Extradition passed off as 'deportation'

"A good person and sort of a gentle soul" is how Sarah Bjorknas described US war resister Robin Long to Chris Cook (Gorilla Radio) last Monday. Monday was when a 'judicial' hearing was heard on whether or not Robin should be removed from Canada. Removed?



Robin enlisted in the military and was disturbed by what he heard from service members returning to the United States. He noted that they showed off photos of their 'first kills' and spoke deliriously of the illegal war. Not able to participate in an illegal war, Robin self-checked out. He went underground in the US. Then, in June he visited Canada with friends and decided to stay. He spoke with the CBC October 2nd and explained how he reached his decision to say "no" to the Iraq War:





Because I feel the war in Iraq is an illegal war of aggression and it's an indiscriminate killing of the Arab people and I believe it's all for lies and the wrong reasons so I couldn't with good conscience take part in that conflict. . . . When I joined the army, I thought that the war in Iraq was a good thing. I was lied to by my president. The reasons that were given, I thought they were valid. But just because I joined the army didn't mean I abdicated my ability to evolve intellectually and morally and what I saw in the independent media and even in mainstream media changed my view of what was going on over there and based on what I had learned I made a decision to desert. . . . When people coming back from Iraq were proud of what they had done, bragging about killing people and showing me pictures of their first kill with big smiles on their faces and that just didn't sit right in my stomach. So I made the decision then. That was probably the turning point right there.



Robin was arrested last year in Nelson. The reason? He was "couch-surfing" while looking for work and the Canadian Board of Immigration and Refugees had mailed him something that did not reach him. For that, he was arrested. (The unofficial explanation includes implications that the US military was beyond the arrest.) He was released -- after public outcry. But he was on notice and watched closely. Though they now knew how to contact him, they kept Robin out of the loop on the status of his case.



Before we get to that, let's drop back to Robin's life in Canada. Petti Fong (Toronto Star) spoke with War Resisters Support Campaign - Vancouver's Bjorknas who explained, "In Ontario, where he lived for a time, Long was engaged to be married and had a child, according to Sarah Bjorknas, one of his supporters. About 50 American deserters are currently making refugee claims to stay in Canada, said Bjorknas, and a couple of hundred are presumed to be living quietly underground." Robin and Renee had a child (the child and Renee are Canadian). We're staying on that point and there's a reason why. Last week, two other reports also noted the child. Heath Druzin (Idaho Statesman) reported, "Long, who has a child with a Canadian woman, has been considered absent without leave since he fled the U.S." Monique James (KTVB) noted, "He's been living in British Columbia for the past three years and has a two-year-old son there. Long's sister, Christine, says she fears for her brother now that he's back in the U.S. 'When I heard what was going on I'm kind of freaked out because he's my brother, I don't want anything to happen to him,' said Christine Long."



While in Canada, Long spoke often of his child to the press. It's not a minor issue. On Monday, a 'judicial' hearing was presided over by Judge Anne Mctavish who should have known the law and Robin's personal history. In deciding to expel Robin from Canada, she broke up a family. As appalling as that is, it's also against the code and regulations from immigrants. As the father of a young child, Robin should not have been expelled.



But Judge Mctavish loves making her up own laws. She's never bothered by what's actually on the books and creates a policy wily-nily.



Which explains what happened.



It is not an offense in Canada to desert the US military. No US treaty with Canada covers extraditing deserters. The general consensus is that Robin was "deported." He was extradited. Mctavish calls it deported because if she'd termed it extradition, it would have opened up more legal avenues for Robin and, most likely, resulted in a stay of any decision she might reach because extradition is a very serious matter.



Long before the hearing took place, Mctavish ordered Robin imprisoned. Mctavish's 'reasons' for doing so was that she'd determined Robin to be a "flight risk." A flight risk?



In a deportation case, a flight risk isn't a bad thing. A flight risk that follows through means the government saves time and money on legal matters because the issue is resolved by the person leaving the country. Her labeling Robin a "flight risk" was the first tip-off that she was attempting something other than deportation.



Deportation? US citizen Alice goes to Greece. Alice decides she wants to stay there. The government decides they don't want her to stay there. They can deport her. For any number of reasons, they can deport her. Deportation does not mean that Alice is returned to the US. She's being deported and all that means is she has to leave Greece. She can choose to go to Italy from Greece, to Japan, to Mexico, to anywhere she wants because deportation is not about a crime committed, it's stating, "We don't want you and you have to leave."



Robin was kept away from friends, family and attorneys while he was imprisoned. If he gave the call (a big if) that he wanted to go back to the US, he did so without having access to counsel. We're told he didn't make that call and was led to believe that was the only option. It wasn't. Sarah Bjorknas explained to Cook that "they have him and we don't know precisely where he is. They don't have to tell us where and when they move him anywhere including across the border."



Robin wasn't merely taken the border or airport and released. He was turned over to the US military. That's extradition.



And it's illegal extradition because (repeating) it is not a crime in Canada to desert the US military and no treaty between Canada and the US calls for Canada to turn over deserters.



Judge Mctavish spit on the law and spit on Canadian sovereignty.



She ignored Canadian Judge Robert Barnes decision regarding Joshua Key's claims for refugee status issued on the Fourth of July as well as the motion the House of Commons passed June 3rd. She ignored the Canadian parliament. She and Stephen Harper's Conservative Party ignored it when Canada's New Democratic Party issued the following immediately after her decision:



NDP MP Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas) is calling on the Conservative government to stop the deportation of American Iraq war resister Robin Long, scheduled for today.

"Stockwell Day, Diane Finley and Stephen Harper should respect the will of Parliament and the Canadian people and stop this deportation immediately," said Siksay. "The House of Commons has passed a motion supporting a special programme that would allow conscientious objectors who refuse to serve in the war in Iraq to remain in Canada. The government must respect this action by the House and stop deportation action against Robin Long and other Iraq war resisters.

"The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration reported to the House of Commons about the need for such a programme, and on a motion moved by MPs Olivia Chow and Siksay, the House concurred in that report.

"The Canadian government and the Canadian people do not support George Bush's illegal war in Iraq. We must have the courage of those convictions and back them up by ensuring that Americans who take a stand against that war receive a welcome in Canada," noted Siksay."Robin Long must be allowed to stay," Siksay concluded.



While Robin was denied the right to consult with or visit friends, family, supporters or attorneys, Mctavish was overseeing contact with the US military. She knew what was going on and she okayed it. She also should have known that she was now presiding over an extradition and not a deportation.



She should have advised Long's attorneys of that fact but to call it extradition would have meant higher checks on her decision would have kicked in and Mctavish couldn't have that and also rush to extradite Robin.



So she called it a deportation. After her 'sentence,' Robin was still denied contact. No one could know when he was 'leaving' Canada -- no one except the US military he was turned over to.



Robin became the first US war resister of the Iraq War to be 'deported' from Canada. It was big news. Ian Austen covered it for The New York Times, Greg Quinn (Bloomberg News), CBC, Dan Slater (Wall St. Journal), Candace Heckman (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) and AP were among the outlets covering it. Panhandle Media had other things to do. Though KPFA's The Morning Show announced they would be covering on Thursday's broadcast, they never did. Amy Goodman reduced it to an insultingly brief 'headline' -- less time than she gives to any number of her vote-for-Barack nonsense she tries to pass off as 'news.' It allowed Mctavish and others to hide behind the secrecy they began and the US military carried out. Long was going back to Fort Carson, he was physically turned over to the US on Tuesday. All week long, reporters would attempt to figure out whether he'd arrived at Fort Carson or not. Late Friday afternoon, OPB (Oregon Public Broadcasting) reported: "A U.S. Army deserter who was expelled from Canada earlier this week is being escorted back to his post under police guard Friday." Breaking the silences, Amy Goodman? Try imposing them.





Courage to Resist explains, "Courage to Resist has made civilian legal representation available to Robin and will be doing everything possible to provide him our full support. We plan to collaborate with many other groups in our efforts to help Robin in the coming weeks. Refusing to fight in an illegal war is not a crime--except under the Uniform Code of Military (In) Justice."

Punishing the wounded whistle-blower

"Because I feel it's the right thing to do -- even if I face prison or a dishonorable discharge from the army. I can't go back to the killing," US war resister James Burmeister declared in September of 2007 explaining his decision to resist the illegal war in Iraq. Last week, Burmeister faced a court-martial at Fort Knox. If that's new news to you, it goes to the news outlets you rely on.



