danger of doing so is by definition illegal under international law, as well as deeply immoral.
  • Congress has never authorized war with Iran; an attack on Bush's sole authority would be unconstitutional. Even if Congress did authorize it, such a war would be an illegal war of aggression under international law.
  • The war with Iraq is already widely opposed by the American public. An attack on Iran would also be broadly unpopular, both in the U.S. and throughout the world.
  • As with Iraq, most of the casualties from an attack on Iran and the resulting regional war would be civilian. The loss of life would likely be massive.
  • Attacking Iran without provocation would further damage U.S. moral, political, and economic standing around the world. The U.S. would become a pariah nation.
  • An attack on Iran and the resulting war would be staggeringly expensive.
  • If Iran's chief export were salt, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Iran has oil deals with both Russia and China, both of whom oppose a U.S. attack.
  • The threat to the Middle East's oil supply could make oil and gas much more expensive throughout the world, triggering a global economic crisis.

    MILITARY AND NATIONAL SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS
  • An attack against Iran is likely to be militarily disastrous.
  • Iran is a much larger and more populous country than Iraq, with a stronger economy and a large military. The reported Bush administration goals of wiping out the Iranian military in a short air attack and encouraging a spontaneous overthrow of the Iranian regime are fantasy. Iran could and would retaliate, and the Iranian public would likely rally around its government. Iran is unconquerable with the resources available to the U.S.; once begun, war could end only with U.S. retreat or the nuclear annihilation of Iran.
  • The possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran would end all pretense of nuclear disarmament in the world, and lead to a global nuclear arms race that would be exponentially worse for long-term U.S. national security.
  • The U.S. military is already exhausted and stretched thin, and cannot sustain an additional war against Iran. An attack and the inevitable war that would follow would decimate the U.S. military and leave it unable to respond to any emerging threats elsewhere in the world. The only way the U.S. military can muster the manpower needed to fight the war that would result from an attack on Iran is through resumption of a draft.
  • Iran can retaliate in numerous ways: directly against U.S. planes, directly or through sympathetic Iraqi militias against U.S. forces in Iraq; against U.S. tankers and warships in the Persian Gulf or by blocking oil traffic in the Strait of Hormuz; by launching strikes against Saudi or Gulf State oil facilities or Israel; or through terror attacks by allied groups such as Hezbollah.
  • Attacking Iran would put U.S. soldiers in Iraq in even greater danger, and destroy any remaining credibility the U.S. has with the Iraqi people or its leaders.
  • Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact. War with one means war with both. Given the above scenarios, an attack on Iran almost certainly would lead to a wider conflagration including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States.
  • Attacking Iran would enflame and embolden anti-American Islamism throughout the Islamic world. The results could well additionally emperil U.S.-allied governments in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and especially Afghanistan and nuclear-equipped Pakistan. Islamist control of Pakistan, potentially putting nuclear weapons at the disposal of terror groups, is a much more imminent threat to U.S. security than Iran's fledgling nuclear program.
  • As with Iraq, an attack on Iran would be a boon to recruiting and funding efforts by Islamic terrorist groups.
  • Attacking Iran would encourage a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and around the globe, particularly between Israel and Islamic states wanting a deterrent to Israeli and U.S. force.

    ALTERNATIVES TO AN ATTACK
  • There are better ways to deal with U.S. concerns regarding Iran. Iran has repeatedly stated its willingness to engage in direct talks with the United States. The Bush administration has consistently rejected direct diplomacy and undermined European attempts at diplomacy.
  • The Bush administration is treating war as a first, rather than a last, resort. War is in and of itself immoral, and a flawed way to resolve conflict. Negotiation, diplomacy, and goodwill work. We should use them.

    --Geov Parrish



    Editorial Box

    Nonviolent Action is published biannually by the Nonviolent Action Community of Cascadia (NACC), formerly the Conscience and Military Tax Campaign.

    NACC, 4554 12th Ave. NE, Seattle, WA 98105, (206) 547-0952, nacc (at) drizzle (dot) com, http://seanacc.org/.

    The Nonviolent Action Community of Cascadia is a Seattle-based organization which uses nonviolent direct action to create political and social change. NACC acts to interrupt and transform militarism and other forms of violence, and to build a society based upon community, economic justice, environmental awareness, personal empowerment, and feminist, queer-positive and anti-racist principles.

    NACC uses creative nonviolent direct action, war tax resistance, public education, grants to activist groups, and coalition building towards these ends, creating community and developing empowerment and conflict-resolution skills in the process.

    NACC has an office staffed part-time by Geov Parrish, Scott McClay, and Eddie Tews. We welcome new members. For more information, contact us at the address, phone number, or e-mail address above.

    NACC is an affiliate of the War Resisters League, the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, and the Northwest Disarmament Coalition.



    [Nonviolent Action Community of Cascadia Homepage]

    The Nonviolent Action Community of Cascadia
    =========================
    4554-12th Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98105. An affiliate of the War Resisters League and NWTRCC
    Tel: (206) 547-0952, Fax: (206) 547-2631. E-mail: nacc (at) drizzle (dot) com