There's more to it as well. As C.I. and Dee Knight pointed out, this was the court-martialing of a whistle-blower. Burmeister went public with what he observed while serving in Iraq: the kill teams. June 29, 2007, Burmesiter was explaining to Canada's CBC that teams of US soldiers were being ordered to leave US property laying around (property such as cameras) so that an Iraqi would pick it up (maybe just out of curiosity), at which point they could be shot because, as Burmeister explained, "If the Iraqis would go and touch it they [the soldiers] could shoot 'em because if anyone messes with the U.S. government property, they're allowed to fire at 'em." Burmeister would also share the details with Mark Larabee (The Oregonian) who would break the story in the US on July 16, 2007: "But once in Iraq, he was assigned to a 'small kill' team that set traps for insurgents. They'd place a fake camera on a pole with a sign labeling it as US property, giving the team the right to shoot anyone who messed with it."



James Burmeister was on 'leave' (getting medical attention after suffering his third road-side bombing in Iraq) in Germany. August 24th Maria Hinojosa spoke with James Burmeister for NOW on PBS:



BURMEISTER: We were in a five humvee set. Rolling down a--down a main street in Baghdad in our sector. I'm the gunner on top of this humvee... Just a big bomb goes off. And it's so fast, you don't--you don't see the bomb. You're scared. You're checking your body parts to see if you're missing anything. A few days after that, I had actually passed out in my room. Passed out, just hit the floor.



HINOJOSA: James says that was the first sign of his post traumatic stress disorder. He says doctors thought he also may have sustained a traumatic brain injury, so he was sent to Germany on medical leave. Two months later, while still on medication, he was ordered back to Iraq.



BURMEISTER: They were desperate for people to get back there. They just needed people in Baghdad. They just need bodies to man the guns and the equipment.



Instead, Burmeister decided to self-checkout and go to Canada, having decided that he could no longer participate in the illegal war. For half of 2007 and the start of 2008, he attempted to work through the 'process' to receive immigrant status. Then James Burmeister decided to return to the United States and he turned himself in at Fort Knox on March 4th.



His father Erich Burmeister immediately attempted to raise attention for his son's cause. Burmeister suffers from PTSD and, most likely, TBI. [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury.] In an audio interview with Courage to Resist, Erich explained his son's reasons for turning against the illegal war:



It was more what he was involved in there. Particularly what really bothered him was the bait and kill thing which now is a pretty infamous subject which has come up in some of the trials of some of the soldiers that have been put on trial for murder. This sniper, you know, putting out pieces of equipment and waiting for someone to touch it and they shoot him. And that really, really bothered him. Plus the fact that when they would go through these neighborhoods and, you know, kick in people's doors and raid their houses and just loot their houses, and the terror that he saw on people's faces. He told me these things had really bothered him. And the devastation he saw around him. It was -- it was really hard for him to deal with that. He told me times that he would see people digging through garbage, women digging through garbage, and he couldn't believe the conditions that the Iraqis were forced to live under and he felt like he was somewhat responsible for this.



You can bet the military was paying attention to every word. The press? One of the few paying attention was Camilla Mortensen (Eugene Weekly) who interviewed Erich Burmeister and reported: "His father fears the Army wants to keep Burmeister quiet about the 'bait-and-kill' teams the he alleges have been used to kill Iraqi civilians. While James Burmeister awaits the Army's decision, his father [Erich Burmeister] is fighting to bring him home. . . . Burmeister was also disturbed by the 'small kill teams' for which he was asked to provide cover. On Sept. 24, 2007, the Washington Post investigated the story of the classified program of using 'bait and kill' tactics in which sniper teams would scatter 'bait' such as ammunition and detonation cords to attract Iraqi insurgents who would then be shot by snipers. But Burmeister, who had deserted from the Army five months before the story broke, had been telling that story to the media for months. In a July 2007 article in The Oregonian, Burmeister said he had participated in a team that placed fake cameras on poles and labeled them U.S. property to give the team the rights to shoot anyone who to tried to move or takes the equipment."



James' mother was also speaking out. In June, at a rally outside Fort Hood, she explained:



I'm Helen Burmeister and I'm here today to support my son Prviate 1st Class James Burmeister. My son is an Iraq War veteran and I'm very proud of him today. He fought bravely in Iraq. He followed orders. He was wounded in a roadside bomb and he's been diagnosed with PTSD and a possible brain injury. Our request today is that the army release James. We want James to be able to put this traumatic experience behind him so he can begin to heal -- both emotionally and physically. I believe my son has done his part. Now it's time for him to be given the recognition he deserves. Short of that, we are requesting that he be allowed to go home to Oregon. And thank you. Thank you to everyone for all your support today.



Helen Burmeister was not alone at that rally. Another speaker addressed what James was facing.



Carol Rawert Trainer: I am a Vietnam Era veteran and my husband is a retired USAF officer and Vietnam Veteran. We belong to Lousiville Peace Action Community and Vietnam Veterans Against the War, two great organizations that work for peace and justice. I learned of PFC James Burmeister through my involvement with the GI Rights Hotline. We are disgusted at the way the government treats our returning war heroes and we will not sit by and watch it happen. You hear the slogan 'Support Our Troops.' Well that is why we have come here today. I have personally heard too many horror stories of veterans in the Louisville area who return from war and do not receive proper medical care or benefits or counseling for PTSD which is all too prevalent in this war. The Army seems to care more about their retention at any cost to the soldier and family than they do about the care of the soldiers affected by this war. Too many soldiers are battling their physical and emotional problems alone. The suicide rates have risen dramatically. This is obscene. We are here today to demand that the army grant James a discharge in lieu of court-martial. We are watching what the army is doing. James served honorably in Iraq and carried out his duties as commanded. He received head injuries and shrapnel in his face in the 3rd attack on his convoy. He also has PTSD and seizures and is on many medications as a result of his experience. When he was recuperating in the hospital in Germany he realized that what he was commanded to do -- killing innocent people, sometimes in bait-and-switch schemes, was immoral. The army trains these troops from basic to kill, kill, kill and does not differentiate between innocent Iraqis or insurgents. James could not, would not, do it any longer. He had to live with himself and his actions for the rest of his life. The army does not care about the lifelong problems these honorable soldiers face. In fact they were going to send James back to Iraq even though he was on medications for high blood pressure, depression, sleep problems and more. At least James is one of the lucky ones who realized he needed help before it was too late. Going back to Iraq would be dangerous to his life as well as to those who served with him. We are here today to support James and his family in their struggle for justice! James' family has suffered through other family circumstances that dictate that James be home to help them. We hope the army will grant James an immediate discharge not only for his own personal needs but for his families' needs. Even though he would not receive medical benefits which he needs, he would be home in a safe and loving environment. This is what is fair. This is what is just. James was there when the army needed him. Now the army must be there for James and the countless other heroes who need assistance and support as they cope with their war-induced problems.



He turned himself in on March 4th. He was court-martialed one year later, to the day, that Mark Larabee of The Oregonian broke the story of the kill-teams for US audiences. July 4th, Kelsey Sparks, of Louisville's WHAS11, reported (text and video) on James Burmeister and introduced her segment with the following, "23-year-old James Burmeister is being held at Fort Knox for five months now. He is charged with deserting his army unit while on leave from Iraq. Yesterday he got a court-martial date but his friends and family say because he suffers from head injuries Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after surviving a roadside bomb attack in Iraq, they're hoping some of those charges can be dismissed."



That was the hope, but as Chris Kenning (Courier-Journal) reported last Thursday morning (the only reporter to report the court-martial -- AP and everyone else was echoing Kenning's report) that the court-martial found James sentenced to jail (six months), reduced in rank (busted down to private), dishonorably discharged (bad conduct) and he received "a loss of pay" while quoting Burmeister's military attorney, Captain Tyson McDonald, stating of the military, "They're not happy that dirty laundry was getting aired."



That means James' health care will not be paid for by the US government. The US government that sent him to Iraq for an illegal war in which he was wounded is now off the hook for the bill. Everyone should be appalled.



Courage to Resist notes that you can contact the PFC James Burmeister Support campaign via letjamesbefree@gmail.com and that you can write him via snail mail: James Burmeister, Box A, Fort Knox, KY 40121.

No, you're not safe

How safe is American after 9-11?



Various articles come out every few months with some jaw boner speculating on this or that aspect involving what-might-happen. None ever state the obvious: America wasn't that safe before 9-11, just lucky. These days, luck -- like common sense -- seems to be in short supply.



And if you grasp that public safety means a great deal more than planes flying into buildings, you're getting a glimpse of how unprepared and how unresponsive the US government is.



What are we talking about? The food supply. Produce now comes with warnings. Not processed food, raw produce, grown and shipped, now comes with warnings. And where the hell is the US Congress?



The US Food and Drug Administration exists for a reason. As they proclaim at their website: "The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health." They are doing a lousy job.



They have been doing a lousy job. And this is not a new thing.



Summer 2006, the country saw the spinach scare. Raw spinach could make you sick. The FDA was slow to respond and their 'response' was so awful that the only 'change' in the country came at various fast food franchises where spinach was dropped from the menu. (The Subway chain was one of the worst and is still reluctant to offer spinach on their sandwiches or in their salads.) The 'response' meant that spinach went off the menus and iceberg lettuce reigned supreme. Iceberg lettuce is among the worst sources of nutrients in the green and leafy world. Spinach, by contrast, is rich in Vitamin A -- in fact it has more Vitamin A, more vitamin C, more iron, more calcium and more potassium while also offering Vitamin E. And not just 'traces' of more or a little more, with Vitamin A, spinach has 25 times as much Vitamin A as does iceberg lettuce. Who benefits as spinach remains off the menu at many franchises while iceberg lettuce is readily available? Not the consumer.



If the FDA's non-response and non-action was dismaying, so was the response of the US Congress, elected to represent the people. In March of 2008, the House Committee on Oversight and Government finally got around to releasing a report [PDF format warning, click here]. Over a year-and-a-half after the E-coli outbreak that resulted in spinach being pulled from stores and food places, Congress finally had a 'report.' The report noted the FDA findings (not enough inspections of plants that package spinach, "objectionable conditions during 47%" of the limited inspections, no enforcement, "repeated violations" ignored and "In eight cases, packaged fresh spinach facilities denied FDA inspectors access to records or other relevant material."



In just those findings -- the FDA's own findings, the government was failing the people. In a country that eats far too much processed food, the people should be able to expect a degree of safety when eating raw produce. When you shop for yourself or yourself and others, you should be able to pick up produce without worrying that it may make you or others sick. These are supposed to be 'natural foods.' They aren't processed, they're supposed to have no additives (they have chemicals -- even some labeled 'organic') and the public should be able to trust that an apple or a tomato or any produce -- foods that are good for them -- will not result in sickness or death.



The cause of the E-coli outbreak was never officially identified. It's thought that waste -- at some point -- contaminated the food supply. In October 2006, Ava and C.I. did a three-part series for the gina & krista round-robin where they spoke to growers, farm labor, distributors and stores. Among the most appalling revelations about produce was that, in Texas, one distributor (who supplied restaurants) spoke freely about how heads of lettuce often contained dead rats when it arrived. Search in vain for that from the FDA's 'findings' or Congress. As Ava and C.I. explained then, you're going to find all kinds of vermin on farm land. That's not surprising or shocking. But lettuce transported to a distributor with dead rats in it?



What killed the rats? This was not a one-time occurrence, it happened over and over with each shipment. It wasn't lack of food. Maybe it was being crushed under the weight of the produce. But how safe is it to transport raw produce that people will eat (usually raw) with dead rats when you have no idea how the rats died?



Congress didn't focus on that aspect. Even though it is widely assumed that waste in the growing stage was responsible for the E-coli outbreak in spinach, Congress chose to ignore that aspect and focus solely on facilities that 'packaged' spinach (put it in plastic bags). Day laborers Ava and C.I. spoke with were very clear as to how human waste could be an issue in the fields. They do not have adequate breaks (some get no breaks), they do back breaking labor and are paid pennies (based on how much they pick) so the easiest thing in the world when you need to go to the bathroom to step aside and go right there in the field. The laborers Ava and C.I. spoke with could all provide examples of workers who did just that. And, if you were forced to work in those conditions, paid pennies and offered little or no rest breaks, you probably would as well.



On page nine of the Comittee's twelve page report, the committee finally got around to feces:



In March 2007, the California Department of Health Services and FDA issued a report of a comprehensive investigation into the causes of the 2006 outbreak of E. Coli 0157:H7 in spinach. The investigators determined that the most likely source of introduction was in the field, an area FDA does not routinely inspect. The investigation found no obvious sources for introduction at the processing facility, but did find multiple factors in the facility that could have contributed to the spread of the pathogen, such as invalidated methods for testing wash water and incomplete records.

The causative E. coli DNA fingerprint was found in feces from nearby grazing cattle, feces from wild boars that had apparently gained access to the fields, and river water. The most likely route for this E. coli to contaminate the spinach was probably the contamination of water outside of the plant, either contamination of irrigation water or contamination of the water used to process the spinach, or both.

None of the 199 inspection reports reviewed by Committee staff contained any observations from practices in the fields. [. . .]



Wild boor? It's possible. It's also possible that you saw what labor activists who speak to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office receives: No response, lack of concern. So much tidier to blame wild boor than if the government had to actually do their job and start inspect the working conditions for farm labor. Produce is big business and how nice that a wild boor or two can be blamed for the fecal waste.



The government includes Congress. Well after the fact, the US Congress finally issued a 'report.'

It wasn't much of a report. They do have staff. They have staff that can investigate. Before they began 'researching' their report, they knew waste was being blamed and they knew it was thought to arrive in the fields where the spinach grew. Not only does the report ignore that for two-thirds of its limited pages, it did no research on the matter. It took a state and US government report and summarized those findings.



Congressional staffers are supposed to research and that entails more than visiting a library. The Committee's report concludes that E-coli was introduced in the field and that there need to be more field inspections -- and yet no Congressional staffer visited a field to write the supposed report.



In 2004, John Bachir asked Ralph Nader to reflect on the changes in consumer advocacy and Nader replied, "Decades ago it was full of victories in the sixties and seventies. Full of victories. You know, regulated the lack of safety in motor vehicles, flammable fabrics, Product Safety Commission, all kinds of -- going after usury interest rates for the poor and many other pieces of legislation. But now it's purely defensive. It's trying to hold the gains of the sixties and seventies and that's become a losing fight because the Democrats are not going after the Republicans on this issue, even in this campaign. The Republicans are terrible on consumer protection and the Democrats are not fighting back."



True in 2004, true today.



Thursday the US Food and Drug Administration issued an announcement noting: "FDA is updating its warning to consumers nationwide concerning the outbreak of Salmonella serotype Saintpaul. As of today, FDA officials believe that consumers may enjoy all types of fresh tomatoes available on the domestic market, without concern of becoming infected with Salmonella Saintpaul. The agency is removing the warning that has been in place since June 7, which states that consumers should avoid certain types of fresh tomatoes due to a potential connection to the Salmonella Saintpaul outbreak. Consumers may resume enjoying any type of fresh tomato, including raw red plum, raw red Roma, and raw red round tomatoes. While we are changing our consumer guidance about tomatoes, we reiterate our guidance to consumers that those in vulnerable populations (infants, the elderly, and immune-compromised people) should avoid eating jalapeno and serrano peppers as the investigation continues."



And now it's tomatoes. How are you supposed to feed yourself (or your family) if you can't even trust that the food supply is safe? Again, we're not talking about processed foods. We're talking about raw produce, supposedly the best thing for you in terms of nutrients, minerals and fiber. Who especially needs those things in the population? The elderly, the immune-compromised people and infants. They most need the nutrients, minerals and fiber and they're being warned off certain produce.



How is that acceptable? How is acceptable that the United States is getting used to warnings and alerts on fresh produce?



The FDA has foot dragged on this issue as well. As has Congress.



June 7th was when the FDA issued their warning on tomatoes. And last week you finally got some public statements from members of Congress. Statements, not actions while, as Jim Downing (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Americans have continued to get sick -- at a rate of about 20 people per day". US House Rep Diana DeGette issued a statement Thursday: "It is absolutely outrageous that we are 90 days into the salmonella outbreak and the FDA and CDC still cannot determine the source of contamination. Currently, over 1200 cases of salmonella have been reported, hundreds have been hospitalized, while the outbreak has affected 41 states, including Washington, DC and even Canada. The salmonella outbreak continues to spread, with nearly 30 cases a day, because we do not have a national, comprehensive food traceability system that would quickly track our foods from the field to the fork. . . . Now the FDA is saying that tomatoes are safe, but only because they have a short shelf life. We still don't know the source of the contamination and that is inexcusable."



DeGette is correct, it's inexcusable. She's incorrect in only pinning the blame on the FDA. Congress has done nothing on this issue. Friday, Stephen J. Hedges (Chicago Tribune) quoted a letter Senator Tom Harkin sent to Michael Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services, "It seems highly unlikely that tomatoes harvested in April would still be consumed fresh by consumers in late June." Harkin's correct. The warning's been removed only because the produce is now off the shelves.



And where was Congress?



Public safety involves far more than protection from planes flying into buildings. How would the government respond to a terrorist attack?



With the issue of the tomatoes, we're seeing they would respond slowly and indifferently. Having released a report (March 2008) on the spinach, why is it taking them so long to respond on the tomatoes? Shouldn't they have been outraged? Shouldn't they have immediately called hearings? Where is the oversight?



Democrats make a show at holding the line for what's already been accomplished and Republicans just don't care? That's what it looks like. But we live in a changing world and 'holding the line' just isn't good enough.



Congress got some press on a report they issued recently. It was exploring the lies told by Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. We don't know what they thought they were going to accomplish by revisiting those topics; however, we know what the end result was. No blame, no culprits, no prosecution. But the message: Oh, those bad Republicans.



So excuse us if we see it as yet another use of tax payer funds so the Democratically-controlled Congress can try to self-promote during an election year.



Meanwhile people were getting ill from eating fresh produce. And where was Congress?



Their own March report demonstrated that the FDA was not remotely doing their job. They attempted to pin it off on maybe the FDA didn't have enough funding. Should that be the catch-all for any investigation into the latest threat to public safety, Congress should be asked why they didn't up the funding already.



Public hearings should have been called immediately and FDA officials should have been forced to testify. In addition, they should have sought public testimony from people who know something about the issue: growers, laborers, labor activists and journalists like David Bacon. Instead it was weeks and weeks of inaction after the June 7th FDA alert. The answer was, apparently, don't eat tomatoes. That's no answer and it provides no public safety.



There's plenty of blame to pass around. Panhandle Media either ignored the issue or played like the 'reports' in Tim Burton's Batman where repeating public warnings passes off as reporting. Strongest example of bad 'reporting' would come via the July 9th broadcast of Democracy Now! ("As Global Food Crisis Tops G8 Summit Agenda, World Leaders Enjoy Lavish 18-Course Banquet") where Frances Moore Lappe demonstrated that not only did she fail to grasp how to dress for TV (horizontal stripes?) but also that there was no point in interviewing her. As she droned on and on about 'food,' she never once noted that tomato alert, she never once called out public safety in terms of nutrition or in terms of safety.



She couldn't stop talking about how there is more than enough food in the world. Awareness tells you two things. First, the quantity of food is meaningless if it can't be eaten. Second, outrage is building in the US over the continued failures in our food supply. When outrage builds over any product in the US -- regardless of the product -- what generally happens is not an elimination of it. It's no longer sold in the US; however, it does become big as an export. So you cannot talk about the global supply of food without noting the repeated alerts on produce.



Everyone has a right to believe that the food they eat is safe. The lack of response from the FDA and Congress on this issue may very well be the best demonstration of how they will mishandle and ignore public safety in the future. And you didn't have to talk 'weapons' or 'terrorists' to figure that out.

Mailbag

Jim: Ty is emphatic that we have to do a mailbag due to a number of e-mails. We're focusing only on questions in this and doing it quickly. Participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, and Ava and me Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Wally of The Daily Jot, and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.



Ty: First up, Randi e-mails to ask, "Is C.I. a communist, what's with all the links to Workers World and Party for Socialism and Liberation?"



C.I.: Communism is a part of the left. In college, I studied poli sci and I'm not leery of presenting the left at The Common Ills. Everyone doesn't have to be a Democratic in order to get linked to, nor should they. I'll leave that garbage to The Nation where you have to pretend to be a Democrat if you're not one. In terms of Workers' World, they are a strong outlet and one of the reasons they are so strong is that they are a Communist Party outlet. They don't pretend otherwise, they don't hide in a political closet. As a result of living openly and not hiding, they are able to tap into a very rich history. That means stronger reporting because they're not just learning of some historical issues this week or month. They have a perspective they can bring to an issue that is largely lacking in the bulk of other so-called 'independent' media. Again, it comes from not hiding in a political closet. It comes from knowing who you are and connecting with those who came before you. One of the biggest failures of so-called 'independent' media is in refusing to allow Communists or Socialists to speak regularly unless they'll take to the political closet and try to pass for Democratic. We have always presented left voices at The Common Ills and continue to do so because we are a resource/review for the left. My only problem with Communists are with the closeted ones who want to hide. It's self-defeating and immature. It hurts the left and leads to too much self-censorship. No one should be afraid to say they're a Democrat, a Green, a Socialist, a Communist, what have you. And when outlets like The Nation refuse to include non-Democratic voices -- or refuses to unless they'll pretend they are Democrats -- they not only limit comprehension, they also limit the scope of the left and deserve all the attacks they get from the right-wing. It doesn't get more timid that The Nation and they invite those generic, catch-all attacks on the left by presenting a very limited view of what the left is in the United States.



Ty: Kat, on Friday, you wrote about Hillary and Donald is very unhappy that you waited until after the primary to write that.



Kat: Hmm. Well, a number of us wanted C.I. to tell that story. For those who didn't read it, Hillary Clinton, as First Lady, encouraged a despondent group of high schoolers to actively work on an issue and to force politicians to listen to them. I tied that into Iraq and based it on her statements in March and after. In terms of not writing about it before? Betty wanted that and another personal story told here by C.I. Back in January. C.I. was of the opinion that it would be seen as attempting to influence the election. C.I. wasn't endorsing anyone at that point. After, when it could have been noted, we had already had a long discussion -- all of us -- about whether or not we wanted to go there. For me, going there individually was something I was comfortable with. People can form their own opinions today. But did I want to build my case on it? My case for why to support Hillary? I don't think so and we all didn't think so. My own judgement is that the approach Hillary encouraged the high schoolers on was the approach she was speaking of in March and later -- about 'hold me accountable. Put me to work for you.' But back then, the Barack campaign was using a number of anecdotes to make arguments that were unfounded and we didn't want to be guilty of the same thing. I think the anecdote is telling and I'm comfortable sharing it now. But I didn't want anyone to base a vote on an anecdote from a decade ago. Prior to January, and I'll toss to Betty, this almost came up.



Betty: In the summer or spring of 2007, I decided to support Hillary's run for president. It was not an easy decision for me in terms of worrying about the reaction from others. I called C.I. to say I'd made my decision. I was asked if I was comfortable with it and I said I was. C.I. said something like "great" and changed the subject. I responded, "Woah!" And I made the point that I was really worried what the reaction would be. C.I. said there were many reasons to support Hillary and my decision was my decision. C.I. and I discussed the reasons for my support. I shared that I was still worried some would be hurt by my decision -- I mean all of us participating in this feature. C.I. shared three personal stories about Hillary. After which, I hoped everyone would be okay with my decision but I knew I had made the right one. One of the stories was the one Kat wrote about. That almost got noted here in October. The primary season wasn't upon us. It was killed at the last minute because Jim didn't think it was well written. He thought C.I. should share it in a roundtable. When that was a possibility, it was already the primary season. You need to remember what was going on then. One example, in Houston, Texas back in February, Barack reduced his timeline for withdraw of combat troops in Iraq to ten months. One sentence. But Tom Hayden turned it into an embarrassing lengthy column. We didn't want to be doing that. We didn't want to use a personal anecdote to try to influence an election. We tried to stay on the issues. Like Kat, I agree the anecdote goes directly to what Hillary was saying in March and later. I wish we'd shared it but I know why we didn't and can live with that call.



Ty: Shirley, not community member Shirley, e-mails to say she's "very disappointed in my fellow Green Jess for not supporting Cynthia McKinney's run for president. Greens need to stick together."



Jess: I don't wake up in bed with Cynthia McKinney. On good days, I wake up in bed with Ava. I would never support the McKinney-Clemente ticket. It would be a slap in the face to my long relationship with Ava. Ava's a Latina and I don't need a liar like Rosa Clemente lying about Latinos which she did last week on KPFA. And I don't need to hear someone who has insulted Latinos as she's rushed to refuse to self-identify with them turning around and lying about them.

Clemente's a damn liar. Last weekend, we didn't want to note the Green convention at all. Ava and C.I. talked us into doing so. They quoted some of Cynthia's speech and we were excited. We planned to do a feature this weekend. Then Rosa Clemente had to go and lie about Latinos, pretend she had a right to speak for them as well. No way would I support that ticket.



Dona: The night before that interview aired on KPFA, I had volunteered on a local political campaign all night and planned to sleep in. I couldn't. The minute that interview aired and Clemente uttered her lie, every phone line in the house was ringing. I got up and answered some of it for the next hours, Jim was also catching the phones. Some were Ava's friends, some were C.I.'s friends. Everyone was appalled. Rosa Clemente already had a barrier she created between herself and the Latino community. Lying on KPFA and pretending she could 'represent' for a community she has long insulted and ridiculed only lost the McKinney-Clemente ticket even more support. I'd be surprised if they get 1% at this point. Cynthia, curb your running mate.



Jim: How many more questions do you have Ty?



Ty: Three.



Jim: Okay, I'm going to jump in on this. Due to the speech Cynthia gave when she accepted her party's nomination and do to the hard sell Ava and C.i. did, we were going to do a feature. Not now. We're done with that "victory is 5% campaign." But I will note that the campaign is ridiculous. It's starts with an eye-sore for a campaign site. It continues with the inability to reach out. Two Saturdays ago, Cynthia McKinney became the party's nominee. How was anyone supposed to report on that? They could, for example, quote the acceptance speech. But they'd have to have a copy of it. By 5:00 p.m. PST the following Sunday, there was still no copy of it at the Green Pary's website or at Cynthia's website. There's no excuse for that. Cynthia's speech should have gone up at both as soon as she delivered it. enif it had, reporters who did not attend the convention might have reported on it Sunday or late Saturday. When the Greens had their one big debate, we noted that they needed to have that up at the Green Party website and we noted they needed to have it in transcript and video or audio to be accessible to all. The 'outreach' from the Green Party -- unlike Jess, I'm a Democrat -- is a laugh. It doesn't exist. From the Green Party officers, we heard that our criticism regarding the debate not being available was a good thing and that they'd rectify the situation when they held their convention. They did not. Everyone here thinks Cynthia gave an incredible speech. It's really too bad that people hearing about her being the nominee on Saturday couldn't read it then or the next morning. You're supposed to be a national political party, get your act together.



Ty: Gerald e-mails that Mike and Elaine sometimes cover the same topics, "Not complainin' I enjoy the different perspectives on the topics but wondering if that's planned?"



Elaine: Mike and I are generally on the phone or together when we're both blogging.



Mike: Right and sometimes we do actively say, "Let's both highlight this." Othertimes we don't. One night last week -- I won't name it so Dallas won't have to get links -- we were just too tired and just wanted to be done. For anyone who doesn't read our sites, or both our sites, we don't always cover the same topics but if you look at it for like a year or so, you'll see that we often do. I will also pass on highlights -- either ones I use or ones I'm not using -- to others. I'll call Marcia and say, "Hey, I saw this and think you might be interested. Should I e-mail it?"



Marcia: Mike always does that. He also checks in when I'm blogging to see if I'm having any problems -- technical problems -- since I'm the newest at blogging. I'm generally on the phone with Ruth right before I blog. We're talking about the day's news and what we might write about. You will see a lot of crossover between Ruth and I because of that. We're all on the phone to each other throughout the day but I mainly am speaking to Ruth right before I blog. When Wally and I were on the road in Indiana and West Virginia turning out the vote for Hillary, I was utilizing him as a sound board constantly.



Mike: And one more thing to add quickly. C.I.'s been doing an e-mail to all of us on links that there wasn't time for in the snapshot or that came out after the snapshot went up. So we also regularly raid that as well.



Ty: This is for Wally and Cedric and two e-mails came in asking if they were making a decision to keep the posts shorter?



Cedric: Wally and I do joint-humorous posts. Ideally, we want it short, a 'jot' like Wally's title says. Sometimes we can't do that. Sometimes we can. That's the ideal but last week it was more of having to do it. I'll throw to Wally.



Wally: I'm on the road with Kat, Ava, C.I. and Rebecca talking about Iraq. It's an all day thing and generally Kat and Rebecca will break off around five or at seven. They'll go back to wherever we're staying. I'm trying to go to all of the speaking and really wanted to last week so I was very limited for time and Cedric's got to be in bed by a certain time because he has work the next day. I may finish at ten or eleven, the speaking, and when I would, I immediately called Cedric and we got to work on our joint-post. What we did last week is what we would prefer to do but last week it was what we had to do.



Dona: Ava, Rebecca and Ruth haven't spoken. Ty's picked the questions so I'm counting that as his input but he can weigh in if he wants. Elaine spoke briefly but she speaks at length in another feature and I know she prefers to keep it brief. So Ava, Rebecca and Ruth need to speak in the next response.



Elaine: Rebecca's nodding at me, Dona. She's breast feeding her baby and singing softly while she stares at me and shakes her head which I assumes means she's not planning to speak right now and she's shaking her head "yes" to what I just said.



Dona: That's more than fine. Next mailbag or roundtable, we'll start with Rebecca since she's not speaking in this one. So Ruth and Ava, Ty.



Ty: This works out well because this was a question for Ruth and Marcia who both noted they'd be seeing Mama Mia! with Ruth's family yesterday. Joanie wanted to know did they like it and should she make a point to see it. Joanie writes, "It's not like the last time I went to the movies was Cannonball Run but it feels that long ago. The commercials look good but I saw one review that trashed it and that's really all it takes these days to make me run from a film."



Ruth: Marcia and I loved it. Right?



Marcia: A great movie. Popcorn summer movie, yes, but a well done one. Ruth, I think Dona's expecting more from you.



Ruth: Okay. It is an uplifting film. My grandchildren wanted to see it and Marcia and I were taking them. The youngest was ten-years-old. Due to the plot, your own feelings might make you cautious about bringing children younger than that along. Although The Princess Diaries was marketed to young children and also dealt with a similar theme regarding fathers. If Joanie liked the commercials, her fear may be that the commercials do not represent the film. Sometimes the best moments are in the commercials and the rest of the picture drags. That is not the case with Mama Mia! and I really recommend it. Everyone on screen seems to be having fun -- Meryl Streep is great -- and you will have fun watching it.



Ty: Ava?



Ava: I haven't seen the film. So I'll just repeat that Latinos don't need a non-Latino speaking for them, let alone misrepresenting them. Rosa Clemente has made it very clear that she considers it an insult to be called a Latina, she has made it very clear that she's only embracing her self-identification as Black. So she needs to get the message that you can't then turn around and lie about the Latino community. We don't appreciate it. It's all the worse because Latinos, like every other community that's not White or Black, is rendered invisible on KPFA. If we cover McKinney's campaign in the future it will be without mention of Rosa Clemente. She owes the Latino community an apology and has for nearly a decade. Most of us long ago grasped that such an apology would not be forthcoming. But she creates new tensions when, after insulting us repeatedly, she wants to take to the airwaves and 'speak for' us. I'm not interested in mentioning her after this week. I'm done with her and that's the attitude of the Latinos I've spoken to in the Bay Area -- that's their attitude as well as a huge anger at KPFA for refusing to put us on air but allowing a self-defined non-Latina to 'speak for' us. It is not a minor issue. In fact, we had thought about doing a piece on Andrea Lewis' return to KPFA today. No offense to Andrea Lewis, whom we all like, but my attitude was, "How sweet. Another Black or White host from KPFA." The Bay Area is not Pleasantville. We have Latinos, we have Asian-Americans, we have Arab-Americans, we have this whole, huge cross-section that is repeatedly ignored by KPFA. And I'm honestly sick of it. Apparently, the height of 'radicalism' in 1950 was to add 'color' to the all White programming by bringing on African-Americans. In the 21st century, that's not good enough and I'm damn sick of all the communities being ignored regularly by KPFA to turn the world into a Black and White one. I don't know which is more insulting -- that Asian-Americans are ignored or that Latinos are ignored. We are both a huge section of the KPFA area. Asian-Americans have been a huge bulk of the Bay Area's population since before KPFA started so they should probably jump ahead of us in the complaint line. That's no complaint against Andrea Lewis, but they picked the wrong weekend to debut her after allowing Black and African-American speakers to speak for Arab-Americans and Latinos last week -- while denying both communities a seat at the table.



Jim: Well said. And we'll stop there. Ty was very concerned that questions were being ingored so we did this quick mailbag to address some of the questions. There were many e-mails we didn't get to including one I read on Sunday defending the indefensible Bernie Mac. Ava and C.I. address him in this week's TV commentary.

Robin Long and James Burmeister coverage

As Ava and C.I. document in this week's TV commentary, Panhandle Media did a lousy job of 'covering' (try ignoring) US war resisters Robin Long and James Burmeister last week. They were both actual news. There are three exceptions and we're going to note them in full.

The first is an audio report from Wednesday's Free Speech Radio News and C.I. did the transcription:


Aura Bogado: When more than 50,000 people made their way from the US to Canada to avoid fighting in the Viet Nam war, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau welcomed them, declaring Canada a "refuge from militarism". Today, while much smaller in number and largely unnoticed in the US, a new generation of "deserters" are fighting for the same sanctuary -- including Robin Long, who came to Canada in 2005 seeking refugee status. But as FSRN's Sarah Olson reports, Canadian government officials have not extended the same welcome to these modern war resisters.

Sarah Olson: A federal judge in Vancouver ruled that Robin Long must go home, saying Monday that the 25-year-old had failed to provide clear and non-speculative evidence that he'd be singled out for harsh treatment if he returned to the United States. By Tuesday afternoon, despite two federal court victories, last month's Parliamentary resolution welcoming Iraq war resisters and the support nearly two-thirds of Canadians have shown for US war resisters, Long became the first Iraq Warwar resister to be deported from Canada. Bob Ages with the War Resisters Support Campaign in Vancouver.

Bob Ages: We think they have expedited what amounts to kidnapping and extraordinary rendition precisely to try to set a precedent to take the wind out of the sails of a campaign of support which has been growing in strength both in terms of our legal arguments and our political support.

Sarah Olson: To understand the legal landscape Long is navigating, one must examine three other cases. First, the Hinzman-Hughey case. Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey arrived in Canada in 2004 and in 2005 became the first US soldiers to petition for refugee status. They were denied but appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada which declined to intervene in November of last year. Attorney Alyssa Manning represents deserters now living in Toronto. Her client, Corey Glass, won a stay of removal last week based largely on how dramatically Hinzman-Hughey changed things.

Alyssa Manning: We argued that it established new law in the area of Canadian refugee law and that is that if you are fearing the persecution of the state itself as opposed to some other actor in your country of origin then you have to seek protection from that state before you can get refugee protection. Before the Hinzman decision, it wasn't thought that you had to seek state protection if it was actually the state that was persecuting you.

Sarah Olson: The second case is army private Joshua Key. Unlike Hinzman and Hughey, Key was an Iraq veteran. In 2005, the refugee board found that although Key had received orders which violated the Geneva Convention disobeying these orders didn't entitle Key to refugee status. A federal court heare his appeal earlier this month. Key's attorney, Jeffry House.

Jeffry House: The federal court said that the right to refuse inappropriate orders is larger than what the refugee board had thought. It isn't simply that a soldier can refuse to commit war crimes, a soldier can also refuse to commit violations of the Geneva Convention if that's required of him or her on a systematic basis. The court held that if the United States were to prosecute Joshua Key for refusing to violate the Geneva Conventions then that would give rise to a refugee claim.

Sarah Olson: This July 4th decision was the first legal victory for Iraq War resisters and House says it could have substantial implications.

Jeffry House: Any case in which it was alleged by the person concerned that he or she was required to commit inappropriate acts on a systematic basis probably would have a right to have their case re-heard.

Sarah Olson: Finally there is national guard Sgt. Corey Glass. Glass arrived in Canada in 2006 after going AWOL while home on leave in the middle of an 18-month deployment. His bid for refuge was also rejected. His legal appeals unsuccessful. And his deportation seemed so likely he gave up his apartment and quit his job. But thanks in part to the Key decision the federal court stayed his removal last week while his legal team presents new evidence. Attorney Alyssa Manning.

Alyssa Manning: The really interesting thing about the reason coming down in Corey's case is that it will be the first decision that will consider all of the evidence that we gathered about what has happened to simarly situated individuals in the United States -- people like Stephen Funk or Camilo Mejia, people who spoke out against the war and then were court-martialed and imprisoned.

Sarah Olson: This makes Robin Long's removal yesterday all the more unfortunate. Long is expected to be sent to Fort Carson, Colorado where his tanker unit is based. Despite the Canadian court's assertion that most deserters don't even face a court-martial or prison time, the percentage of soldiers facing prosecution is much higher when the soldier is on record opposing the war. And this has Long's US supporters concerned. For Free Speech Radio News, I'm Sarah Olson, Oakland, California.

If you appreciate a report like the above and have the money to donate and want to, Free Speech Radio News is facing big budget cuts. You can donate at their website. On Robin Long, "Canadian government deports U.S. war resister" (Workers World):

Special to Workers World
The minority Conservative government of Canada moved July 15 to deport 25-year-old U.S. war resister Robin Long, who would not fight in Iraq. Despite polls showing that 64 percent of Canadians want to grant sanctuary to Iraq War resisters and the passage of a parliamentary motion that would allow them to immigrate to Canada, the Federal Court of Canada dismissed a last-ditch attempt to delay the deportation process.
"I was just shocked at [the] ruling," said Bob Ages of the Vancouver War Resisters Support Campaign. "It just flies in the face of everything that we and every Canadian know." (Globe and Mail, July 15) He said the court misunderstood the situation facing Long. "I do not think there is any doubt someone being up in Canada, and a vocal opponent to the war, will be treated harshly by the American military. ... There is no question he will be court-martialed and will receive severe punishment." Long is expected to be imprisoned at Fort Knox, the same base where PFC James Burmeister faces court martial this week (see accompanying article).
"This is a gift from [Canadian Prime Minister] Stephen Harper to George Bush," said Gerry Condon of Project Safe Haven. "And it is a gift to the headline writers, who will trumpet that Canada is no longer a safe haven for AWOL GIs.
"But it is an illusion," he added, "because this is not the first of many deportations. It may be the first and the last. A minority government that ignores the will of its people and its Parliament will not be allowed to rule much longer." Federal elections are expected to take place in Canada this fall. (press release, July 15)
Project Safe Haven, a war resister advocacy group based in Seattle, called on war resister supporters to gather on July 15 at Peace Arch Park on the U.S.-Canada border at Blaine, Wash. There they will be joined by Canadian supporters.
Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php

And then there is Dee Knight's "Army court-martials resister for blowing whistle on 'bait-and-kill'" (Workers World):

Private First Class James Burmeister faces a Special Court Martial at Fort Knox on July 16. The charges are AWOL and desertion. He returned to Fort Knox voluntarily in March, after living 10 months in Canada with his spouse and infant child. He refused redeployment to Iraq while on leave in May 2007.
In most such cases at Fort Knox, the Army has in recent years quietly dismissed the resister with a less than honorable discharge "for the good of the military." This time it's different. The brass "offered" Burmeister a year in military prison and a dishonorable discharge if he agreed to plead guilty.
Burmeister refused the offer. His father, Erich, says the Army is making an example of James for denouncing a secret "bait-and-switch" program he was forced to participate in while in Iraq. In media interviews last year in Canada, James described the program as a war crime he was forced to commit. Shortly afterward, the program's details came out in the Washington Post.
"Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy," the Post quoted Capt. Matthew Didier, leader of an elite sniper scout platoon. "We would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual."
The Post reported that "Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said such a baiting program ... raises troubling possibilities, such as what happens when civilians pick up the items. ... 'You might as well ask every Iraqi to walk around with a target on his back,' Fidell said." (Sept. 24, 2007)
James had asked to be classified as a conscientious objector following his training in Germany, but his request was ignored by his commander. Instead, he became a machine gunner. "Our unit’s job seemed to be more about targeting a largely innocent civilian population or deliberately attracting confrontation," he wrote in his deposition seeking asylum in Canada. "These citizens were almost always unarmed. In some cases the Iraqi victims looked to me like they were children." (Eugene Weekly, May 22)
In Iraq, Burmeister had been knocked unconscious and his face filled with shrapnel when his Humvee was hit by a roadside bomb. The shrapnel wounds left him with a traumatic brain injury, and he suffers from severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. His parents insist that he urgently needs medical and psychological help, not jail time.
His parents have waged an unceasing struggle for the Army to release him. They called on their representative, Peter DeFazio, to launch a congressional inquiry into James’s case, but have so far heard nothing. James' mother, Helen Burmeister, flew to Fort Knox in June, with help from anti-war ex-Colonel Ann Wright. Helen spoke directly to the base commander there, demanding that her son be discharged in lieu of a court martial. She then joined supporters from Veterans for Peace and Vietnam Vets Against the War demonstrating outside.
On July 8 the Army invited Helen to attend her son's court martial on July 16. This time both she and her husband Erich are going. They're determined to keep James out of jail. "I bought a one-way ticket," Erich told Workers World. "I'm not leaving without my son. If I have to sit outside the base and wait for him, I'll do it. Even if I have to go on a hunger strike, that's what I'll do. My son does not deserve another day in jail."
In an interview with Courage to Resist, Erich said: "[James] struggles with PTSD, yet he is quartered within earshot of the shooting range and tank training area, daily hearing the gunfire and explosions. He has been prescribed a dangerous cocktail of anti-psychotic drugs and sleep aids by Army doctors, while the command decides if they want to send him to prison, as a coward, a soldier who faced death, and followed orders to 'shoot to kill.' The cowards--George Bush and Dick Cheney, those in Congress and the generals with the blood on their hands--why are they the punishers instead of the punished?" (couragetoresist.org, May 12)
Supporters can contact the Fort Knox post commander, General Campbell, to demand a speedy discharge and no further punishment for James. Send email to knox.pao@conus.army.mil, or call the Fort Knox public affairs office at 502-624-7451. Ask that they discharge PFC James Burmeister now so that he can get the help that he needs.
Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is a political party and organization (dedicated to the reorganization of the country under Socialism). They provided Stefanie Fisher's "Canada deports U.S. war resister:"

In brief
On July 15, Robin Long became the first Iraq war resister to be deported from Canada back to the United States.
In 2005, Long went to Canada because he would not fight in an "illegal war of aggression." Like thousands of young recruits, Long discovered the Iraq war was based on lies only after he had joined the military.
The court denied Long sanctuary based on a so-called lack of evidence that he would face harsh treatment if he were sent back to the United States. The court was fully aware that Long would be unjustly tried as a deserter, could face prison time and be deployed to Iraq against his will.
As an example to others, on July 16, James Burmeister, a resister who turned himself over to the U.S. government was sentenced to nine months in jail and dishonorably discharged.
Protests in the U.S. and Canada have demanded sanctuary for Iraq war resisters. Two-thirds of Canadians believe that war resisters should be allowed to stay in Canada.
--Articles can be reprinted with credit to the Party for Socialism and Liberation--

KPFA's The Morning Show promised a report on their Thursday morning show. Despite the archive description currently stating that it was their first segment, they never provided it. If your news outlet didn't provide any report, it may be time to complain or just move on to another outlet.

Nader-Gonzalez goes for 15 states

For coverage of the Ralph Nader campaign for president, we're offering this Saturday press release. Nader is covered in Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary this week (it's epic!) and is quoted in a feature article on public safety. He may end up mentioned in the editorial as well; however, we didn't have time for a Nader feature this week.



"15 state ballots by tomorrow midnight"
(Listen to my Saturday morning audio message here.)
Good morning.
This is Ralph Nader.
It is Saturday, July 19, 2008.
As you know, hundreds of our stalwart supporters are deployed all over the country this weekend -- on street corners, at malls, in front of post offices -- seeking to meet their commitment to put Nader/Gonzalez on 15 state ballots by tomorrow midnight.
On our way to 45 state ballots by September 20th.
To give millions of Americans the chance to vote for a candidacy that will shift the power from the corporations back into the hands of the sovereign people.
One week ago, we asked you to help us reach this goal by raising $60,000 by Sunday midnight to fund this current ballot drive.
As of this moment, we are well over $50,000 -- thanks to all of you.
Tomorrow night, we will raise our hands with you and declare victory in reaching this important milestone.
But first, we must get there.
We have less than two days to raise the difference.
Less than $10,000.
So, this is a special plea.
To those of you who have yet to contribute, now is the time.
Go to votenader.org, and hit the contribute button.
To those of you who have donated less than $250.
Remember, every dollar we receive from you up to and including $250, the federal government will match it, dollar for dollar.
It will double.
If you give $100, the federal government will give Nader/Gonzalez another $100.
If you give $250, the federal government will give us another $250.
And to those of you who have already given $250.00 or more, remember --
You can give up the legal limit -- $2,300 per person.
So, go to votenader.org now and give whatever you can.
You'll be fueling the hundreds of Nader/Gonzalez activists all over this country.
Let's drive this one past the finish line.
In the safest vehicle you know.
The Nader/Gonzalez campaign.
For peace.
For safety.
For justice.
In all their concrete manifestations.
Have a safe and happy weekend.
And thank you for your generous support.
Onward.
Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.





"I Hate The War" -- The most requested highlight from last week. Ty also passed on a question from reader Ben Pierson who wanted to know about this regular Thursday night entry by C.I. Ben writes, "It's my favorite thing online each week and I love the humor and frustration C.I. lets rip in it. It's at a much higher level than normal for The Common Ills and I was just wondering why that is?" Rebecca, Kat and Wally are on the road with C.I. and Ava each week and they can explain first-hand what's going on. 1) C.I.'s already done the usual three entries at The Common Ills that day. 2) "Dinner" is the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin. After that, Ava and C.I. are rushing off to two more speaking engagements. When those are over, C.I.'s usually dashing off the column for the gina & krista round-robin and then starting "I Hate The War." Wally, "That's why it's more of a grab bag. It can zoom in on how Panhandle Media wasted time with this or that topic and cover a wide variety of topics. By the time C.I. writes 'I Hate The War,' it's exhaustion time and Thursday, last Thursday, C.I. didn't think it was going to get done. I was talking to Kat and Ava and C.I. was at the laptop and, twice, I looked over and C.I. was asleep at the computer. That's why the tone is the way it does. The jokes are sharper, the observations are less likely to include C.I.'s 'in fairness,' etc. It is written quickly and the only goal is to finish it, get it posted, get it cross-posted and get some sleep." Kat: "The way it's structured, like Wally pointed out, is a grab bag of topics. Why aren't we getting anything on the illegal war from Panhandle Media? Well, last Thursday, we were getting Barack and Michelle's love life from The Nation, that's one example. That crap doesn't belong in any periodical outside People magazine. So C.I. can focus on that nonsense and just let it rip. Like Ben, it's my favorite regular feature as well." Rebecca: "The only thing I can add to what Wally and Kat said is that it is panic time. This is when Ava and C.I. first really realize/acknowledge that they're going to have to do a TV commentary shortly. They ignore that fact all week. This is when, as 'I Hate The War' is being written, they're throwing out ideas to each other and also calling friends and asking, 'Any ideas on what we should cover?' This week, they knew what they were going to cover but they were still ticking off topics to each other as C.I. wrote. When I'm on the road, Kat and I right next to each other with our laptops as we blog each night at our site. We talk to each other and generally stop typing when we do. 'I Hate The War' is a steamroller post. There is no time to stop. C.I.'s talking to us, talking on the phone and, like Wally said, the only real goal on C.I.'s part is to get it written and get it posted." We're answering Ben's e-mail here because Ty passed it on and did so because Ty doesn't think there will be a mailbag this week. Thanks for writing, Ben.





"Katrina makes a visit" -- Betinna makes the mistake of opening her door to Katty-van-van. Read it and find out why. Then share in Betinna's disappointment.








"Squash with Pasta in the Kitchen" -- Trina's covering (along with food) the weak letter some members of Congress wrote 'supporting' war resistance.





"Socialist Worker, Ralph Nader" -- Marcia speaking for all of us though she was just trying to speak for herself. An amazing post.





"World Can't Wait! calls for action" -- community member Zach requested Marcia's post above be highlighted and that this one by Kat be as well. He calls them both "exciting" and says you read them nodding along and asking, "Did she just say that!" :D We agree that these are very strong posts. And, yeah, they did just say that.





"adolph reed jr. takes on katty-van-van" -- If you haven't guessed, Adolph Reed Jr. is in the running for a truest this week. Here Rebecca savors his take on Katrina vanden Heuvel. She also addresses how to scare away voters when you need them the most.





"It's such a pity, I bought a camisole 2 day" -- C.I. and hugely popular with African-American community members. Betty explains why, "I saw the title and gasped. I had forgotten the song and reading along I could see how it fit but when C.I. finishes it up, you really get the 'click'." Cedric says, "Betty always asks, 'Is there any song C.I. doesn't know!' I know this song. Most African-Americans of a certain age will. It's from Apollonia 6 which was a Vanity 6 replacement when Vanity bailed on the Prince experience. I checked the charts. Never placed on pop's Hot 100 but it did make it to number 19 on the R&B charts. 'Blue Limosine' is the title." Marcia adds, "It was a wonderful flashback to 1984. Betty calls me at work and says, 'Listen.' I do and you've got people in her office singing 'Blue Limosine.' And, yes, the line 'It's looking dirty, I guess he's up to his old tricks' really does describe Barack." Still no sign of my baby's blue limosine . . .








"John Pilger; Rosa Clemente caught lying" & "Kiss my Black ass, Rosa Clemente" -- Kat and Marcia address Clemente -- who insists she's not a Latino -- going on to speak for the Latino community and getting it wrong. Rosa, take a seat, you're as tired as your lies.





"Ms. Magazine and Michele Kort -- backstabbers" & "THIS JUST IN! MICHELE KORT RUINS MS.!" -- C.I. asked us to note, "I did know about this before it posted. Wally read me the entry he and Cedric came up with. I had no problem with it and found it very humorous. I wanted to highlight it and the thing they did the day before but I never had time. A number of e-mails came in asking if I 'approved' of this joint-post? I love this joint-post. It's very funny." Wally explains, "We have Michele Kort insult C.I. in our post and we thought that would be funny, Cedric and me, and never thought anyone would think, 'That's what they really think of C.I.!' But a few e-mails came into me on that, Cedric got even more and C.I. heard from a lot. We think Michele Kort is a joke and we think her lack of support of women is disgusting. Her dialogue in this, that we created, is based on those two things."





"Barack distracts from sexism" & "THIS JUST IN! HOS FOR BARACK!" -- This was other joint-post by Cedric and Wally that C.I. wanted to highlight. Read it and see why. (And Ava and C.I. touch this topic this week in their TV commentary which is why they held the topic all week. They weren't ignoring it. It just fit in with this week's TV article.)





"Ralph Nader, NYT, Third" -- Jim's pick. Mike breaks down the latest edition of Third and covers Nader and NYT as well.





"alegre, ralph nader, robin long, pennsylvania," "Ralph Nader, Robin Long," "Democratic dirty tricks kept Nader off the ballot," "Robin Long deported," "Robin Long deported" and "Robin Long, Pham Binh" -- Rebecca, Ruth, Kat, Marcia, Elaine and Mike cover Canada's eviction of Robin Long.





"The silence on Bonusgate" -- Mike covering Bonusgate -- where Democrats conspired to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot in 2004 and actually got rewarded for it.





"ehren watada" -- Rebecca covers Ehren Watada. This was left off Wally and Cedric's joint-post Saturday (under recommended) by accident. If you look, you'll see they noted Thursday and Wednesday by Rebecca. They'll note this on Monday.





Ruth and Elaine only wanted one highlight (and didn't want that until we pointed to their pieces on Robin Long). Since this is shorter than normal, we asked C.I. to name six pieces worth highlighting last week from outside the community.





1) Ian Austen's "U.S. Soldiers No Longer Find Haven In Canada" (New York Times, last Sunday).





2) Ian Austen's "Canada Expels an American Who Deserted During the War in Iraq" (New York Times, Wednesday).





3) Adolph Reed Jr.'s "Where Obamaism Seems to be Going" (Black Agenda Report, Wednesday).





4) Mark Larabee's "Soldiers still go over the hill even in an all-volunteer Army" (The Oregonian, July 16, 2007). Larabee broke the news in the US on the kill teams. This article on James Burmeister was especially important last week because Burmeister was court-martialed. And it was no where to be found at The Oregonian. Thursday, they reposted it at the paper's blog (which is where the link goes to). If you missed it in real time, go back and read it now.



5) Free Speech Radio News' "War Resisters Seek Sanctuary in Canada" which, at nearly five minutes and thirty seconds, was a lengthy report and it was also the only thing Panhandle Media really did. (Amy Goodman's nonsense is covered by Ava and C.I. in this week's TV commentary.) That aired July 16th should the link stop working and someone want to listen to the report.



6) The first report on Friday's Bill Moyers Journal (here for transcript) which did what everyone covering the housing crimes forgot to do, (C.I.) "Cover the human costs. Susan Faludi won her Pulitzer for covering the Safeway buyout. But she won because she covered the human impact. Numbers tossed out leave the mind reeeling. You have to go beyond the numbers, you have to put a human face on it. That's what Bill Moyers Journal did and did very well on Friday. They deserve tremendous praise for that segment."



And Elaine wants to comment! That's rare for her, she's usually, "Can we just finish this and go to bed?" Elaine says, "Ava and C.I.'s opinions are just opinions. They'd be the first ones to tell you 'You can disagree.' But what needs to be remembered is that they both grew up in media families -- broadcast and print. Elsewhere, all this 'media criticism' that so many blather on about and do a bad job with. But for Ava and C.I., this was the dinner conversation growing up. It was shop talk and they heard from their early childhood all the way through today. My point here is that their opinions have a great deal more validity than the bulk of 'media critics' because their opinions are based on what they were trained to observe. Often Ava and C.I. are the first to call something out but you better believe that their opinions aren't exceptions in the actual working press. When Moyers did that ridiculous interview with Jeremiah Wright, there was a feeling -- when Jim read Ava and C.I.'s commentary to us -- of 'Wow.' If you paid attention the Monday, Tuesday, etc. after that interview aired, you saw others in the working media express similar criticisms. That happens very often and the reason goes to the fact that Ava and C.I. grew up in media families, were drilled to critique coverage from a very early age and the only difference today is that they're writing it and not just participating in a 'shop talk' conversation at the dinner table. To cite one example, there was a fraud that Ava called us on to ignore back in 2006. We all did. Her father told her working media -- Big Media -- wasn't touching him and wasn't touching him because he lied repeatedly. Big Media has still shut him out. Panhandle Media went through a phase of treating him like a rock star. Ava stated, in a roundtable here, very clearly, that we weren't not going to have his problems blow up in our face. That's something that our current day Panhandle Media 'watchdogs' never grasp. They'll put on any crackpot or criminal -- I'm not talking political prisoners like Mumia -- and treat them as respected sources. Ava and C.I. know what Panhandle Media should but doesn't: It's one thing to build coverage around someone you know nothing about, to go out on the limb for an unknown, it's another thing to utilize known liars. In terms of the Bill Moyers segment Friday, which was very strong, Ava and C.I. have pointed that over and over -- here for most recently -- that the housing crimes were not being covered correctly, that it was all numbers with people trying to out egg-head one another by tossing out even more numbers. Numbers are not homeless. Numbers are not struggling to get by. People are. As Ava and C.I. noted, you have to put a human face on the story. That is so basic and yet look at how many have refused to do that. Ava and C.I. are not just gas bagging and they are not uninformed. You can disagree with their opinions and conclusions, but you should not discount the fact that those opinions are formed from life experience having grown up in media families. In college, Rebecca give me a look if I can't tell this story, okay, no look so I'll continue, she and I went to C.I.'s for dinner and Rebecca -- this was her first time meeting C.I.'s family -- made the mistake of saying, 'I really liked that article' -- about some piece being discussed. She was immediatly hit with 'Why?' and she had no answer. She was more or less blown off and that's how it was in C.I.'s home. You had to know what you thought and why. And then you argued about everything that with the story, the headline, a photo if there was one, etc. You could disagree -- and disagree strongly and disagreement was welcomed -- with whatever the opinion was, but you had to know your facts.
And the facts included the way the story was presented, who was quoted, who wasn't quoted, what was the narrative, etc. This was not, 'I disagree with the opinions expressed in the article.' This was about reporting. If I'm not clear, think of that lame Michael Gordon article that Panhandle Media, including Amy Goodman, jumped on board with. All these months later and it never panned out. It was never going to pan out. C.I. avoided it because it was (a) from Gordo, (b) unsourced and (c) pure speculation presented as fact. But Panhandle Media like the opinion they could run with from it so they pushed the hell out of that story. They never bothered to analyze the article. That's why they have egg on their face today. And it says a great deal about their lack of standards and training that -- long after Gordo's been discredited -- they're advancing one of his 'reports.' I know Ava's family less well -- I've known her aunt for years, but I only met Ava in 2005. But it's true of Ava's family as well. In 2006, C.I. was getting ragged on by friends and family in real media for not criticizing Panhandle Media. The biggest complaint was C.I.'s critiques of Damien Cave -- whom C.I. has praised and torn apart. A friend at The New York Times expecially was furious with C.I.'s critiques of Cave. C.I.'s attitude prior to these constant criticisms from friends and family was that Panhandle Media didn't need to be criticized because it was struggling media. But the gloves came off because friends and family were able to point repeatedly to the lack of standards in Panhandle Media. And they take offense to that. Panhandle Media screams and ridicules Real Media every day. That's fine if they apply the same standards to themselves. But they don't. When that point was made repeatedly, C.I. agreed to take on Panhandle Media. Let me add one more thing there because I was present for a very long conversation with a producer at CBS and he pointed out, rightly, he wasn't talking about IMC or do-it-yourself media. He was talking about these 'independent' 'leaders' and look at their backgrounds, they've gone to what are considered some of the finest colleges in the country and are trained professionals so why are they getting a pass? That's when CounterSpin and others started getting called out regularly by C.I. Panhandle Media tries to present as 'we're just like the average person in the country.' Well the average person in the country didn't go to Stanford, didn't go to MIT, didn't go to Radcliff or Harvard or Yale. When that context was presented to C.I., it was obvious that these passes needed to be revoked. Let me sum up by noting those dinner conversations, those visits to the office from when they were children, were never just 'shop talk,' it was always about making sure that somewhere in the family, there was someone who could step into the family business when needed. Ava and C.I., and their siblings and cousins, were all being trained for the family business. When Ava and C.I. are critiquing 'news,' they are doing so from a lifetime of training that was passed on because it was thought that they might need to take over the family business at some point in the future. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to accept that they have a basis for their opinions. Last week I got another reporter whining about something Ava and C.I. had written. I didn't write it, why whine to me? But I asked Sunny to reply to him for me that Ava and C.I. don't present as reporters and but, yes, they could do that job. However, their training is not for reporter, they're training is for higher up, well above a reporter. Their comments may strike some reporters as 'mean' but what you're getting is the reality of the way things are discussed at the top."